“The greatest challenge” Mr. Kerry?

David Epps's picture

From CNN — “Saying that climate change ranks among the world’s most serious problems — such as disease outbreaks, poverty, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called on all nations to respond to ‘the greatest challenge of our generation.’”

“Climate change,” is, of course, the new packaging for what, for years, has been called “global warming.”

The “greatest challenge of our generation” is climate change/global warming? Seriously? Maybe it would help if the Secretary didn’t make such an announcement when, just days ago, 49 of the 50 states had snow and the Northeast wasn’t digging out of a series of snow and ice storms. A few weeks ago, the temperature in Atlanta was 1 degree. 1 degree! The statement by Secretary Kerry is as absurd as it could possibly be.

Imagine that, in the aftermath of Dec. 7, 1941, President Roosevelt’s Secretary of State declared that, “The greatest challenge of this generation is the proliferation of outhouses in the southern states of America.” People would have thought that he had been locked away in a dark room somewhere and had missed the whole Nazi/Fascist/Pearl Harbor thing.

The United States and western democracies have been the target of world-wide Islamic terrorism for years — we finally woke up to it on Sept. 11, 2001. Even Russia is spending untold millions of dollars keeping radical crazies from creating an international tragedy at the Winter Olympics.

I wonder if President Putin shares Kerry’s thoughts that global warming is “the greatest challenge of our generation.” Terrorists all over the world must be laughing their collective backsides off.

In referring to scientists who disagree that man-made global warming is occurring, and there are plenty that hold to that position, Kerry labeled them all “shoddy scientists.” Kerry said he and Obama had no time for what he called the “Flat Earth Society.”

Yet, James Taylor, a senior fellow in environment policy for the Heartland Institute, wrote on www.forbes.com,“It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Even if global terrorism is not “the greatest challenge of our generation,” surely there are other contenders that rank far above “global warming.” Even liberal Bob Beckel is outraged about the rampant persecution of Christians throughout the world.

A recent missions study reported 270 new Christian martyrs every day in the world over a 10-year period, reaching 1 million during 2000-2010, as compared to 34,000 Christian martyrs in 1900. If the trend has held, that would total nearly 1,500,000 Christians murdered from 2000 to the present date with no relief in sight. Does that qualify as a challenge, Mr. Kerry?

According to www.actionagainsthunger.org, 3,500,000 children die each year from hunger and malnutrition. How many died last year from “global warming?” Do the deaths of 3.5 million kids constitute a “challenge?”

There are 2,000,000 people each year who die from sexually transmitted diseases with 1,800,000 of these being children who got AIDS from their mothers. Is that a serious challenge?

Or how about this — a report from the Pacific Institute stated that, if no action is taken, 135,000,000 people around the world will die from impure or inadequate water by 2020.

None of the above even includes poverty, crime, the healthcare debacle, or the economy. No, the greatest challenge facing the current generation is, according to Mr. Kerry, climate change.

Speaking in Indonesia, Secretary Kerry said, “With Indonesia and the rest of the world pulling in the same direction, we can meet this challenge, the greatest challenge of our generation, and we can create the future that everybody dreams of,” he said.

In 2012, 2.3 million toilets in the United States, and about 9,400 in Canada, (no mention of outhouses) were recalled due to faulty pressure-assist flush mechanisms which put users at risk of the fixture exploding. I’m no scientist, but that sounds like more of a challenge than “global warming.”

[David Epps is the pastor of the Cathedral of Christ the King, Sharpsburg, GA (www.ctkcec.org). He is the bishop of the Mid-South Diocese which consists of Georgia and Tennessee (www.midsouthdiocese.org) and the Associate Endorser for the Department of the Armed Forces, U. S. Military Chaplains, ICCEC. He may contacted at frepps@ctkcec.org.]

ctkcec
ctkcec's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/06/2005
Oh Shoot...

It was said below that I am writing about something I know nothing about...we have politicians, movie stars, and many others who speak and write about things they know nothing about. There are LOTS of things I know nothing about...What I do know is that Secretary Kerry's statement was absolutely absurd. Anything and everything I mentioned in the article is a greater challenge than alleged climate change. And now we have an aggressive Russia, not to mention an unstable and unpredictable North Korea, and an Iran that lusts after nuclear weapons.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
for all you complaining about global warming....

What is your plan? You complain about fossil fuel plants because you think Co2 will ruin the earth. You dont like nuclear since there could be an accident. You complain about hydo because it makes the fish cry when they cant swim upsteam to spawn. You complain about wind and solar becasue its so expensive and it kills too many birds. yet all of you boot up your computer evey day and use the electricity those sources provide to complain about it. Either go live in the woods and get off the grid or stop complaining. You are part of the problem. Just like the rest of us.

Except, the rest of realize that human life spans are twice as long as they were a few hundred years ago. Human nutrition, opportunity and quality of life is immesurably better than it was a few hundred years ago. We could all go back to the stone age, but when people die at 40 of old age and poor nutrition you will complain about that too.

Just accept that this is the price we pay for a longer, happier, healthier life and get over it. We are NOT worse off with these things, we are BETTER off! If a little Fukushima cesium-137 in my tuna sashimi and a longer summer with a milder winter is the price I have to pay to get to live to 90 in a country with air- conditioning and plentiful food, I'll gladly pay it every time.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Theres going to be a big fight coming

between the AGW "chicken littles" over where the heat is going.
there is an article in live science (notoriously pro GW) about the new reason there has been no warming since 1998.

http://news.yahoo.com/sun-dimming-volcanoes-partly-explain-global-warmin...

So some alarmists say that its still getting warmer and that even NASA is wrong to stay it stopped. Some alarmists say that the heat is going into the deep ocean, but cant explain what suddenly made it do that. Some alarmists now blame volcanoes (see above article). Some are even prepping the shift to new gasses, like nitrous oxide, in case Co2 doesn't work out for them, they can still blame industry.

Since when did only asking people who agree with you for their opinion constitute good science? I would have thought the media learned that lesson with "Dewey defeats Truman."

ctkcec
ctkcec's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/06/2005
LOTS OF COMMENTS, BUT...

I was not advocating for or against global warming (of the new "climate change"-- which was, in the 1970's "golbal cooling." Make up your mind people!). I am challenging Secretary Kerry's absolutely absurd statement that it is the "greatest challenge of our generation." I see nothing in the responses that supports his statement. It is NOT the greatest challenge of our generation. So many other things qualify for that designation---as I pointed out.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Pastor Epps, okay, forget

Pastor Epps, okay, forget that John Kerry was the messenger. Using your imagination, estimate how many Christians, and non-Christians, will die of famine, (and the fight to survive,) if we scorch the planet we live on?

Compare that with the numbers of deaths from the events you site in your column.

Now, which one has the potential for the greatest calamity?

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort - your assumption is based on bad science

Co2 has never driven climate in the past. There is no scientific reason to think it does now. Co2 is not even a good (effective) greenhouse gas, and is far from the most abundant. That distinction belongs to water vapor. And interestingly, far more water vapor comes out of the tail pipes of SUV's than does Co2, but you wont hear that in the NY Times. Just in the last few weeks, there have been articles blaming the Hiatus in temperature increase on volcanoes, nitrous oxide, absorption in the deep ocean, all sorts of things. Meanwhile, the President declares it to be "settled science" although clearly it is not.

I know it feels like the right thing to do, to try to err on the side of caution, even if it turned out in the end that Co2 was not to blame. The issue is that we DO have a huge infrastructure in this country, that was very expensive and time consuming to install. Getting away from carbon based fuels is not as easy as putting up a few solar panels. Our power grid is designed to meter and balance high voltage AC electricity distributed from centralized generating plants. Solar and wind are the exact opposite. They are low voltage, DC power from micro production sites all over the place. To convert the entire country over to wind and solar we would have to reconfigure the vast majority of the US power grid. At enormous cost. Who's going to pay for it? You are, in tax subsidies and higher power bills. The prices of wind and solar are coming down, but they are still the most expensive forms of electrical generation out there. And that's BEFORE we reconfigure the grid. And everything uses electricity, so all the food you buy, all the clothes you wear, the movies you watch will have to be more expensive too. Additionally, just because we decide to reduce carbon fuel use, doesn't mean everyone else will. Are we going to force them? Are we going to invade to make them stop burning coal? So whats to prevent even more American manufacturing from going overseas to take advantage of cheaper power. That problem is already bad enough when just the labor is cheaper. you think companies wont bail left and right when labor AND electricity is 5 times cheaper?
Erring on the side of caution is a great sentiment but in reality it could have disastrous consequences for the economy. We should at least find out whats going on first. But that's very hard to do when the media and liberals keep declaring the issue settled and preventing discussion on the topic.
I know youre worried about how many will die if we "scorch the earth" but you know thats a little hyperbolic. We have examples in the past of temperatures being a few degrees higher than they are now and it is univerally considerd to be a time of prosperity. Its far harder to survive in a cold climate than it is in a hot one. Growing seasons are longer, crop ranges are larger, food is more abundant and worldwide energy use will fall since the average global temp will be more in a moderate range. Even if AGW is real (its not) it wouldnt be the wort thing in the world. Certainly not as bad as crashing the world economy to tilt at windmills.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Renault314, I admit, I’m not

Renault314, I admit, I’m not a scientist myself, are you? Are you saying the temperature on planet earth is not rising, and even if it is rising, it wouldn’t matter?

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort - actually I am a scientist

And one of my degrees happens to be in Earth Science/geology. Im not talking out of my rear when I speak about how ridiculous the concept of man made global warming is. Its something we studied extensively in my field in college, as you can imagine.
The earth is .6 deg C higher than it was 150 yrs ago. The real question to ask someone who believes in AGW is "what temperature is the earth supposed to be?". The Earth gets warmer and colder all the time. But it has nothing to do with Co2. If you would like to know the real reason I will happily share it with you, assuming you are willing to keep an open mind.

Scientific "consensus" is not science. Data and evidence are science. Asking people that you already know agree with you about something what they think is not science. Shouting down and calling anyone who disagrees with you a "denier" is not science. Its zealotry.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Renault314, even you agree

Renault314, even you agree the temperature is warming. I’ll ask you again, “are you saying that rising average temperatures don’t matter to the people living on the surface of the planet?

Bump, Renault314, how about it?

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort - heres your answer, in 2 parts.

Its not a matter of agreement that the Earth is warming. Its a matter of saying "yes, its warmer than it was 100 years ago." But that doesn't prove that man is causing global warming. Its a matter of causation, correlation and time scale.

More people know how to read than they did 100 years ago. Does that mean literacy causes global warming? Of course not, because you recognize that just because two things are higher after a certain arbitrary period of time does not mean they are related, or causal. Co2 levels are much higher now, but temp is a little higher. The difference is that co2 has been rising at a stead rate, but temp goes up and down. This is true for short time scales (a few decades) or long time scales (the last two centuries). In the last 15 years co2 has been climbing higher than ever, but temp has flatlined. There is no mathematically demonstrable correlation. Temperature on Earth has always fluctuated up and down. We have very accurate temp records going back 600,000 years. At no point in history has Co2 been shown to drive climate. So. Do I believe its slightly warmer? Yes. But I also believe it will cool again. Just like it always has.

For the second part lets assume for the sake of argument that all the global warming nutters are right and the planet will warm a few degrees by 2100. You asked if I thought this would matter to people living on the surface. I'm a little surprised you don't care about people not living on the surface but we'll ignore them for now. They have their own problems. Will it affect them? sure. Negatively? I don't see any reason to believe that. The cataclysmic acidification and massive die off of ocean life that people predict hasn't happened and has never happened, even when Co2 levels in the atmosphere have been much higher than they are today. A slightly warmer planet would mean longer growing seasons and milder winters. For third world populations, cold winters and short growing seasons are much more difficult to survive than warm summers with long growing seasons. Irrigation for farms is cheap and easy. Overall I think there would be a net benefit to mankind.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Renault314, are you telling

Renault314, are you telling me we have a race of people that live below the surface of the earth or are you just having a little joke with me? Who are these subterranean people you speak of?

I find it interesting that a scientist would just dismiss the effects of a rising global temperature with a quip,

Quote:

A slightly warmer planet would mean longer growing seasons and milder winters. For third world populations, cold winters and short growing seasons are much more difficult to survive than warm summers with long growing seasons. Irrigation for farms is cheap and easy. Overall I think there would be a net benefit to mankind.

Wouldn’t the world’s deserts get larger and sea levels rise as the planet warms? I guess the impact would be felt in the third world first, causing a great migration of people. Where are these people going to migrate too? Do you think they will be welcomed refugees?

If we have milder winters, wouldn’t that cause less snow in the mountains that would reduce the spring melt and the supply of fresh water for the growing fields? How does this make irrigation easier? What good is a longer growing season, with less water?

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort- just teasing about the Morlocks

I'm not dismissing the effects with a quip. I just think that other people who want to convince you that humans are causing global warming are intentionally overlooking some of the positives.

Im not saying there wont be consequences, but I just don't see any evidence that all or even the majority of those consequences will be bad. 10,000 yrs ago the polar ice caps melted, and the polar bears managed to survive. No reason to think they wont again. Temps also came down again. No reason to think they wont again.

Deserts are already getting bigger. Nothing to do with global warming. Its been going on for centuries. Rain patterns shift. Sea levels rise and fall, but there hasn't been a significant change in sea level. There hasn't been a significant change in ice cover.

The alarmists keep predicting these things will happen, but it keeps not happening. How long are you going to listen to people who are never right, and cant explain why?

Peter Pfeifer
Peter Pfeifer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2006
Thanks renault

Thanks renault, I really appreciated your post. And, you are right about the real question; "what temperature is it supposed to be?". Most people look at the brief moment they are alive and their location and relate everything to that.
(and, your writing is greatly improved!).
Thanks again.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
The real concern for scientists

How is our changing climate affecting our crops, living areas, etc., etc., etc. If there are changes that will affect our lives, what is being done to prepare for these changes?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
They mocked Noah and look

They mocked Noah and look what happened, eh? Besides, we all saw ‘make believe psycho babble denial propaganda’ from the moneyed up special interest before.

Remember this one?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/25/article-2149969-1348A62B000005...

For a very small amount of money, some people will sell out to the lowest of bidders and claim it has no unpleasant after-taste. (Cough, cough! Heh-heh!)

ptc87
ptc87's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2011
Heartland

Pastor Epps quoted James Taylor, "a senior fellow in environment policy for the Heartland Institute." James Taylor is not a climate scientist nor is the Heartland Institute a climate science research institute. Taylor is a lawyer and Heartland is an energy supported, Exxonmobile and the Kochs, think tank that fought previously for tobacco companies.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Gort!!

I am not at all familiar with the process that was used to rid LA of it's unbelievable smog - but the last time I was there, the sky was almost as blue as here in FC!!!! I guess if you live long enough - one sees the result of some regulations.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort/DM

We don't need regulation, that is why we have the concept of class action law. Read up on it. If we protect individual property rights, we will have clean air, water, etc.

Government wastes money on politically based science/regulation that benefits the few at the expense of the many. Those are the companies that have political ties to the ruling class aka Neo-capitalists.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, just sprinkle a little

PTC_0, just sprinkle a little fairy dust and the ‘concept of class action law’ and all our troubles will go away? I don’t buy that concept at all.

Do you think the Koch brothers are Neo-capitalist?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - not

Not surprising that you don't agree with the concept of protection of property using existing judicial processes. Care to let us know why?

As to Koch Industries, I would be totally dumbfounded if they don't profit in some way using regulatory law, therefore if you can prove that they don't, I won't call them neo-captilaists.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, going to court with a

PTC_0, going to court with a class action lawsuit doesn’t insure you get justice, especially if your adversary has more money to spend. Ordinary working people don’t stand much of a chance of getting justice from the courts.

BTW, I think the Koch bros. as plutocrats, not capitalist.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
D_Mom, I think it starts with

D_Mom, I think it starts with good schools, produce good scientist, that produce good science, read by good stewards of the earth, that pass good laws to improve the quality of life for all.

BTW, these good people had to fight the Republican Party every inch of the way and endured many temporary set backs along the way.

The Koch brothers would still be putting lead in gasoline if they could get away with it. Sadly, it sounds to me like, Pastor Epps would gladly let them have their way.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort - Lead

wasnt taken out of gasoline because it was bad for the environment. It was taken out because it ruined catalytic converters. Look up MTBE additive to fuel. that was a lib idea.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Renault314, as a member of

Renault314, as a member of the human race, I would hope the decision to remove lead from gasoline was to protect our children from the harmful effects of noxious lead vapors and consideration for catalytic converters came second, eh? ; - )

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort - as a member of people

who knows how the world really works ( a club I believe you more likely to be in than not) I can say no, that is not why lead was removed from fuel. Intentionally sucking down car exhaust is bad weather it has lead in it or not. If you do this a great deal, I promise lead is not your biggest concern.
Tetraethyl lead was added to cars a long time ago because it prevented engine knocking. Later, for pollution reasons not related to lead, Catalytic converters were added to cars, ironically, to convert carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide.

How funny. one government agency, the EPA says that carbon monoxide is poisonous and carbon dioxide is not, so we must all have devices on our cars that LOWER fuel economy to convert one from another. But on the other hand, another government agency says that Co2 is a pollutant and cars make too much of it so we much increase out fuel efficiency standards. That completely different agency is the EPA..........oh wait....

anyway, the TEL ruined the platinum anodes in the catalytic converters so it was phased out starting in the 70's.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Renault314, come on now, tell

Renault314, come on now, tell the truth, did we remove lead from gasoline for health reasons or did we do it to save the catalytic converter?

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/airpage.nsf/webpage/Leaded+Gas+Phaseout

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort - Its the EPA

of course their take on the phase-out would have an environmental slant. How about trying to find some literature form the 70's talking about what a dire problem airborne lead is. A much more daunting task than explaining the EPA's slant, I assure you.

Have you come to grips with the EPA's simultaneous suggestion that Co2 both is and is not a pollutant?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Renault314, I was in my 20’s

Renault314, I was in my 20’s in the 1970’s, when they started removing lead from gasoline, and I remember it as a health issue.

I detect you have a lack of objectivity when it comes to the EPA. What is that all about?

All I know about Co2 is we used to buy the little cartridges from the hardware store for our BB guns when we were kids. I also notice you bring up the subject of Co2 at every opportunity. Perhaps you can explain its significance to us non-scientist.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort - Co2

Co2 is at the very core of the global warming debate. The global warming crowd believes that burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gasoline) releases Co2 into the atmosphere which traps heat thus warming the earth. This is the basis for their wanting to shut down coal fired power plants and switch to more expensive, less reliable forms of electricity like solar and wind. Its the reason for the push behind electric cars and mass transit. Its the reason liberals think they have the patent on caring about the planet and that every republican is in the pocket of big oil.

But the science behind Co2 causing global warming is terribly shoddy. Its the reason they have to use "consensus science" instead of actual science and why they call anyone who disagrees with them or pokes holes in their theory a "denier" or a "heretic" or a shill for oil companies.

Everyone from the media to the president insists that the science is "settled," yet every other day there is a new article explaining why all of the climate models and predictions that the global warming promoters put forth aren't working like predicted, but "don't worry the global warming is still there we swear."

The models failed so miserably, so often that when the planet actually stopped warming 15 years ago and they couldn't explain it, they shifted form calling it global warming to "climate change" so that no matter what they did they could blame it on man made Co2.

That's why I bring up Co2 so often. its not the core of the debate, it IS the debate. And the science is so easy to knock down it makes me cry, but some people are just emotionally invested in believing that capitalism and industrialized societies are inherently evil and must be punished through taxes and wealth redistribution. As if that will stop Co2 from going into the air.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Renault314, okay, you don’t

Renault314, okay, you don’t believe in the Co2 theory and I don’t care why the planet is warming, (or if they call it global warming or climate change for that matter.) But I can read a chart and, the ones I look at, shows the planet is still in a warming trend. Is this not so?

As a scientist, speaking in terms of geological time, is 15 years really a large enough sample to support the claim the planet has stopped its warming trend?

Can you explain to me why we have a spike in the level of Co2, which are far above earth’s normal range?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
gort - no the warming trend has stopped

we have a spike in levels of Co2 because man is burning fossil fuels. No one is disputing that. But if Co2 is not causing climate change, who cares?

http://www.thegwpf.org/global-temperature-standstill-30-years-climate-sc...

No, 15 years is really not long enough. Meteorology and climatology agree you need at least 30 years of data to establish an areas climate.

But im not saying the climate has changed. Im just saying that the warming trend we were on has leveled out.

Prior to WW2 when human production of C02 was miniscule, temperatures were rising steadily for about 30 years. Then, after WW2 and human production of co2 worldwide skyrocketed, temps were falling for about 30 years (which is why they thought we were heaeded for an ice age at the time). Seems like it would be the opposite if their theory were true, but its not like that.
After the 1970's, with no sudden spikes or changes ion co2 production, temp starts to climb again and goes up for about 30 years, until it hits a peak in 1998 or so. Now temps have not gone down since then, but they have flattened out. Even though Co2 levels are still climbing higher than ever.

The warming and cooling trends have not followed along with Co2. Why would they? they aren't related. You asked if 15-20 years of data is enough. Well, not really. But all of the global warming theory is based on the 30 or so years of data from the mid 70's to the mid 90's. That isint enough data either, but you wont hear that from their side.

The NASA graph you linked to is interesting for a few reasons. First it has about 600,000 years worth of data spread across about 6 inches of screen. No one can find that useful to try to predict a trend in short terms like a few hundred years, much less 30. Second, it assumes that Co2 is forcing the climate to change which is what everyone is assuming, instead of asking, "IS co2 forcing the climate to change." Last, Not only do we have co2 records for that time period, we have temp records for that time period as well and do you know what it shows? AT NO TIME, in the last 600,000 we have data for HAS co2 EVER LEAD TEMP CHANGES. Co2 FOLLOWS temp changes by an average of 800 years. Co2 levels have always been a result of temp change, not the cause of it.

There is simply no scientific reason to think that Co2 is forcing the climate right now. Especially since the only evidence warming alrmists have is to cherry pick 30 years of warming data out of a 150 year cycle of ups and downs when co2 has been climbing the whole time. There is NO historical data to support the theory.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Gort

Thank heaven for regulations that benefit the future of our earth rather than the pockets of the Koch brothers and their ilk.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Be Prepared
Quote:

In 2012, 2.3 million toilets in the United States, and about 9,400 in Canada, (no mention of outhouses) were recalled due to faulty pressure-assist flush mechanisms which put users at risk of the fixture exploding. I’m no scientist, but that sounds like more of a challenge than “global warming

Really? Thankfully there are scientists and realists that are not playing the 'political card' . They are working on what these changes may mean to our grandchildren and great grandchildren - the future of our planet. A change in climate affects crops, livable areas on the planet, etc., etc., etc. We have the technology now to do some predicting and planning so that some catastrophes can be prevented.

Quote:

According to www.actionagainsthunger.org, 3,500,000 children die each year from hunger and malnutrition. How many died last year from “global warming?” Do the deaths of 3.5 million kids constitute a “challenge?”

Maybe if we had listened to realists and scientists before, these children may not have suffered. Should we ignore the challenge of today? Some have eyes - but do not see.

Take the fear, politics, and blindness out of the change of climate; use the knowledge that we have for planning and predicting outcomes - and not let ignorance stop the preparedness that may save the planet.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Climate Change - aka Global Warming

Now when it comes to global wealth re-distribution and the natural tendency of some individuals to believe just about anything government has to say, Climate Change has no equal. It's a socialist's dream. How can you disprove all those government funded scientists? Go ahead, I just dare you.

Can you spell S H A M?

By the way, when Global Warming doesn't do the trick, just rename it to "Climate Change", and of course all this "change" is what it is all about.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

Stop using the 'talking points'. The Libertarian answers might be more based on thoughtfulness and fact.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
PTC O - global wealth re-distribution

It begins with proposed legislation like this:

http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/california-lawmaker-says-gas-tax-will-figh...

If this legislation is approved gasoline taxes in California would be very close to a dollar a gallon.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist - You

You are illustrating micro economic wealth re-distribution. Here's macro

http://www.globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/global-taxes-1-79...

Wealthy nations lead by greedy capitalists are destroying the planet. You know that evil capitalism that has brought mankind out of the dark ages and given everyone reading these pages the highest level of wealth in human history?

There are two subjects driven out of our educational system, history and economics. Care to guess why? Being Cy, I'll just bet you can. ;-)

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey there PTC O

I chose that proposed legislation since it was so obvious what the end-game was - wealth distribution.

Anyways, the air transportation industry is wrestling with the EU carbon trading/tax scheme. It started in 2012 over the objections of several nations since that legislation and tax was counter to the agree upon Chicago Convention of 1944 which established protocols regarding international air transportation. The major complaint with the EU proposed carbon tax scheme was that the tax meter started to spin from the point of departure regardless of where it was on the earth. The other complaint was that it was very vague on where the collected money was going.

This proposed taxing scheme almost started one heck of a nasty trade dispute. What really stopped this scheme was that China not only said no but told the EU that if you force that upon any Chinese Flag Carrier you can forget about any future orders of Airbus aircraft. Needless to say, that got the attention of the EU gang and they modified their tax scheme. The jury is still out wether it will gain traction or not.

Oh and the school thingy; I suspect we both know why. Just remember that the state school system(s) that orders the majority of K-12 books just about controls what the rest of the nation uses. Oh those states; California, Texas and Florida. Need I say more.

Finally, my youngest son is almost finished with undergrad studies in economics and will soon move to graduate studies of the same. Oh, and he he's a bit more to the "right" than his old man. This is spite of the fact that some of his text books are from Dr. Paul Krugman and his ever so "slightly" liberal stance.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist - Congratulations

Congratulations on your son's pending accomplishments. You didn't mention where he studies but there are colleges and universities that have great economic programs. I can only say that economics is certainly not an exact science but logic and historical observation of outcomes allows us to determine what is an is not successful in society. Logic and observation coupled with a moral compass based on Natural Law is our only hope. It appears you have been successful in instilling the latter. Maybe your son will become his father's teacher?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Education/PTCO

Many schools are encouraging students to take a good look at History and Economics and how it is affecting their life today!. Political party/ideology is also being looked at - and how it is affecting the progress of a country that is supposed to offer opportunity for all. If a politician could hear the discussions - he/she would be shaking in their boots when these kids reach voting age. Bottom line: The inability of the current political process to get anything done for the American people. It appears to benefit the 'greedy capitalists'.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - What

What little history and economics that are taught in public schools, has a distinct socialist spin. Based on your philosophy, you appear to be a product of that schooling. As to your "greedy capitalists", I am sure you mean neo-capitalists. Without a doubt you are correct on that, if that is what you meant.

The political process is a struggle between two distinct philosophies, individual freedom and democratic socialism. This struggle is intra-party within the Republican Party, which must bring joy to the hearts of millions of Socialists aka Progressives, aka Democrats, like you.

The only people that should be shaking in their boots, as you say, are the few people that still believe in individual freedom over the omniscient "vision" of the elite political class.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

With all of your research/self -education, I'm surprised that someone of your caliber can be so biased. There are ideas/strategies that different ideologies can embrace without losing the principles of their beliefs. You are interesting. There are those who embrace your conservative values that also embrace 'Jim Crow ' practices . To continue to call me and those who may see issues as I do using so-called denigrating terms is becoming even more humorous. Thanks for the entertainment.

Quote:

The only people that should be shaking in their boots, as you say, are the few people that still believe in individual freedom over the omniscient "vision" of the elite political class.

As long as too many Americans sit home on Election Day, the attempt of the elite political class to rule in our country will continue. Your desire to suppress the political power of certain segments in this country is obvious with your desire to deny the right to vote to 'government workers'. - our public service workforce. If you really want a 'feel' of what the younger generation is feeling, you must read more than the southern/conservative point of view. The independent vote is growing. With the current technology, our youth can do their own research and judge our progress in this country on all issues, historical and economical. The 'greed' of business will soon change the solid south's clinging to the past - and the former Dixie Crats/fractured Republican Party will once again desire to serve all Americans.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Denigrating ? DM

What about your philosophy is not socialistic?

If it's denigrating to call you a socialist, what do you find offensive concerning this characterization?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Your attitude is denigrating IMO
Quote:

Definition: Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual

As long as American citizens sit home on Election Day , this definition will become a reality in these US. Thank heaven we have a three pronged government and the solid south does not represent this country. I am not a proponent of the above definition of socialism. I have witnessed up close and personal the failings of socialist governments. Haven't you? The power of the American people in our democratic/republic government is the vote. As long as we allow 'big money' interests to try and control the vote, we will continue to see the decline of the middle class as the wealthy become wealthier. Distribution of wealth is a catchy statement - but one needs to look at what has happened to a country that has sent jobs overseas to a cheaper work force; has not provided jobs for those who support small businesses ; (the middle class) has ignored the need to update it's educational offerings to meet the needs of the future; has lost sight of the need to improve the infrastructure. What is the Libertarian solution to some of these problems?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Answer

The question please, how is your Philosophy NOT socialistic?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
I'll answer yours - PTCO

if you'll answer mine! LOL

Quote:

What is the Libertarian solution to some of these problems?

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
PTCO-History (Public school style)
Quote:

What little history and economics that are taught in public schools, has a distinct socialist spin.

Amen. The powers that be decide which parts and versions of history to teach so as to further their agenda. My 2 favorite sayings re history: 1. History is written by the victors. 2. History is just an agreed apon set of lies.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
G35 - Please understand that

as a public school teacher in this county I get absolutely no say in what is taught or what textbooks are bought by the schools. I get no say in what goes into the curriculum standards. A private school might have a little more choice in buying books, but if they want to be accredited, they need to teach the same curriculum as a public school. History is probably the most must susceptible to the waxing and waning of politics, but even my field, science, has to deal with politics (i.e. global warming, solar power, electric cars) and their agendas trying to indoctrinate kids into their way of thinking. I do what I can, but if you're trying to pin bad history made up by politicians on the schools and teachers who can do nothing about it, you're missing the mark. Blame the politicians who come up with common core and NCLB and race to the top.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Good teachers

We have made progress in this country because of the professionalism and creativeness of good teachers doing the research and encouraging students to do the same. Many are grateful for the teachers in FC. The truth of events can be interpreted in many different ways due to the perspective of the 'learner' or participant. Good teachers present all aspects of the truth.

We are celebrated for the historical opportunity that public education provided for the upward mobility of citizens. To lose this aspect of our greatness would be a shame. . . and will hinder our position of strength and respect in the world.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
renault314

If I ever led you to believe that I blamed teachers, then I do appoligize. My sights were set solely on the politicians.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35
Quote:

1. History is written by the victors. 2. History is just an agreed apron set of lies.

This was often stated in reference to the 'history' of the Civil War - and the way it was interpreted/presented by those who were not the victors. Today - with the availability of many records, narratives, etc., students are able to look for the 'truth' of the political, economic, and humanistic issues of the Civil War. Attitudes, practices, and traditions from the Civil War still have much to do with the present and future of our country.

Socialistic spin? Common ownership of 'property'? Hmmmm.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Only applies to the Civil War? Hmmmm...........
Quote:

This was often stated in reference to the 'history' of the Civil War - and the way it was interpreted/presented by those who were not the victors.

Being a teacher I'm sure you've read the Mexican and American versions of the battle of the Alamo? Or what is taught about the American Revolution in the UK versus here? How different are they? And yes I do believe it applies to how public schools teach the Civil War also. As well as most subjects that the public school systems teaches. History especially. Yes those that are interested enough to do their own research can find and form their own opinions. That's the reason that we can see the "spin" that the public school system puts on the lessons that they choose to teach or not teach. Most however will accept what they are taught and go no further. It's interesting to me that you took my words re all of history and tried to "spin" them as tho I'm only referring to the Civil War.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
I said 'Only applies to Civil Wat?

What I said:

Quote:

This was often stated in reference to the 'history' of the Civil War - and the way it was interpreted/presented by those who were not the victors.

Cute spin LOL!

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Yes indeed

It's just interesting to me that you choose to highlight the Civil War in response to my statement. You are correct. Cute spin.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
The teaching of history - G35

One doesn't have to be a teacher to realize that 'history' is often his story. With today's technology, one is exposed to many, many different versions of the same event in history. . . that is true. Fortunately, I had the experience of having professors from different countries and also the opportunity to study in different countries. In England, George Washington is identified as a traitor. As for the history of the Civil Rights struggle - I lived it during the 50's and 60's - and today. My version as a participant may be very different from one who read about it in a 'history' book.

What is your experience with the public school system nationwide? It is an agreed upon truism that the US has neglected it's future by neglecting to improve upon it's public education system. When I was in 'high school' , it was never mentioned in my history books that Crispus Attucks was African. He was portrayed with a 'stick figure'. This was in California. Fortunately I was also exposed to an educated community that saw it was important to include the contributions of all citizens/heroes in 'history' - regardless of their color. The 'spin' has been active long before you or I were born.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Did we just agree?

WOW, after reading this I'd almost think that you agreed with me that the public school system picks what and how they'll teach history. So much is left out or mis taught so as to meet an agenda.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

Persons with different ideologies cam agree on many issues - if they get their egos out of the way and deal with the content of the discussion. But if it rocks your boat to have people agree with you - yep. We have a group of 'political leaders' who have hindered the growth of our economy because of their 'egos' and refusal to work together to find areas where there is agreement. The victims? The American people. Sad. But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-It's OK to agree

LOL I usually like for people to agree with me. The point I was trying to make, which you failed to grasp, is if you basically agreed with me why all of that other stuff in the middle? Between my first post and your last? And even that is a rhetorical question because we both know the answer. You have to interject a racial slant into every discussion. But thats OK too. It's just who you are.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

Oh I grasp it alright!! LOL You have to play the victim when you don't care to answer a question.
[/quote]

If you don't care to discuss the 'race' question - ignore my references - and just discuss the other points. (Rhetorical) You don't seem to want to discuss any other aspects of a discussion. LOL!!

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Thanks-DM

For proving my point for me!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35
Quote:

What is your experience with the public school system nationwide?

LOL! Again - no answer to anything not dealing with 'race'. Cute.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM

You are entertaining. But I will answer. I have over 12 years experience in the school system. And thanks for calling me cute. I didn't think you cared. LMAO

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

12 years is wonderful! Congratulations! The question - nationwide experience?

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-WOW

Are you saying that if I stayed in Georgia, my experience isn't good enough? That you are superior because you were in California? Could you actually be that arrogant? Isn't Georgia still part of this nation? What is your point here? Do you really have one?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

Skipping answering the question is a juvenile ploy. You have made statements broadly condemning public education in our country. If your experience is only in Georgia, I certainly understand your opinion. Not all states have the academic achievement record of Georgia. There are outstanding, secure, contributing educators in Georgia providing a well balanced educational program to Georgia's future. If you are part of this group, you have no reason to feel sensitive about your experience in Georgia. I have had the honor of meeting educators throughout our country and our globe. They all have one common factor, regardless of the 'administration' of education in their particular environment, they use their gift and researched skills to benefit students. Educators are a very special group of citizens who provide an invaluable service to our society. A secure educator does not exhibit your insecurity. Being proud of what you do after twelve years should be an unshakeable pride. I was formally involved in education for over 40 years. I never allowed anyone to denigrate my choice of profession - I never accepted what was truly arrogance when they tried. Never, ever assume that someone does not respect your profession. I asked because there are areas in our country where public education is meeting the need of the future - and IMO, this is an area that I feel needs concentrated improvement. I will continue this discussion with those who have this understanding. Obviously, it's not with you at this time. Again, congratulations on twelve years of serving students. Most 'new' teachers leave after two years.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Just as I thought.

OK just as I thought. You really had no point to make.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
History/Economics

Dude, over the last thirty years or so, I have attempted to educate myself on the history of North America from 1600 to 1860. Naturally, you can't study this period without also studying European history as well.

Fundamental to this effort is to look at source documents of the time and not solely interpretation through the lens of the modern historian. Most historians miss the mark because of their own biases and being unable to attract consumers without mirroring common modern myths. This is not new, George Washington's biographer, Mason Weems, wrote a book called "The Life of Washington" circa 1800, full of myths and lies.

Economics and history are intrinsically tied and in most instances governments are formed based on markets, property and self interests. Our country is no different in that respect.

Socialists depend on making certain that the message is controlled and self serving, this is the primary function of a government controlled school system. Many teachers are unwittingly advancing the destruction of individual freedom because they in turn have been educated by the same school institutions. Thinking and curiosity are rare virtues in our society and this is particularly so in our schools.

With all this said, there are universal truths that cannot be destroyed by the "victors" or lies. Truths are and they will always be and no amount of hyperbole will change them. They existed before government, all government.

That all men are created (born) equal, that all men are free, that we own our lives, that our labor is our life, that the output of our life and labor (property) is our life transformed, that no one individually or collectively has a right to our life, freedom or property.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO-Historical Research

What are your findings regarding American history post 1860?

Quote:

That all men are created (born) equal, that all men are free, that we own our lives, that our labor is our life, that the output of our life and labor (property) is our life transformed, that no one individually or collectively has a right to our life, freedom or property

This is a very telling and controversial statement. In the United States, the goal now is for all men and women to have an equal opportunity under the law. I'm sure that there are many who find the statement about our labor being our life interesting. It might be interesting for you to visit the US stand on 'freedom' and 'property' post 1860.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Good Lord

DM what are you insinuating with these statements?

There is nothing controversial in God's law. You are a very confused person.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
God's Law
Quote:

our labor is our life?

My understanding of God's Law finds this statement more than 'confusing'. Evidently I'm not the only one. Looking forward to your Libertarian/God's Law solutions.

brewster
brewster's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2011
God's law?

Surely you jest. The "we own our lives" and "our labour is our life" and your idea on how to transform our life is about the most un-Biblical and God-less statement I have ever heard.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Jest

How so Brewster?

Does some other than you, own your life?

brewster
brewster's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2011
ownership

Yes indeed. I don't have the view of "what you see is what you get".

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Brewster

Is that an answer?

Who owns your life?

brewster
brewster's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2011
servant

My Master.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Master

Who is your Master?

brewster
brewster's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2011
purchased

The one who bought me for a price. Question for you - how is your statements on your life Biblical and God like?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Brewster

John 5:1-29
Ezekiel 37:1-14
Acts 2:1-21

The Giver of life, to give is to receive. With an open heart and wonder we should accept His Gift and honor it. Our life is ours given by Him to do good or evil with free will.

We are born free to do as we will.
We own His gift of life
Our labor is part of our life and sets us apart through our efforts.
The fruits of our labor is the product of our life and belongs to us.
No other man individually or collectively has a right to our life, freedom or property.

As long we don't infringe on the rights of others through force or deception, the property we accumulate through our labor (our life) is ours to voluntary use as we wish.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO- SOLUTIONS? 2
Quote:

With an open heart and wonder we should accept His Gift and honor it.

The 'gift': The Bible specifically tells us that God is Love, Life, Soul, Principle, Mind, Spirit, Truth . I believe that we honor this gift by DEMONSTRATING it.

This is your belief: As you stated:

Quote:

Our labor is part of our life and sets us apart through our efforts.
The fruits of our labor is the product of our life and belongs to us.

An interpretation of Genesis:1:27 - Man is created in God's own image and likeness. We (IMO) honor his 'gift' of creation by demonstrating love, life, soul, spirit, principle, mind, truth. Jesus' 'labor' (job) was as a carpenter - but he honored God's gift by demonstrating and sharing this gift with mankind.

The fruits of our labor are often 'felt' and not seen. . . in many of the parables and stories from the Bible, those whose labors were measured in 'things' and materials were often not 'judged' as fruits of acquisition by following God's Law. Many fruits of man's labor cannot be measured as a 'product' or 'property' . I understand your statement as your belief - it was just confusing when you compared your belief to God and God's Law.

The beauty of our country is that different interpretations/beliefs (non-beliefs) are accepted. In my opinion - there is no argument here - just a different expression of 'belief'. As Brewster said - your statement, IMO, left out God. Thank you for your explanation. There are many issues that have been discussed here. . .what is the Libertarian solution for some of them - following God's Law?

brewster
brewster's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2011
We are born free?

Your Master has got you right where he wants you.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Brewster

Indeed

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Man's Life - PTCO

Since you interjected God's Law, it might be interesting for you to read some of the Old Testament and New Testament and the writings of numerous philosophers, and the leaders of religions other than Christianity.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Who

Who owns your life?

A simple question.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Herding Cats

Only in the Citizen can one read an article about climate change and then watch the posts about said article run the gamut from race, religion, politics, and public education. LOL Kind of like herding cats.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Dude

It's great isn't it?

There is a stream of consciences to it though.

ptc87
ptc87's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2011
Climate change

This article sets a new low for Pastor Epps. I think his article about a friend that traveled to England with a gun and had it confiscated by British authorities was the most stupid but that was several years ago. I had hoped the good Pastor had learned a lesson; not to write about stuff he knows nothing about but no, he's gone and done it again.

Recent Comments