Former US climate chiefs urge political unity

Jun 18, 2014 by Kerry Sheridan
William Reilly, who led the EPA under George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993, testifies on Capitol Hill on March 16, 2011 in Washington

Four former heads of the US Environmental Protection Agency who served under Republican presidents urged lawmakers Wednesday to stop bickering over whether climate change is real and start finding solutions.

Global warming is an increasingly polarizing issue in American politics, with most Republicans questioning the science behind it and most Democrats calling for stricter pollution limits.

The debate has kicked up in intensity since President Barack Obama earlier this month called on the EPA to set carbon pollution standards for power plants that would cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030.

Obama's announcement, his most ambitious yet against , also called for increasing global cooperation to curb pollution and for US financial incentives for renewable energy.

"President Obama's new climate regulations... will harm our fragile American economy," Senator Ron Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, told the hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

"Thousands of people will lose their jobs," he added, describing the measures as "all pain and little gain" toward reducing global temperature.

'Scare tactics '

Barrasso and fellow senators on the bipartisan committee spent the entire first hour of the two-and-a-half hour hearing making their own opening statements, in which they debated the legitimacy of climate science and traded warnings over the cost of acting versus the cost of not acting.

Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, said she has been called a "job killer" for years, each time she has supported an initiative to make way for a cleaner environment.

"These scare tactics, they have been tried before and they are just not real," said Boxer, who chairs the committee.

Former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Christine Todd Whitman speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations on June 14, 2004 in New York City

The four former EPA administrators who testified at the hearing included those who served over the past four decades under presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush.

As a group, the quartet penned an op-ed in the New York Times last year that said there was no longer any credible debate over whether humans were causing climate change.

At the hearing, they reiterated this stance, and said stricter pollution limits mean job creation is likely in the fields of renewables, nuclear, clean coal and natural gas.

They also urged lawmakers to put aside their differences and find ways to pursue energy-efficient solutions.

Constructive response

"The two parties were able to rally around a common purpose in the early days of environmental policy making," said Christine Todd Whitman, former New Jersey governor who served as EPA chief under George W. Bush from 2001 to 2003.

"It is urgent that they do so again."

William Reilly, who led the EPA under George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993, praised Obama's moves and said state lawmakers need to follow suit.

"While the president has taken many important steps, a full and constructive response is needed from Congress," Reilly said.

The first-ever administrator of the EPA, which was founded in 1970, said the United States has a responsibility to lead the rest of the world.

"We like to speak of American exceptionalism," said William Ruckelshaus, who served from 1970 to 1973 under Nixon and again from 1983 to 1985 under Reagan.

"If we want to be truly exceptional then we should begin the difficult task of leading the world away from the unacceptable effects of our increasing appetites for fossil fuels before it is too late," he said.

A poll out Wednesday by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News found that while Obama's popularity is down to 41 percent, matching a previous low, a majority of Americans agree with him on climate change.

More than six in 10 of the 1,000 Americans surveyed said action is needed against climate change, and 57 percent said they would favor a proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions even if it meant higher energy bills.

Two-thirds of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat support Obama's rules to set limits on power plant emissions, and 29 percent said they were opposed.

Explore further: Obama: Power plant rule will shrink power prices

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate warnings ignored with US elections looming

May 15, 2014

The U.S. Congress, ignoring dire new warnings about climate change, continues to shy away from legislation that might mitigate the effects of global warming, leaving President Barack Obama with limited tools to reduce greenhouse ...

Obama officials: Rule won't kill coal-fired power

Sep 18, 2013

President Barack Obama's top energy and environmental officials said Wednesday there is a future for coal, despite a pending regulation aimed at limiting global warming pollution from new power plants that ...

US to seek 30-percent emissions cut

Jun 02, 2014

The US government will propose a rule Monday requiring power plants to cut by 30 percent carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 based on 2005 levels, US media reported Sunday.

Recommended for you

UN sends team to clean up Bangladesh oil spill

6 hours ago

The United Nations said Thursday it has sent a team of international experts to Bangladesh to help clean up the world's largest mangrove forest, more than a week after it was hit by a huge oil spill.

How will climate change transform agriculture?

6 hours ago

Climate change impacts will require major but very uncertain transformations of global agriculture systems by mid-century, according to new research from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Report: Radiation leak at nuclear dump was small

6 hours ago

A final report by independent researchers shows the radiation leak from the federal government's underground nuclear waste repository in southern New Mexico was small and localized.

Confucian thought and China's environmental dilemmas

10 hours ago

Conventional wisdom holds that China - the world's most populous country - is an inveterate polluter, that it puts economic goals above conservation in every instance. So China's recent moves toward an apparent ...

User comments : 86

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Grendel
2 / 5 (13) Jun 18, 2014
We must do something, anything, and we must do it now. Hey, I know what, let's throw money at it. Lots and lots of money. After all, there's a never-ending supply of that, right?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (11) Jun 18, 2014
"These scare tactics, they have been tried before and they are just not real," said Boxer, who chairs the committee.


Oh, well then Sen. Boxer...let's just raise taxes 30000000000% and do what we want when we want. After all, policy never EVER effects the economy, shucks that kind of talk is just silly tea party scarifications!!!

*rolls eyes*

If you REALLY want unity in the parties then;

Republicans: Cut the crap and admit something is going on and understand that something is going to HAVE to change

Democrats: Cut the crap and give up on pie in the sky idiocy with the solar panels, wind mills, and "here a tax, there a tax, everywhere a tax tax"...in short compromise.

Republicans (mostly) love nuclear. Do that and they admit the problem and a willingness for the government to have more control over CO2 emitting power generation (their compromise). The Democrats have to give up dictatorial dreams of controlling the energy sector (their compromise). Or just dig in heels.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2014
Republicans: Cut the crap and admit something is going on and understand that something is going to HAVE to change


Yes, they need to stop acting like democrats/socialists.
Modernmystic
3.8 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2014
Republicans: Cut the crap and admit something is going on and understand that something is going to HAVE to change


Yes, they need to stop acting like democrats/socialists.


No, Rygg they need to cut the crap and quit saying the sky isn't blue. If they don't I can assure you that when it does start to heat up they will be completely steam rolled by the opposition. You've got a window...just like you did with healthcare to do something meaningful and COMPROMISE on this issue. Do nothing and see what happens...I dare ya :)
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2014
When one compromises with evil, evil wins.

just like you did with healthcare to do something

Where was the compromise on nationalizing health care?
Republicans proposed many free market changes that the socialist refused to compromise.
Socialists don't care about solutions, only power. Where is the comprise?

Democrats controlled all three branches of govt and all they could think of doing, and did, was to take over health care. They did NOTHING about AGW. Why?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2014
This was more important to the socialists than 'climate change'.

"Obamacare subsidies are likely to cost billions more than expected this year, after a Wednesday federal report revealed that a 87 percent of HealthCare.gov customers are getting taxpayer subsidies to purchase health insurance."
http://dailycalle...xpected/
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2014
R2, your just plain ignorant. Everytime you say Obama I think you get dumber. How many ways are you so wrong about so many things. It doesn't matter, environment, politics or whatever. You don't even know what is up. One can only assume your one of those flakes that walks around dressed in a tea party outfit, but probably has never read the constitution, and doesn't even know what the bill of rights was. History is devoid of you, as is logic, thought, empathy, compassion, reason and lets not forget statistics and math. You and your kind are the people no one should ever vote for.
Where is your plan to nationalize health-care? I suspect you wouldn't even have hospitals in the land that R2 built. If your sick, just pile them up in the main lobby of the Tea party/R2 party and wait. R2 never provides solutions, just misdirected blame at the President Obama and his supporters. It's pathetic R2, your lack of reasonableness and your sick political slant towards the far right.


Bob Osaka
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2014
This is one of those "only in America," kind of things. Public opinion is mathematical only by its statistical nature. There is only one precise answer. Science, physics in particular, remains unswayed by opinion polls. If gravity were unpopular or more popular would it make any difference?
Shootist
2 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2014
"No climate model yet has any explanation for the Viking Warm period or the Little Ice Age. They are simply ignored. The Earth has been several degrees warmer and several degrees colder than it is now in historical times, and all this is documented. The notion that the Gulf Stream affected Greenland, the Western Scottish Islands, the Eastern Scottish Islands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, and China, all reporting longer growing seasons and earlier spring in the Viking era, is too absurd to consider seriously. Not that I expect rationality to prevail. There are too many grants at stake." - Jerry Pournelle

"The polar bears will be fine" - Freeman Dyson

The difference between the Reps and the Dems is like the difference between being mauled by a Cocker Spaniel and being mauled by a Pit Bull. Both suck; one sucks less.
rwinners
1.7 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2014
Stupid fucks... or fuckees.... they lost the ball and haven't got a chance of getting it back.
Egleton
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2014
I don't get it.
Is gravity a Left or a Right issue?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2014
I don't get it.
Is gravity a Left or a Right issue?

That's the problem when the theory, THE CLIMATE MODEL, is so uncertain.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2014
This is one of those "only in America," kind of things. Public opinion is mathematical only by its statistical nature. There is only one precise answer. Science, physics in particular, remains unswayed by opinion polls. If gravity were unpopular or more popular would it make any difference?

Wealth is not being plundered for the sake of gravity.
Egleton
3.8 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2014
Your wealth is going down the gurgler becaue of Peak Oil. You have misdiagnosed your disease.
Consider the wealth effect of a loss of the wheat belt.
Consider the wealth effect of losing Manhattan.
And consider the wealth effect of Detroit selling rotating machinary. Consider the wealth effect of Chicago selling a product that the world actually wants to buy.
(Or you could keep selling giant pick-up trucks, which don't sell.)
Or not.
I dont really care.
It is your funeral.
Bye Bye USA. Hello China.
God, Capitalists are so strong on rhetoric and so weak on practice.
Never mind-Obama will rescue you with his printing press.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2014
our wealth is going down the gurgler becaue of Peak Oil.

No, its because of a socialist, regulatory state.
Or you could keep selling giant pick-up trucks, which don't sell.)

Yes, they do sell quite well.
What doesn't sell well are the little electric cars. The president of Fiat so said.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2014
This is one of those "only in America," kind of things. Public opinion is mathematical only by its statistical nature. There is only one precise answer. Science, physics in particular, remains unswayed by opinion polls. If gravity were unpopular or more popular would it make any difference?

Wealth is not being plundered for the sake of gravity.

It would be, rightly, if it was increasing and we were causing it and could therfor fix it.

The point is the science is nigh on as rock solid as Mr Newton figured, but you lot insist it isn't because of your "tax dollars".

Ah diddums.
Most of the world poor or staving and (our) US citizen Trolls think their perceived 'plundered' wealth is more important than putting right a problem of which they, per capita, have contributed most. That is selfishness and deluded diversion of blame at staggering proportion.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2014
I don't get it.
Is gravity a Left or a Right issue?

That's the problem when the theory, THE CLIMATE MODEL, is so uncertain.

It's certain enough to know that even at lowest error bound it will cause massive problems for civilisation later this century.
And all latest indications are that it will be far above the lower bound.
Mind, you'll have to understand, read and take note of the incoming science to appreciate that, and not put you fingers in your ears, close your eyes and go.... la.la lala.. While keeping tight hold on your "tax dollars".
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2014
f it was increasing and we were causing it and could therfor fix it.

That's the crux of the issue.
AGWites BELIEVE humans are causing 'climate change' and BELIEVE they can stop it, IF they destroy the world economy and progress.
Their only theory is THE CLIMATE MODEL that is not performing very well lately.

it will cause massive problems for civilisation later this century.

But rummy, you said NO model can predict even 10 years. How can you predict 80 years?
Egleton
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2014
Heavens 2 Murgatroyd!
Listen up silly children.
There is a need.
If you fulfil the need you will become rich.
Capitalism 101.
Stop whinging and roll up your sleeves.
And Yes, the USA is a socialist state. But only for the top 1%
Good luck getting the price of oil back down to its traditional $20 a barrel. The oil majors have slashed capex. It is not worth their while at $100 a barrel looking for more oil.
Bon Voyage down the gurgler.
Modernmystic
3.3 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2014
That's it folks! Diiiiiig those heels in and we'll keep not getting shit done :) 'Cause we're the "can't get shit done" generation...

Good luck with calling each other names and talking past each other for another 50 posts or so...
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2014
That's it folks! Diiiiiig those heels in and we'll keep not getting shit done :) 'Cause we're the "can't get shit done" generation...

Good luck with calling each other names and talking past each other for another 50 posts or so...

Power is more important to socialists than solutions.Why do so many here believe socialism/govt will solve any problem? Where is the data to show the Regulatory State has ever solved a problem and disbanded an agency?
Modernmystic
3.8 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2014
That's it folks! Diiiiiig those heels in and we'll keep not getting shit done :) 'Cause we're the "can't get shit done" generation...

Good luck with calling each other names and talking past each other for another 50 posts or so...

Power is more important to socialists than solutions.Why do so many here believe socialism/govt will solve any problem? Where is the data to show the Regulatory State has ever solved a problem and disbanded an agency?


Yeah, I get some of that rygg, but do you have an OUNCE of pragmatism in you? You know you can't save the whole world from the "eviiiil socialists" (whoever they are) overnight don't you? You realize we didn't get a stack of regulations to the moon and back in the last six years...right? If you want to get ANYTHING done, anything at all, then YOU my friend are going to have to lay aside your absolutist inanity and compromise. It honestly is just that simple.

Either that or both sides let it crash. Maybe for the best...
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2014
You realize we didn't get a stack of regulations to the moon and back in the last six years.

Do you really understand how they got to the moon and back?
It wasn't on compromise.
You know you can't save the whole world from the "eviiiil socialists" (whoever they are) overnight

Thousands of years of tyranny take time to change.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2014
""The EPA is proposing that puddles, ponds, ditches, ephemerals and isolated wetlands fall under the Clean Water Act and expand the regulatory authority to the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," the Journal Gazette & Times Courier, which serves an agricultural community in Illinois, reported last week.

On Friday, Iowa Farmer Today noted that under the agencies' proposal, "any area of your field or yard that may see standing water, even if it's for a short period, could be considered navigable waters subject to federal jurisdiction.""
"A government that already owns 28% to 30% of America's 2.27 billion acres — and 52% of Western lands — doesn't need to control more. Yet here is Washington wanting to put more soil under its command."
http://news.inves...?ven=rss
Where is the socialist EPA's compromise?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2014
"EPA's actions routinely violate the Information Quality Act. The IQA is intended to ensure the quality, integrity, credibility and reliability of any science used by federal agencies to justify regulatory actions. Office of Management and Budget guidelines require that agencies provide for full independent peer review of all "influential scientific information" used as the basis for regulatory action. The law and OMB guidelines also direct federal agencies to provide adequate administrative mechanisms for affected parties to review agency failures to respond to requests for correction or reconsideration of scientific information."
http://www.master...climate/
Where is the compromise?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2014
"Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method."
""The certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific "proof" at all.""
http://www.breitb...-founder
Modernmystic
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2014
Do you really understand how they got to the moon and back?
It wasn't on compromise.


Yep, it was a socialist government funded program rygg...

Keep it up, I don't expect you to change...people rarely do. All I ask is that you actually take like 30 seconds to consider what I've said honestly. Let down that ideological wall for just that long and THINK about it, actually consider all of your options...not just the narrow one option your mindset allows you to.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 19, 2014
it was a socialist government funded program rygg...

It certainly was funded with plundered wealth, but that is not why it succeeded.
The 'War on Poverty' is funded by plundered wealth and fails.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2014
f it was increasing and we were causing it and could therfor fix it.

That's the crux of the issue.
AGWites BELIEVE humans are causing 'climate change' and BELIEVE they can stop it, IF they destroy the world economy and progress.
Their only theory is THE CLIMATE MODEL that is not performing very well lately.

it will cause massive problems for civilisation later this century.

But rummy, you said NO model can predict even 10 years. How can you predict 80 years?

Sigh....
An average global temperature is NOT climate.
AND we are not predicting a single figure degC at x time are we???????????????? FFS

The IPCC's collected science indicates a range of +1.5 to 4.5C rise for a doubling of CO2.

At +1.5C that is roughly the same again as we've already had, and those who are not blinded by ideology know of the science/data that shows we are warming/melting, with +ve feed-backs, especially in the Arctic, gathering pace. I said KNOW the science.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2014

Thousands of years of tyranny take time to change.


That's what the ISIS Islamist terrorists in Iraq and others like them around the world say ryggy, as they behead those that they perceive to be part of the "tyranny".
One man's tyranny is another's "heaven".

What is common to you and they is the extremist view, that you would impose on others.

A view that colours all that passes through your grey-matter.

Fortunately, they, as your lot, are in the minority (as all "extremists" are).
The evil in the world comes from the extremists my friend and not the majority that follow science, logic, probability and common sense. Whilst appreciating that only the majority + 1 can legitimately hold sway. Your view holds no more weight than mine, or the Islamists unfortunately. They force their way on the world via the gun, you by denial, we just count on the aforementioned to save us.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2014
One man's tyranny is another's "heaven".

Not by those who appreciate Western Civilization and the inherent rights of individuals.
not the majority

No tyranny of the majority that practiced Eugenics in the 1930 Europe? They followed science and logic.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2014
That's what the ISIS Islamist terrorists in Iraq and others like them around the world say ryggy, as they behead those that they perceive to be part of the "tyranny".
One man's tyranny is another's "heaven".

What is common to you and they is the extremist view, that you would impose on others.

A view that colours all that passes through your grey-matter.

Fortunately, they, as your lot, are in the minority (as all "extremists" are).
The evil in the world comes from the extremists my friend and not the majority that follow science, logic, probability and common sense. Whilst appreciating that only the majority + 1 can legitimately hold sway. Your view holds no more weight than mine, or the Islamists unfortunately. They force their way on the world via the gun, you by denial, we just count on the aforementioned to save us.
Well said Runrig.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2014
I don't get it.
Is gravity a Left or a Right issue?

What is gravity?
Not what is the effect of gravity, what IS gravity?
Sure, it's a a basic force. How do make it?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2014
Whilst appreciating that only the majority + 1 can legitimately hold sway.

When Muslims gain a majority in UK and vote in Sharia, rummy will appreciate majority rule?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2014
Whilst appreciating that only the majority + 1 can legitimately hold sway.

When Muslims gain a majority in UK and vote in Sharia, rummy will appreciate majority rule?
Strawman, and a stupidly ridiculous one at that.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2014
No strawmen.
Anyone who asserts majority rule must address how the majority can allow the murder of millions in concentration camps in Europe.
The French Revolution is classic regarding murder by majority and continues with all socialist policies today: a majority can commit any atrocity upon a minority.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2014
No strawmen.
Anyone who asserts majority rule must address how the majority can allow the murder of millions in concentration camps in Europe.
The French Revolution is classic regarding murder by majority and continues with all socialist policies today: a majority can commit any atrocity upon a minority.
Absolute false analogy. Incomplete, unrealistic, strawman argument. Classic gibberish from a societal retard. You hate everyone, so think everyone else hates too. Go take your meds loon.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2014
Maggy must claim a false analogy or his whole world will collapse.
Tyranny of the majority is well documented which is why the founders of the USA were so opposed to it creating a constitutional republic designed to protect the inherent rights of individuals.
Socialists can't support the inherent rights of all individuals while at the same time using state power to plunder and murder those they oppose.
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2014
No strawmen.
Anyone who asserts majority rule must address how the majority can allow the murder of millions in concentration camps in Europe.
The French Revolution is classic regarding murder by majority and continues with all socialist policies today: a majority can commit any atrocity upon a minority.

That is so true. Majority shouldn't rule. Elected representatives that have a system of ethics, logic, reason, empathy and compassion should. That rules out almost all conservative dim bulbs and the lunatics that have to claim 'socialist' to beg their reasons.

Your flat out wrong on AGW, climate models, CO2 and the IR windows and just about everything on politics and systems of governance.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 20, 2014
Elected representatives that have a system of ethics, logic, reason, empathy and compassion should

Govt is a monopoly on violence.
How can a violence monopoly have empathy or compassion?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 20, 2014
Where is the compassion?
"Health experts: Diseases at border becoming 'crisis'"Health professionals are warning of a "humanitarian crisis" festering in Texas and Arizona as a result of unchecked border crossings of illegal-immigrant children into border communities."
""President Obama's non-enforcement immigration doctrine seemingly invites illegal border crossings, which brings with it a wave of illnesses and diseases that have long been stamped-out in America," Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., told WND."
http://www.wnd.co...-crisis/
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2014
How can a violence monopoly have empathy or compassion?


Well let's think about that for just a minute....

How can a framework that DOESN'T have a monopoly on violence have peace or even a framework for empathy and compassion? Why, rygg, do you think we humans came up with the concept of a geographical monopoly on violence? Do you think that maybe there are some good reasons? Do you think that just because there are problems with that system that things might be worse without it?

It may very well be that eventually human beings develop to the point where we don't need that institution...do you honestly think we are there yet?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jun 20, 2014
How can a framework that DOESN'T have a monopoly on violence have peace or even a framework for empathy and compassion?


You are getting there.
Compassion and empathy does not originate from the state monopoly on violence. That monopoly can, at best, protect the individuals who can than be compassionate and have empathy.
It's not compassionate or empathic to use that violence monopoly to wrest wealth earned by some individuals and 'give' it to others.
The source of that violence monopoly must be by the consent of those living in that monopoly or the violence will be unjust.
Do you think that just because there are problems with that system that things might be worse without it?


This is no excuse for an unjust socialist state.
trshaw54
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2014
only answer shut down all heat generating device,course we aint going to do that.throwing $$$.$$ aint either.i think planetary jet traveling is thou,in 24 hour on a global scale over 3000 flights daily,each 1000 mile flight belchs out 30 million feet of super heated carbon monoxide,so how much breathable atmosphere do we burn each day 635 million feet of super heated gas enters our atmosphere everyday,how much longer can we do this,until earth looks like mars.how that?
trshaw54
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2014
I don't get it.
Is gravity a Left or a Right issue?

What is gravity?
Not what is the effect of gravity, what IS gravity?
Sure, it's a a basic force. How do make it?

eat more bisuits and gravy,then you'll know whats gavity is.rotating magnetic mass is now you make it.
eric_in_chicago
5 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2014
Why can't this forum go democratic so we can all vote to just BAN RIGGY?!?

That way those of us who care about something other than petro-dollars can use this forum for intriguing and useful conversation rather than day after day, giving him every bit of attention his socially retarded Randist self wants. Othewise we are liable to continue to mop up the latest deluge of fecal matter that came out the wrong hole of RiggleySound!

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2014

This is no excuse for an unjust socialist state.


Having competing gangs have at each other within a geographical area is ABSOLUTELY an excuse for an unjust socialist state. Believe it rygg, you'd rather have one than the other even if you don't know it. There are varying degrees of bad government, and whether or not you know it everything in this world is NOT black and white...

I may be sympathetic to a lot of what you say about the government and how WAY over board it's gone, but for once...just ONCE pretend this isn't about socialism and it's about CIVILIZATION.

Everything wrong with the world can't be boiled down to socialism rygg.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
just ONCE pretend this isn't about socialism and it's about CIVILIZATION.

You can pretend, I won't.
This is just another excuse for socialists to acquire more power.
Everything wrong with the world can't be boiled down to socialism rygg.

Socialism is a symptom of what's wrong, the desire by too many to want to control the lives of others.
Having competing gangs have at each other within a geographical area is ABSOLUTELY an excuse for an unjust socialist state.

Better to have one tyrant than many?
eric_in_chicago
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
it's not about socialism or civilization. this is about attention-seeking pre-adolescent mindsets.

in this case, it calls itself "ryggesogn"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
If Eric is really in Chicago, he knows full well the effects of one party tyrannical rule.
And if he defends socialism, he must benefit from being on the side of the tyrant.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2014
Detroit socialism fails prompting international socialism to bail them out?

" It's a basic human right: water. But could the United Nations soon help the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department provide the service to struggling customers?"
http://detroit.cb...ir-bill/
Modernmystic
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2014
You can pretend, I won't.


Correction, you CAN'T....

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

-Winston Churchill

Socialism is a symptom of what's wrong, the desire by too many to want to control the lives of others.


Whatever rygg, I think it's a lot of different reasons because people are complex. I get why you'd think it was one reason or one problem because you tend to think that way you think everyone else does...but we don't :)

Better to have one tyrant than many?


You bet! What happens in a mob war vs. when one family has control of an area? Why is Iran more prosperous than Somalia? You're smarter than that rygg..
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
Iran is more prosperous than Somalia? Geopgraphy, oil and culture.

How about apples to apples. Compare Somalia with its socialist neighbors and Somalia compares more favorably than its socialist neighbors.

Compare Zimbabwe before the socialist tyrant Mugabe and after.
Compare Cuba before and after Castro.
Compare Hong Kong before the UK lease and after the lease.
What happens in a mob war vs. when one family has control of an area?

Typical of how socialists use fear of violence to impose their violence.
In a mob war, let them kill each other off, like the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s.
Let the Sunnis and Shias continue to kill each other off now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014


"

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater
it's about CIVILIZATION.

No civilization without rule of law AND individual liberty.
Socialism violates individual liberty and rule of law.
Vietvet
3 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2014


"

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater
it's about CIVILIZATION.

No civilization without rule of law AND individual liberty.
Socialism violates individual liberty and rule of law.


Do you realize Goldwater would think you're an asshole?

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
How about apples to apples.


There is nowhere on Earth that's like Somalia right now rygg. The WHOLE POINT is that we're not comparing apples to apples. We're comparing a state with a monopoly on the use of force to one that DOESN'T have it. That's by definition apples to oranges. Re-read the thread.

You're preaching to the choir if you're pointing out that socialist states do worse economically than ones with more free markets....

Typical of how socialists use fear of violence to impose their violence.


Who the HELL are you talking to? I'm waaaaaay over here *waves hand*. I don't favor much more government than a police force, the courts, and the military. Find someone else to play out your "eeeeeviiiilllls of socialism" drama.

No civilization without rule of law AND individual liberty.


Unqualified horseshit...

Egypt
Rome
Greece
Japan
China

The list is quite long and I'm a little tired....
eric_in_chicago
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
Does Ryggy actually have a social life outside of this forum?

Cronyism is cronyism... There is no "socialism" in the cronyism that destroyed Chicago's economy.

It's amazing how Italian-style fascists like the Ryg never fail to speciously tag the failure of crony-capitalism as "socialism"....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
We're comparing a state with a monopoly on the use of force to one that DOESN'T have it.

And I said compare what you assume Somalia to be, in anarchy, to its socialist neighbors.
Somalia does have law, it's called Xeer and has worked quite well for centuries.
The fighting currently underway has nothing to do with Somalis and everything to do with Islam and invading neighbors and attempts to create a nation-state out of Somalia.

Cronyism is cronyism... There is no "socialism" in the cronyism that destroyed Chicago's economy.

Cronyism, a form of fascism, which is a form of socialism where the govt controls the economy. It's also called rent seeking where businesses must suck up to the power to either get business or to keep the power from destroying their business, like Microsoft had to do a few years ago.
In the end its all the same, the govt controls 'private' property, socialism, instead of protecting private property.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
I always chuckle watching people try to talk to Ryyg the Loon. EVERYTHING is socialism to him. He has no middle ground, there is no talking to him, and even avowed real anti-socialists think his positions are without merit and pointless. He is a Loon!

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
And I said compare what you assume Somalia to be, in anarchy, to its socialist neighbors.
Somalia does have law, it's called Xeer and has worked quite well for centuries.
The fighting currently underway has nothing to do with Somalis and everything to do with Islam and invading neighbors and attempts to create a nation-state out of Somalia.


Yeah, it's working really well for them.....

What's your basis for that Rygg?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2014
And I said compare what you assume Somalia to be, in anarchy, to its socialist neighbors.
Somalia does have law, it's called Xeer and has worked quite well for centuries.
The fighting currently underway has nothing to do with Somalis and everything to do with Islam and invading neighbors and attempts to create a nation-state out of Somalia.


Yeah, it's working really well for them.....

What's your basis for that Rygg?

http://explorersf...139.html

"In 1970, a Western
form of national governance was fi rst imposed on
reluctant traditional clans (each of which counts
between 600 and 6000 members). This promptly
created violent divisions."
http://www.google...;cad=rja
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2014
"Two decades of "socialist" dictatorship established the concept of central governance in a society that had traditionally always been highly decentralized, where power was dispersed among clans and regional alliances. The Somali Civil War that followed the collapse of statehood in 1991 resulted in half a million casualties, not counting the victims of famines exacerbated by the conflict or the millions of refugees and internally displaced persons that resulted from the conflict. The subsequent civil war politicized and militarized clan structures, while empowering a multitude of warlords to compete for political dominance.1"
http://bcjournal....red.html
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
The Somali Civil War that followed the collapse of statehood in 1991 resulted in half a million casualties, not counting the victims of famines exacerbated by the conflict or the millions of refugees and internally displaced persons that resulted from the conflict.


So, you're using the COLLAPSE of a legal monopoly on the use of violence and the ensuing chaos and death in the subsequent gang war as an argument for how well that chaos went???

WTF are you smoking? Do you grasp the concept of cause and effect?

I couldn't have illustrated my own point better.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2014
Go back a bit further and you see how Somalia was forced into becoming a nation-state, just as Yugoslavia, Iraq and others were by the 'progressive' states.
And the results have been predictable when socialism is imposed.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
Go back a bit further and you see how Somalia was forced into becoming a nation-state, just as Yugoslavia, Iraq and others were by the 'progressive' states.
And the results have been predictable when socialism is imposed.


You simply aren't helping your argument. There is less violence and more economic prosperity when one thug is in charge vs. three, twenty, or a hundred....it's why the Romans kicked the crap out of the people who couldn't get it together like they did all around them. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, it's why humans have organized the way they do, and it's quite simply...history.

Now, if you want to talk about how well various kinds of government do in comparison to each other...well let's take it to PMs. However, I'm betting you're the only person I've talked to who thinks it's better to (literally) have continual civil war rather than a winner.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
So MM prefers a world emperor to keep order.
Quite a socialist wet dream, eh?
it's better to (literally) have continual civil war rather than a winner.

Real wars must end. Either with total defeat or people get tired of fighting.
When "the great powers" force people who don't like each other to live together as they did in Yugoslavia, one must keep an iron fisted dictator in charge or you get what you got in the Balkins or Iraq or Libya or Egypt or....
Who do you want to be the iron fisted dictator to keep the riff-raff in line?
When socialism fails, socialists always blame the iron fisted dictator who was not perfect, not the socialist system that demanded an iron fisted dictator.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014

So MM prefers a world emperor to keep order.


Can you read what I wrote about what I prefer? No you can't. You see everyone as a threat and a socialist.

Here I'll quote you what I prefer, then maybe you'll apologize for shoving words in my mouth...

I don't favor much more government than a police force, the courts, and the military.


Did you miss that? In case you missed it this time I'll re quote it for you...

I don't favor much more government than a police force, the courts, and the military.


Still didn't get it...let's try again.

I don't favor much more government than a police force, the courts, and the military.


If you're still not getting it here's what I prefer...

I don't favor much more government than a police force, the courts, and the military.


So what I'm saying is this....

I don't favor much more government than a police force, the courts, and the military.


Do I need to re quote it? I will if necessary...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2014
But you don't oppose socialism if you get what you want.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
Real wars must end. Either with total defeat or people get tired of fighting.


YEP! Bingo, give that man a cigar. And what do they get when they stop fighting....yooooouuuuu guessed it. Ever since around 5000 years ago they get a legal monopoly on the use of physical force...or a GOVERNMENT.

I'm not ascribing QUALITIES to that government, I'm simply saying that's what you get after a bloody chaotic war that, by your own admission, no one wants.

So, my original point of one tyrant being preferable to a hundred stands rygg, you agreed with it yourself in your last post. Move on...

But you don't oppose socialism if you get what you want.


No, I do oppose socialism. I just understand, unlike you, that in order to get from here to there I won't always GET what I want. Most people past the age of three understand that quite well...

Now are you going to apologize for being a liar?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2014
"Reality deniers get away with many of their fibs because we live in an age in which we have been taught that most statements of fact are really conditional, and there is always a possibility that some outrageous statement could be true or something that most people believe to be true could be false. The Obama administration manages to sell to the gullible media that their proposals to mitigate global warming by spending trillions of dollars and destroying millions of jobs over the next few decades are necessary for our survival as a species. The administration, though, admits that if the president manages to implement all of his new rules and laws, the world would only be two-tenths of 1 degree Fahrenheit cooler in a hundred years than if we did nothing. There is no real benefit to forcing all of those coal miners in West Virginia and elsewhere to lose their jobs."
http://www.washin...deniers/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2014
I do oppose socialism

No, you said you don't FAVOR socialism and you ARE saying socialism is better than NO government.
Once you start down the socialist path, negotiating with evil, evil wins and the end result will be DPRK, Zimbabwe, .....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2014
"In the coming years, we face many problems that are far more likely to kill people than global warming — unsustainable government debt and global terrorism — but the reality deniers prefer to waste resources on a potential threat a century from now than to deal with the immediate threats to our well-being.

Reality deniers seem to think we can make people wealthier just by mandating things like a high minimum wage. "
"Those who advocate higher taxes, or more regulations or more big-government bureaucracies like Veterans Affairs or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are reality deniers, because they ignore all of evidence of the last 2,500 years as to why big government makes us worse off rather than better off."
http://www.washin...deniers/
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
No, you said you don't FAVOR socialism and you ARE saying socialism is better than NO government.


And so it is. So did you, you said people eventually get tired of killing each other wholesale and end up with a government, sometimes it's socialism...

Once you start down the socialist path, negotiating with evil, evil wins and the end result will be DPRK, Zimbabwe, .....


Black and white. Rygg, you do realize don't you, that the world will NEVER be what you want it to be. I'm a libertarian and you and I don't agree on government. We make up a very small percentage of the population, and if we don't agree on things what do you think the chances are that you will agree with everything a government does...EVER?

I'm going to save you the suspense. You, sir, will never...ever...EVER be happy with whatever government you're living under. Get comfortable with that, or continue to churn inside the rest of your life. I'm actually, seriously sorry for you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2014
that the world will NEVER be what you want it to be.

One can make it better by opposing socialism and promoting individual liberty.
Supporting AGWist socialism does not make the world a better place.
Negotiate with evil and evil always wins.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
that the world will NEVER be what you want it to be.

One can make it better by opposing socialism and promoting individual liberty.
Supporting AGWist socialism does not make the world a better place.
Negotiate with evil and evil always wins.
Stark. Raving. LOOOOONNNNNN!!!!!!
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
Supporting AGWist socialism does not make the world a better place.


I'm not supporting AGWist socialism...at least as far as one can define the concept as you see it.

I support building nuclear reactors. I don't support policy changes like taxes, regulations, or subsidies of wind or solar power. I'm willing to COMPROMISE and admit the sky is blue (if that can really be said to compromise) and am willing to impose sanctions on companies that produce CO2, because it actually breaks legs and picks pockets...you know hurts PEOPLE, individual people even.

Which means it violates individual rights...which means *gasp* it would be socialist NOT to support such sanctions!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2014
willing to impose sanctions

You mean plunder.
I'm not supporting AGWist socialism.

Yes, you are.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2014
You mean plunder.


No, I mean sanctions against criminals. Like when someone dumps crap into the water table that kills people. Do you think that when people do something that physically harms other people or destroys their property that what the courts do to them is "plunder". Are fines against criminals plunder?

Yes, you are.


No, I'm supporting taking action against those people who are harming other human beings.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Jun 25, 2014
.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2014
The only legitimate function of a govt is to protect private property.
How do you trust a socialist govt regulatory state that sanctions pollution? In the end that is what the EPA and the other regulatory agencies do, decide how much someone else can violate your property rights.
This unfortunately spawns interest groups on all sides with money to lobby for their interest and empowers a that state to seize control of all property. One agency is trying to have every mud puddle, literally, every mud puddle, declared a wetland so they can control that property.
It's out of control and leads to situations like Love Canal or Hinkley, CA.
Anyone downwind of pollution has a right to sue to have the pollution stopped or compensated for damages for if it is wafting across his property.
That's the proper way to address such issues. Sure it may get messy, but it empowers the property owners, not the Regulatory State.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2014
"This fits with most accounts of how writing emerges in civilizations. Often, it begins with people using numbers and math to determine who owns what, or who has bought what from whom. "
http://io9.com/a-...95540812
Looks like property rights motivated the need for maths and writing.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2014
The only legitimate function of a govt is to protect private property.


Not human beings? Really? What about fraud? You need to brush up on your libertarianism...

ow do you trust a socialist govt regulatory state that sanctions pollution?


There's no regulation needed. We already have laws against putting stuff in the environment that harms human beings and their property...which a rise in temperature as a DIRECT result of pumping out CO2 does.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2014
"It is easy to blame what is going on in Iraq or Syria on dictators and terrorists, but these various bad actors are bit players in a drama that goes back at least to World War I. What is happening is that the arrangements that the British and French created during and after World War I—which established the very existence of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan, and later contributed to the creation of Israel—are unraveling."
http://www.newrep...s-can-do

Not human beings?

People are their own private property. They own themselves.
Fraud is theft by deception. Theft/plunder is violates property rights. What about it?
laws against putting stuff in the environment that harms human beings and their property..

How do you plan to use force to stop people from exhaling?
Plants NEED CO2 so how will farmers be compensated for reduction of CO2?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2014
"Theoretically, the lid could be reimposed in either country by a brutal dictatorship, but it looks increasingly unlikely that either Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki or Syria's Bashar al Assad will be able to impose order on their deeply divided states. What's most likely is that Iraq and Syria, like the former Yugoslavia, will splinter into separate states. Iraq's Kurds are likely to be the first to go"
"What the history of the region suggests is that—to put it in somewhat vague terms—things are going to have to sort themselves out. The people of this region will have to learn how to govern themselves through experience, as the people of other nations, including the United States, have had to do."
http://www.newrep...s-can-do
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2014
We already have laws against putting stuff in the environment that harms human beings and their property...which a rise in temperature as a DIRECT result of pumping out CO2 does.


How do you plan to stop people, or other living things, from breathing and farting?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2014
How do you plan to stop people, or other living things, from breathing and farting?


I don't plan to.

Do you think sewer systems are a good idea? I suppose it's socialism somehow, but it's better than human waste running in the streets....isn't it?

You can try to stretch the point if you want to Rygg, but in the end even you know the difference between thousands of plants burning coal on an industrial level and natural processes. Then again maybe you don't....

People are their own private property. They own themselves.


So we don't need police? People, including children, should protect themselves? Gotcha.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.