All Things Environment

[MDlaxfan76]

Ahhh TLD, some folks have trouble making those logic connections.

[youthathletics]

Agreed.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Agreed.

Cradle believes putting up $5 grand large to debate a scientist proves you ain’t a chick chit. He can practice what he preaches....

[cradleandshoot]

Agreed.

Cradle believes putting up $5 grand large to debate a scientist proves you ain’t a chick chit. He can practice what he preaches....

I was pointing out how none of you environmental zealots had the nads to bet the man. Break out your checkbook TLD and put your money where your mouth is. If you want to make a friendly wager with me for charity... how about 500 small for my charity you name your favorite charity. We will have to wait 10 years but I have all kinds of patience.

[cradleandshoot]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/ ... 0-signs-2/ the author is offering an interesting 5000 dollar wager. I would expect a number of the faithful here will be anxious to pony up their 5 grand and make the bet.

Even man screws up signs.

I am just interested to see if some of the folks that post here regularly are willing to put their money where their mouths are. If they are so sure of what they believe they have a chance to make 5 grand large. I know it would be painful for them to extract their wallets from their back pockets, blow of the dust, wipe off the cobb webs and dole out that cold hard cash they have been saving since college... Lecturing people here is free, backing up what you lecture about with your own money... well we are talking here for the most part about folks that are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. I just call em chicken chits.

Are you willing to put your $5 grand large down and debate Syukuro Manabe?

Why doesn't wannabe take up the author on his wager? I made my wager to you, put up or shut up big guy.

[cradleandshoot]

Ahhh TLD, some folks have trouble making those logic connections.

I will make the same wager with you MD. We will have to wait 10 years but I bet you 500 for my charity against yours. If you feel even more confident... take the author up on his 5000 dollar wager. You could also debate the author why his findings on this glacier are incorrect. Correct me if I am wrong but glaciers should not shrink and then regain mass if the planet is getting warmer. Is there some logic there for you to chew on?

[MDlaxfan76]

Ahhh TLD, some folks have trouble making those logic connections.

I will make the same wager with you MD. We will have to wait 10 years but I bet you 500 for my charity against yours. If you feel even more confident... take the author up on his 5000 dollar wager. You could also debate the author why his findings on this glacier are incorrect. Correct me if I am wrong but glaciers should not shrink and then regain mass if the planet is getting warmer. Is there some logic there for you to chew on?

cradle, I bet a max of a buck on a game of gin, maybe a beer on a squash game.
That's the limit to my betting.
I get plenty of endorphins just from the competition.

I don't even bet when in LV on business trips.
Pretty sure that doesn't make me chicken, just smart.

I'd have no difficulty mopping the floor on this topic with most non-scientists, including you.

Now, trying to do so versus a scientist would require far more research than I'm prepared to devote.
But I'd put a whole host of scientists up against any you seem to think are brilliant.
You really wanna make that bet? For charity? Let's start a kickstarter...

TLD simply said that if you want to do the debating against a scientist, go for it.

On the glaciers, as I understand the dynamics, glaciers do gain mass when weather patterns change. Likewise they lose mass.
As they are not all in the same place, some are growing as some are shrinking.
When we look at climate effects, we need to look at aggregate ice formation or loss over years.

If I'm not mistaken, there is great concern that aggregate loss is accelerating over the most recent decades as global temperatures have risen.

Exceptions to this are not representative of the aggregate.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/ ... 0-signs-2/ the author is offering an interesting 5000 dollar wager. I would expect a number of the faithful here will be anxious to pony up their 5 grand and make the bet.

Even man screws up signs.

I am just interested to see if some of the folks that post here regularly are willing to put their money where their mouths are. If they are so sure of what they believe they have a chance to make 5 grand large. I know it would be painful for them to extract their wallets from their back pockets, blow of the dust, wipe off the cobb webs and dole out that cold hard cash they have been saving since college... Lecturing people here is free, backing up what you lecture about with your own money... well we are talking here for the most part about folks that are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. I just call em chicken chits.

Are you willing to put your $5 grand large down and debate Syukuro Manabe?

Why doesn't wannabe take up the author on his wager? I made my wager to you, put up or shut up big guy.

Silly, offensive statement.
You wanna bet the scientist he named?
Of course not.
But we don't need to say, "put up or shut up, big guy".

[MDlaxfan76]

Agreed.

Cradle believes putting up $5 grand large to debate a scientist proves you ain’t a chick chit. He can practice what he preaches....

Exactly.

[Peter Brown]

Humans are wired to survive (thrive even).

As liberals decide to have fewer babies (science supports this theory) and conservatives keep producing, there will be a natural darwinian devolution of liberals' impact on society writ large (not either-or, but a slow-at-first reduction then a tsunami in about 50 years).

The tipping point is today, hence the daily histrionics (free speech suppression, physically assaulting conservatives, etc...) and societal hail-mary's (the rise of socialism by the Democratic Party). The America election in 2020 is so critical to the continued greatness of America and helps explain why some embrace Trump who would ordinarily not care for the man. There can be no doubt how critical this election is to your children and grandchildren; it has zero to do with Trump and everything to do with whether you get to live in a free country or not with them. They will be fine; darwinism assures that. It's the next 20 years that's at stake.

Please provide the 'science' behind that claim.

Birth rate is driven by economics.

Read and weep: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/state- ... l-data.htm

Red states gaining in both birth rates and general migration. Nothing is static, to be sure, but generally speaking, this backs up the idea that D's are losing voting might via birth rates (which is why they are so in favor of illegal immigration) as well as displaced economic migration. Vermont eventually will barely qualify as a state (public schools are shutting down as fast as they can be closed; meanwhile, the costs are born by the suckers who stay).

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/sto ... 547894002/

[frmanfan]

Petey,
This is something I wonder about over the longer term. The college-educated, sophisticated, successful professional women and men living in the dense urban areas today are not getting married and not having children. So their genes are disappearing from the human gene pool. Since they are considered the more intelligent humans, does this mean that in the longer term the level of intelligence of humans will skew to what is today considered average or even lower?

[Peter Brown]

Petey,
This is something I wonder about over the longer term. The college-educated, sophisticated, successful professional women and men living in the dense urban areas today are not getting married and not having children. So their genes are disappearing from the human gene pool. Since they are considered the more intelligent humans, does this mean that in the longer term the level of intelligence of humans will skew to what is today considered average or even lower?

Absolutely....not. What you consider 'smart' is often a reflection of the society you grow up in; in our case (America), 'the more degrees one has, the smarter they must be' (even when the degrees are transsexual poetry etc).

Truly smart is someone with innate common sense (Warren Buffet has a surplus of common sense). Einstein said, “Physics is nothing but a refinement of common-sense thinking.”

Common sense--and a little historical perspective--should make you skeptical of grand unified theories of the human mind (such as what the Left tries to do now daily: racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...). Individuals are pretty complex, variable, unpredictable creatures, whose personalities can be affected by a vast range of factors. You should be leery of hypotheses that trace some important aspect of our behavior to a single cause (racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...).

Never underestimate humanity...we will always thrive over the long term.

[Bart]

Petey,
This is something I wonder about over the longer term. The college-educated, sophisticated, successful professional women and men living in the dense urban areas today are not getting married and not having children. So their genes are disappearing from the human gene pool. Since they are considered the more intelligent humans, does this mean that in the longer term the level of intelligence of humans will skew to what is today considered average or even lower?

Absolutely....not. What you consider 'smart' is often a reflection of the society you grow up in; in our case (America), 'the more degrees one has, the smarter they must be' (even when the degrees are transsexual poetry etc).

Truly smart is someone with innate common sense (Warren Buffet has a surplus of common sense). Einstein said, “Physics is nothing but a refinement of common-sense thinking.”

Common sense--and a little historical perspective--should make you skeptical of grand unified theories of the human mind (such as what the Left tries to do now daily: racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...). Individuals are pretty complex, variable, unpredictable creatures, whose personalities can be affected by a vast range of factors. You should be leery of hypotheses that trace some important aspect of our behavior to a single cause (racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...).

Never underestimate humanity...we will always thrive over the long term.

Just curious. Are you saying that political philosophy is a genetic trait to be passed down from generation to generation? Is that how the higher birthrates in the red states are going to produce conservatives to a greater degree and lead to the loss of liberalism?

What then would be a moderate? A heterogeneous Conservative/Liberal?

[Peter Brown]

Petey,
This is something I wonder about over the longer term. The college-educated, sophisticated, successful professional women and men living in the dense urban areas today are not getting married and not having children. So their genes are disappearing from the human gene pool. Since they are considered the more intelligent humans, does this mean that in the longer term the level of intelligence of humans will skew to what is today considered average or even lower?

Absolutely....not. What you consider 'smart' is often a reflection of the society you grow up in; in our case (America), 'the more degrees one has, the smarter they must be' (even when the degrees are transsexual poetry etc).

Truly smart is someone with innate common sense (Warren Buffet has a surplus of common sense). Einstein said, “Physics is nothing but a refinement of common-sense thinking.”

Common sense--and a little historical perspective--should make you skeptical of grand unified theories of the human mind (such as what the Left tries to do now daily: racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...). Individuals are pretty complex, variable, unpredictable creatures, whose personalities can be affected by a vast range of factors. You should be leery of hypotheses that trace some important aspect of our behavior to a single cause (racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...).

Never underestimate humanity...we will always thrive over the long term.

Just curious. Are you saying that political philosophy is a genetic trait to be passed down from generation to generation? Is that how the higher birthrates in the red states are going to produce conservatives to a greater degree and lead to the loss of liberalism?

What then would be a moderate? A heterogeneous Conservative/Liberal?

I think we do absorb (often but always) our parents' political tendencies.

But to be sure, the migration into red states by blue state residents seeking good jobs will clearly diminish the red state Republican lead, even though that's a self defeating choice by the blue state immigrants.

That all said, generally, I trust people's common sense, and even itinerant Dems seeking economic security by moving to (say) Texas and Florida will on the margin recognize that the policies setting the table for a good economy are likely not the policies destroying the economies they abandoned back north or west.

[a fan]

Just curious. Are you saying that political philosophy is a genetic trait to be passed down from generation to generation? Is that how the higher birthrates in the red states are going to produce conservatives to a greater degree and lead to the loss of liberalism?

What then would be a moderate? A heterogeneous Conservative/Liberal?

We won't have a rural America in 50 years if we continue on our current economic path.

Studies have shown that these rural conservatives move to cities, looking for work. And when they get there? They become liberals.

Rural America is on the clock...

[Peter Brown]

Just curious. Are you saying that political philosophy is a genetic trait to be passed down from generation to generation? Is that how the higher birthrates in the red states are going to produce conservatives to a greater degree and lead to the loss of liberalism?

What then would be a moderate? A heterogeneous Conservative/Liberal?

We won't have a rural America in 50 years if we continue on our current economic path.

Studies have shown that these rural conservatives move to cities, looking for work. And when they get there? They become liberals.

Rural America is on the clock...

Very false. You realize that many major cities in America are actually losing residents? And to fact check that a little deeper, those cities losing residents are almost always run for decades by democrat machines.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... /39557461/

[Bart]

Petey,
This is something I wonder about over the longer term. The college-educated, sophisticated, successful professional women and men living in the dense urban areas today are not getting married and not having children. So their genes are disappearing from the human gene pool. Since they are considered the more intelligent humans, does this mean that in the longer term the level of intelligence of humans will skew to what is today considered average or even lower?

Absolutely....not. What you consider 'smart' is often a reflection of the society you grow up in; in our case (America), 'the more degrees one has, the smarter they must be' (even when the degrees are transsexual poetry etc).

Truly smart is someone with innate common sense (Warren Buffet has a surplus of common sense). Einstein said, “Physics is nothing but a refinement of common-sense thinking.”

Common sense--and a little historical perspective--should make you skeptical of grand unified theories of the human mind (such as what the Left tries to do now daily: racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...). Individuals are pretty complex, variable, unpredictable creatures, whose personalities can be affected by a vast range of factors. You should be leery of hypotheses that trace some important aspect of our behavior to a single cause (racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...).

Never underestimate humanity...we will always thrive over the long term.

Just curious. Are you saying that political philosophy is a genetic trait to be passed down from generation to generation? Is that how the higher birthrates in the red states are going to produce conservatives to a greater degree and lead to the loss of liberalism?

What then would be a moderate? A heterogeneous Conservative/Liberal?

I think we do absorb (often but always) our parents' political tendencies.

But to be sure, the migration into red states by blue state residents seeking good jobs will clearly diminish the red state Republican lead, even though that's a self defeating choice by the blue state immigrants.

That all said, generally, I trust people's common sense, and even itinerant Dems seeking economic security by moving to (say) Texas and Florida will on the margin recognize that the policies setting the table for a good economy are likely not the policies destroying the economies they abandoned back north or west.

So it isn't science and there is not a Darwinian Devolution trend away from Liberalism. Absorption of a parents political tendency is not transfer of a genetic trait.

[Peter Brown]

Petey,
This is something I wonder about over the longer term. The college-educated, sophisticated, successful professional women and men living in the dense urban areas today are not getting married and not having children. So their genes are disappearing from the human gene pool. Since they are considered the more intelligent humans, does this mean that in the longer term the level of intelligence of humans will skew to what is today considered average or even lower?

Absolutely....not. What you consider 'smart' is often a reflection of the society you grow up in; in our case (America), 'the more degrees one has, the smarter they must be' (even when the degrees are transsexual poetry etc).

Truly smart is someone with innate common sense (Warren Buffet has a surplus of common sense). Einstein said, “Physics is nothing but a refinement of common-sense thinking.”

Common sense--and a little historical perspective--should make you skeptical of grand unified theories of the human mind (such as what the Left tries to do now daily: racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...). Individuals are pretty complex, variable, unpredictable creatures, whose personalities can be affected by a vast range of factors. You should be leery of hypotheses that trace some important aspect of our behavior to a single cause (racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...).

Never underestimate humanity...we will always thrive over the long term.

Just curious. Are you saying that political philosophy is a genetic trait to be passed down from generation to generation? Is that how the higher birthrates in the red states are going to produce conservatives to a greater degree and lead to the loss of liberalism?

What then would be a moderate? A heterogeneous Conservative/Liberal?

I think we do absorb (often but always) our parents' political tendencies.

But to be sure, the migration into red states by blue state residents seeking good jobs will clearly diminish the red state Republican lead, even though that's a self defeating choice by the blue state immigrants.

That all said, generally, I trust people's common sense, and even itinerant Dems seeking economic security by moving to (say) Texas and Florida will on the margin recognize that the policies setting the table for a good economy are likely not the policies destroying the economies they abandoned back north or west.

So it isn't science and there is not a Darwinian Devolution trend away from Liberalism. Absorption of a parents political tendency is not transfer of a genetic trait.

The most science-oriented law (short of gravity) is the human instinct for survival. Survival writ large is simply migratory patterns of humans fleeing economic and societal ruination, seeking the one life they've been granted. When humans flee what they've ever only known from places like Cuba, the USSR, East Germany, Venezuela, and even here today in the US when folks decamp from Illinois, NY, NJ, Connecticut, Baltimore, Buffalo, Vermont, Pittsburgh and so forth, abandoning despair and seeking hope, that is science, not theory.

(so far as children imitating their parent's political leanings, that is generally (not always) true unless their parent's are bat-guano insane on the topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... fs/361462/).

[Bart]

Petey,
This is something I wonder about over the longer term. The college-educated, sophisticated, successful professional women and men living in the dense urban areas today are not getting married and not having children. So their genes are disappearing from the human gene pool. Since they are considered the more intelligent humans, does this mean that in the longer term the level of intelligence of humans will skew to what is today considered average or even lower?

Absolutely....not. What you consider 'smart' is often a reflection of the society you grow up in; in our case (America), 'the more degrees one has, the smarter they must be' (even when the degrees are transsexual poetry etc).

Truly smart is someone with innate common sense (Warren Buffet has a surplus of common sense). Einstein said, “Physics is nothing but a refinement of common-sense thinking.”

Common sense--and a little historical perspective--should make you skeptical of grand unified theories of the human mind (such as what the Left tries to do now daily: racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...). Individuals are pretty complex, variable, unpredictable creatures, whose personalities can be affected by a vast range of factors. You should be leery of hypotheses that trace some important aspect of our behavior to a single cause (racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...).

Never underestimate humanity...we will always thrive over the long term.

Just curious. Are you saying that political philosophy is a genetic trait to be passed down from generation to generation? Is that how the higher birthrates in the red states are going to produce conservatives to a greater degree and lead to the loss of liberalism?

What then would be a moderate? A heterogeneous Conservative/Liberal?

I think we do absorb (often but always) our parents' political tendencies.

But to be sure, the migration into red states by blue state residents seeking good jobs will clearly diminish the red state Republican lead, even though that's a self defeating choice by the blue state immigrants.

That all said, generally, I trust people's common sense, and even itinerant Dems seeking economic security by moving to (say) Texas and Florida will on the margin recognize that the policies setting the table for a good economy are likely not the policies destroying the economies they abandoned back north or west.

So it isn't science and there is not a Darwinian Devolution trend away from Liberalism. Absorption of a parents political tendency is not transfer of a genetic trait.

The most science-oriented law (short of gravity) is the human instinct for survival. Survival writ large is simply migratory patterns of humans fleeing economic and societal ruination, seeking the one life they've been granted. When humans flee what they've ever only known from places like Cuba, the USSR, East Germany, Venezuela, and even here today in the US when folks decamp from Illinois, NY, NJ, Connecticut, Baltimore, Buffalo, Vermont, Pittsburgh and so forth, abandoning despair and seeking hope, that is science, not theory.

(so far as children imitating their parent's political leanings, that is generally (not always) true unless their parent's are bat-guano insane on the topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... fs/361462/).

And what science is this?

[jhu72]

Petey,
This is something I wonder about over the longer term. The college-educated, sophisticated, successful professional women and men living in the dense urban areas today are not getting married and not having children. So their genes are disappearing from the human gene pool. Since they are considered the more intelligent humans, does this mean that in the longer term the level of intelligence of humans will skew to what is today considered average or even lower?

Absolutely....not. What you consider 'smart' is often a reflection of the society you grow up in; in our case (America), 'the more degrees one has, the smarter they must be' (even when the degrees are transsexual poetry etc).

Truly smart is someone with innate common sense (Warren Buffet has a surplus of common sense). Einstein said, “Physics is nothing but a refinement of common-sense thinking.”

Common sense--and a little historical perspective--should make you skeptical of grand unified theories of the human mind (such as what the Left tries to do now daily: racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...). Individuals are pretty complex, variable, unpredictable creatures, whose personalities can be affected by a vast range of factors. You should be leery of hypotheses that trace some important aspect of our behavior to a single cause (racism, bigotry, sexism, etc...).

Never underestimate humanity...we will always thrive over the long term.

Just curious. Are you saying that political philosophy is a genetic trait to be passed down from generation to generation? Is that how the higher birthrates in the red states are going to produce conservatives to a greater degree and lead to the loss of liberalism?

What then would be a moderate? A heterogeneous Conservative/Liberal?

I think we do absorb (often but always) our parents' political tendencies.

But to be sure, the migration into red states by blue state residents seeking good jobs will clearly diminish the red state Republican lead, even though that's a self defeating choice by the blue state immigrants.

That all said, generally, I trust people's common sense, and even itinerant Dems seeking economic security by moving to (say) Texas and Florida will on the margin recognize that the policies setting the table for a good economy are likely not the policies destroying the economies they abandoned back north or west.

So it isn't science and there is not a Darwinian Devolution trend away from Liberalism. Absorption of a parents political tendency is not transfer of a genetic trait.

The most science-oriented law (short of gravity) is the human instinct for survival. Survival writ large is simply migratory patterns of humans fleeing economic and societal ruination, seeking the one life they've been granted. When humans flee what they've ever only known from places like Cuba, the USSR, East Germany, Venezuela, and even here today in the US when folks decamp from Illinois, NY, NJ, Connecticut, Baltimore, Buffalo, Vermont, Pittsburgh and so forth, abandoning despair and seeking hope, that is science, not theory.

(so far as children imitating their parent's political leanings, that is generally (not always) true unless their parent's are bat-guano insane on the topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... fs/361462/).

And what science is this?

It isn't. Liberalism is fostered and grown by society. It can be reinforced by parents, just like conservativism can be. However, society is the greatest influence. The future is more liberal worldwide and I don't care who the parents are. Liberalism is a reaction to social and economic problems.

I love when conservatives equate liberalism with being anti-capitalist, anti-free market. As if more capitalism will somehow combat liberalism. Capitalism goes hand and hand with liberalism. They are responsible for each others growth

Liberalism is like entropy, ever increasing.