|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 21:36:09 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Jan 25, 2015 21:36:09 GMT -5
Have the Koch brothers suggested regulating everything from coal to CO2? No. The Koch brothers have suggested de-regulating a lot of things. Is there really little difference in principle? Or are their opposite numbers, doing opposite things? No, they haven't... they don't give a damn what happens to the atmosphere and/or environment... there $$$ in that coal and oil... and even though they will never be able to spend what $$$ they have accumulated... their blind greed makes them want to make even more... Yes, there is a big difference... they only care about themselves... the other group cares about us all... I like what my friend, Rickey Cole, said... the Democrats are the Party of "WE"... the Republicans are the Party of "ME"... He's right... No, the Dems are only the "Party of WE" as long as they get the benefits. When the time comes to pay, it's "you pay, I ate".
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 26, 2015 8:16:19 GMT -5
Post by rentedmule on Jan 26, 2015 8:16:19 GMT -5
Another brief article on the conference: www.nationalreview.com/article/397131/davoss-destructive-elites-kevin-d-williamson"We understand the problem of the epistemic horizon, but we do not apply that understanding nearly broadly enough. Progressives believe that “diversity” increases when an organization dominated by white men who are overwhelmingly graduates of the same five law schools, who have read the same books, watch the same television shows, and hold the same relatively narrow range of political opinions adds to its personnel a white woman or a black man who is also a graduate of one of those same five law schools, who has read the same books, watches the same television shows, and holds political views within that same relatively narrow range. Conservatives, to their credit, generally understand that intellectual homogeneity is different from ethnic or sexual homogeneity, but they, too, are generally too unwilling to carry through the more radical implications of that knowledge.""The hypocrisy and material self-indulgence on display at Davos may rankle, but the deeper problem is the unspoken assumption that the sort of people who gather in Davos are the sort of people who have the answers to social problems. Historically speaking, there is little evidence to support that proposition. And that is why conventions like that in Davos end up being so frequently counterproductive. When elites get together to talk about the big issues, the discussion consists mostly of very similar people asking themselves what people like them can do. The answer is: A whole lot less than you think." I am a "wisdom of the crowd" type of guy. I see the authors point though in that in self selected groups that wisdom may not serve everyone so well. Just thought the authors take on Davos was a little more than poking a sharp stick at ostentatious very bright people. As a redneck I grew up with that attitude. It's difficult to shake off!
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 26, 2015 20:18:09 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 26, 2015 20:18:09 GMT -5
And the Koch conference...
WASHINGTON — Top officials in the Koch brothers' political organization Monday released a staggering $889 million budget to fund the activities of the billionaires' sprawling network ahead of the 2016 presidential contest.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 26, 2015 20:47:10 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2015 20:47:10 GMT -5
And the Koch conference... WASHINGTON — Top officials in the Koch brothers' political organization Monday released a staggering $889 million budget to fund the activities of the billionaires' sprawling network ahead of the 2016 presidential contest.I'm curious why you think the Kochs are relevant to a discussion about Davos. So far as I can tell, they're not trying to find ways to shrink everyone else's carbon footprint while flying around the world on private jets and paying $43 for hot dogs. The Koch brothers are a lot of things. I'm sure, at times, like everyone, they're even hypocrites and inconsistent. But their hypocrisies and inconsistencies just don't exist in any meaningful way next to Davos attendees.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 26, 2015 21:06:50 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 26, 2015 21:06:50 GMT -5
When Mitch McConnell shuts the U.S. Senate down so the Republicans can go to a conference with a couple of guys who plan to spend nearly a billion dollars on buying political influence over the next couple of years... and you're bitching about some people from all over the world meeting to discuss something that may wipe life as we know it out on this planet in the future... (which has been denied by Republicans until just recently)... I'd say it deserves a bit of concern...
Should you not like my comments... please feel free to just skip over them... and move on... I usually read yours... sometimes I comment... other times I just grin and move on myself... works for me...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 26, 2015 21:14:29 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2015 21:14:29 GMT -5
When Mitch McConnell shuts the U.S. Senate down so the Republicans can go to a conference with a couple of guys who plan to spend nearly a billion dollars on buying political influence over the next couple of years... and you're bitching about some people from all over the world meeting to discuss something that may wipe life as we know it out on this planet in the future... (which has been denied by Republicans until just recently)... I'd say it deserves a bit of concern... Should you not like my comments... please feel free to just skip over them... and move on... How about I mock them for their ridiculousness as I usually do? First, NO ONE denies 'climate change.' The climate has always changed, and probably always will. What is debated is whether or not humanity plays a role. Humanity's involvement hasn't been proven by anyone even pretending to be serious. Warming will NOT wipe out life as we know it - and indeed, will probably make the planet more inhabitable rather than less. Second, the folks at Davos believe that humanity does indeed play a role, and like to scold people for living lifestyles that are fractionally as ostentatious as their own. In other words, they're having a serious meeting, about an unserious topic, and their proposed solution is to make everyone else NOT live lives like their own. Third, the GOP conference with the Koch brothers is, unlike Davos, not pretending to be something it isn't, and it far less likely to produce proposals to keep the poor impoverished so that the elite can continue going to global warming conferences in large fleets of private jets.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 26, 2015 21:51:46 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 26, 2015 21:51:46 GMT -5
That will be fine... you're just that kind of guy... I'm not...
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 26, 2015 22:29:14 GMT -5
I see the difference as this: the Davos crowd tries to persuade people to their point of view. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The Kochs buy people. Usually successfully, since politicians are nothing if not whores.
It doesn't matter whether they're hiding what they're doing or not. Both crowds are still trying to reshape the world so that it works in a way that benefits them. If it benefits others, that's okay. If it harms others, that's okay, too. All they care about is themselves.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 10:28:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2015 10:28:34 GMT -5
I see the difference as this: the Davos crowd tries to persuade people to their point of view. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The Kochs buy people. Usually successfully, since politicians are nothing if not whores. It doesn't matter whether they're hiding what they're doing or not. Both crowds are still trying to reshape the world so that it works in a way that benefits them. If it benefits others, that's okay. If it harms others, that's okay, too. All they care about is themselves. I wish the Davos crowd was that benign. But they don't try to merely persuade people to their point of view. They buy people just as aggressivly as any other group on billionaires. See: Steyer, Tom; and Soros, George. At least the Koch brothers are trying to shrink the government which should make it less attractive to rent seekers.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 10:52:36 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 27, 2015 10:52:36 GMT -5
At least the Koch brothers are trying to shrink the government which should make it less attractive to rent seekers. That's not why they're doing it, though. They want to shrink government so that it cannot interfere with them.
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Jan 27, 2015 11:28:52 GMT -5
At least the Koch brothers are trying to shrink the government which should make it less attractive to rent seekers. That's not why they're doing it, though. They want to shrink government so that it cannot interfere with them. Don't we all want the government to not interfere with us .. ?
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 11:35:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2015 11:35:09 GMT -5
At least the Koch brothers are trying to shrink the government which should make it less attractive to rent seekers. That's not why they're doing it, though. They want to shrink government so that it cannot interfere with them. And if they are, how exactly is that a bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 27, 2015 11:59:15 GMT -5
That's not why they're doing it, though. They want to shrink government so that it cannot interfere with them. And if they are, how exactly is that a bad thing? It's not a bad thing. For them. Whether it's a bad thing for other people remains unknown. Do recall that until the government stopped them corporations had no problem polluting the air and water, making victims even of people who weren't their customers. For one example. There's a lot government could do better, for sure. For one thing, it could have acted to prevent any financial entity from becoming so large its failure could shake the whole economy. Simply by forbidding such a merger as not in the public interest. It chose not to do that, and that's a failure. But how about a world where it was unable to do that? Where corporations can do pretty much whatever they want, and you and I can't stop them. That's the world the Kochs want for themselves to live in.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 12:18:05 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2015 12:18:05 GMT -5
And if they are, how exactly is that a bad thing? It's not a bad thing. For them. Whether it's a bad thing for other people remains unknown. Do recall that until the government stopped them corporations had no problem polluting the air and water, making victims even of people who weren't their customers. For one example. There's a lot government could do better, for sure. For one thing, it could have acted to prevent any financial entity from becoming so large its failure could shake the whole economy. Simply by forbidding such a merger as not in the public interest. It chose not to do that, and that's a failure. But how about a world where it was unable to do that? Where corporations can do pretty much whatever they want, and you and I can't stop them. That's the world the Kochs want for themselves to live in. And what did the government do when it discovered it could regulate "pollution"? It decided CO2, a gas that is fundamentally necessary to support all life on the planet, is a pollutant. Simply put, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It is unlikely that the Kochs will push it too far back, and until they do, their efforts to rein in government are needed.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 12:38:28 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 27, 2015 12:38:28 GMT -5
And what did the government do when it discovered it could regulate "pollution"? It decided CO2, a gas that is fundamentally necessary to support all life on the planet, is a pollutant. It is, if there is too much of it in the atmosphere. Or do you believe that a given compound is safe at any concentration? What do you think would happen to you in a room containing only CO2?
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 13:06:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2015 13:06:58 GMT -5
And what did the government do when it discovered it could regulate "pollution"? It decided CO2, a gas that is fundamentally necessary to support all life on the planet, is a pollutant. It is, if there is too much of it in the atmosphere. Or do you believe that a given compound is safe at any concentration? What do you think would happen to you in a room containing only CO2? I have no idea what the "correct" concentration of CO2 should be in the atmosphere. Or even if there is such a thing as a correct or ideal concentration. My suspicion is that such a thing does not exist. Any attempt to achieve such a thing is based on a totalitarian mindset rather than a desire to make the world a better place. Man doesn't know if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, or if there is too little. If the trees could talk, I suspect they would thank us, and tell us to keep up the good work. I'm not quite sure why it matters what would happen to me in a room full of only CO2, as man can not produce such a state in the Earth's atmosphere, but to answer your question, I suspect the result would be similar to what would happen to a plant in a room with only oxygen.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 13:08:19 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 27, 2015 13:08:19 GMT -5
That's not why they're doing it, though. They want to shrink government so that it cannot interfere with them. And if they are, how exactly is that a bad thing? If one is damaging the land and the environment... and the government cannot keep you from doing it... that 's a bad thing...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 13:14:42 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 27, 2015 13:14:42 GMT -5
I have no idea what the "correct" concentration of CO2 should be in the atmosphere. Or even if there is such a thing as a correct or ideal concentration. My suspicion is that such a thing does not exist. Any attempt to achieve such a thing is based on a totalitarian mindset rather than a desire to make the world a better place. Man doesn't know if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, or if there is too little. If the trees could talk, I suspect they would thank us, and tell us to keep up the good work. Ah, but whether there's an ideal level is a different debate from the farcical oil-industry sponsored notion that CO2 is not a pollutant at all, isn't it? Scientific models of such matters are still new and as often wrong as right. However, by the time our grandchildren discover for certain that we underestimated the allowable concentration it will be much harder to remediate. Industrialists do not care about the future when they weigh it against profits right now, which is the only thing that matters to them. Which brings me back to my original point: the Kochs (and others) want government small and weak because they don't want anyone, ever, to tell them they can't do as they like with their businesses. Their behavior in this regard suggests sociopathy. Government shouldn't be too large, but neither can it be too small, unless you wish to trade democracy for oligarchy. Do you?
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 13:19:35 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 27, 2015 13:19:35 GMT -5
It's not a bad thing. For them. Whether it's a bad thing for other people remains unknown. Do recall that until the government stopped them corporations had no problem polluting the air and water, making victims even of people who weren't their customers. For one example. There's a lot government could do better, for sure. For one thing, it could have acted to prevent any financial entity from becoming so large its failure could shake the whole economy. Simply by forbidding such a merger as not in the public interest. It chose not to do that, and that's a failure. But how about a world where it was unable to do that? Where corporations can do pretty much whatever they want, and you and I can't stop them. That's the world the Kochs want for themselves to live in. And what did the government do when it discovered it could regulate "pollution"? It decided CO2, a gas that is fundamentally necessary to support all life on the planet, is a pollutant. Simply put, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It is unlikely that the Kochs will push it too far back, and until they do, their efforts to rein in government are needed. If CO2 is so harmless, why has the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) set a permissible exposure limit to it?... CO2 is present in the atmosphere at 0.035% As for that room filled with CO2... A value of 40,000 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health based on the fact that a 30-minute exposure to 50,000 ppm produces intoxication, and concentrations greater than that (7-10%) produce unconsciousness... acute toxicity data shows the lethal concentration low for CO2 is 90,000 ppm (9%) over 5 minutes... DEATH...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 17:01:24 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2015 17:01:24 GMT -5
I have no idea what the "correct" concentration of CO2 should be in the atmosphere. Or even if there is such a thing as a correct or ideal concentration. My suspicion is that such a thing does not exist. Any attempt to achieve such a thing is based on a totalitarian mindset rather than a desire to make the world a better place. Man doesn't know if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, or if there is too little. If the trees could talk, I suspect they would thank us, and tell us to keep up the good work. Ah, but whether there's an ideal level is a different debate from the farcical oil-industry sponsored notion that CO2 is not a pollutant at all, isn't it? No. Not really. I mean, CO2 clearly isn't a pollutant at all. Unless you think water is also a pollutant. After all, water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 is. This is just a ridiculous statement. And what if it turns out that we discover the current CO2 levels are FAR below historical norms, and a much higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is desirable? If nothing else, a higher CO2 level would increase crop yields. Whether you think it's too large or too small, government has NO BUSINESS attempting to regulate things it doesn't understand - such as CO2 emissions.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 17:02:51 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2015 17:02:51 GMT -5
And what did the government do when it discovered it could regulate "pollution"? It decided CO2, a gas that is fundamentally necessary to support all life on the planet, is a pollutant. Simply put, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It is unlikely that the Kochs will push it too far back, and until they do, their efforts to rein in government are needed. If CO2 is so harmless, why has the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) set a permissible exposure limit to it?... CO2 is present in the atmosphere at 0.035% As for that room filled with CO2... A value of 40,000 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health based on the fact that a 30-minute exposure to 50,000 ppm produces intoxication, and concentrations greater than that (7-10%) produce unconsciousness... acute toxicity data shows the lethal concentration low for CO2 is 90,000 ppm (9%) over 5 minutes... DEATH... Fill a room with water, and put a human being in it, and he is also unlikely to last more than about 5 minutes. It doesn't mean water is toxic or a pollutant.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 17:03:42 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2015 17:03:42 GMT -5
And if they are, how exactly is that a bad thing? If one is damaging the land and the environment... and the government cannot keep you from doing it... that 's a bad thing... And what if the government is encouraging one to damage the land and environment because it doesn't know what the hell it's doing? Or if the government itself is damaging the land and environment? "The tragedy of the commons" is a very real thing.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 19:53:01 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2015 19:53:01 GMT -5
And if they are, how exactly is that a bad thing? If one is damaging the land and the environment... and the government cannot keep you from doing it... that 's a bad thing... Define "damage". Is it "damage" as any normal, intelligent human being would define it? Or is it "damage" as the enviroMarxists define it, that being anything any human except themselves does, or does not do?
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 19:56:37 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2015 19:56:37 GMT -5
I have no idea what the "correct" concentration of CO2 should be in the atmosphere. Or even if there is such a thing as a correct or ideal concentration. My suspicion is that such a thing does not exist. Any attempt to achieve such a thing is based on a totalitarian mindset rather than a desire to make the world a better place. Man doesn't know if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, or if there is too little. If the trees could talk, I suspect they would thank us, and tell us to keep up the good work. Ah, but whether there's an ideal level is a different debate from the farcical oil-industry sponsored notion that CO2 is not a pollutant at all, isn't it? Scientific models of such matters are still new and as often wrong as right. However, by the time our grandchildren discover for certain that we underestimated the allowable concentration it will be much harder to remediate. Industrialists do not care about the future when they weigh it against profits right now, which is the only thing that matters to them. Which brings me back to my original point: the Kochs (and others) want government small and weak because they don't want anyone, ever, to tell them they can't do as they like with their businesses. Their behavior in this regard suggests sociopathy. Government shouldn't be too large, but neither can it be too small, unless you wish to trade democracy for oligarchy. Do you? And what happens when one of the enviroMarxists of the future decides that H2O is a "pollutant"? Or oxygen? The "scientific models" are not only new, they are being criminally and intentionally faked. Just like the latest propaganda that 2014 was "the warmest year on record", within 38 % probabitlity. So, the enviroMarxists are anxious to destroy all of Western civilization over a 38% probability, and they can't even agree on the terms, or the timeline.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 19:58:19 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2015 19:58:19 GMT -5
And what did the government do when it discovered it could regulate "pollution"? It decided CO2, a gas that is fundamentally necessary to support all life on the planet, is a pollutant. Simply put, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It is unlikely that the Kochs will push it too far back, and until they do, their efforts to rein in government are needed. If CO2 is so harmless, why has the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) set a permissible exposure limit to it?... CO2 is present in the atmosphere at 0.035% As for that room filled with CO2... A value of 40,000 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health based on the fact that a 30-minute exposure to 50,000 ppm produces intoxication, and concentrations greater than that (7-10%) produce unconsciousness... acute toxicity data shows the lethal concentration low for CO2 is 90,000 ppm (9%) over 5 minutes... DEATH... Because OSHA is a part of this criminal regime, and are being told to do so. That, and the poison is in the dose. Under what conditions can one achieve 40,000 ppm, unless one does so intentionally?
|
|