The Republican Party

The two statements I made, that climate change exists and that it is largely natural are not contradictory. Something needs to exist in order to be natural. Frankfurter makes the claim that stopping people from using electricity and water would actually grow the economy but makes no attempt to prove that claim. He says that new technologies can't be discovered through industry. Let me explain it to you. Restricting industry--> Stunted economy--> less funding for research--> slower development time. The problem with just switching over to 100% renewable energy is that it doesn't produce enough power to meet our demands. This ties into the point I made that you dropped about how passing international laws (which would be required for this to be effective at all.) to make people reduce industry would devastate developing countries. How many people are you willing to impoverish, to literally let die in the developing world just to prevent the planet from getting a infinitesimal amount warmer over the next 100 years? I read the article you posted and here's my problem with your interpretation. First, your skepticalscience link leads to nothing relevant. Second, your andthenntheresphysics article actually says that what Lewis and curry came up with are possible. The point I'm making, is that there is no big magical consensus. There is real math, real science that can produce real results that show that climate sensitivity isn't that large. I followed some of the non lewis and curry related links in the skeptical science page which made the claim that rising temperatures are bad. It can be. But in order to do anything about it we need real solutions. Not just "shut down everything and hope for the best" that solution would destroy so much that we've worked to achieve over the past centuries. It would impoverish millions around the globe. Instead, we need to be working with the industry we have in order to develop technologies such as the Graphene Sieve that is being developed and can turn saltwater to drinking water. These are the solutions we need. Also, I know what the little ice age is. The point is, that we're on the tail end of a global cooling period, the little ice age, and we're due for the earth to get warmer anyway. This is not to say that humans have nothing to do with it. I'd wager we have some amount of a hand in rising temperatures. I disagree with your solution and some of the alarmism that has arisen pretending there are no mathematical models which show little climate sensitivity. The point of my Eocene period argument was to show that the climate changes on its own. After the Eocene period there was a massive cooling period that led to the extinction of many aquatic species. The Earth's temperatures change all of the time. If we want to break the cycle we need the technology to do so. many poor people can't afford to just quit their job and move out somewhere else. If they could they probably wouldn't choose to live in high crime areas. No one wants to live where there is high crime so if they do it stands to reason that's their last option. You would improve all of these neighborhoods on whose dime exactly? the rich? you can't tax them enough to do that. Secondly, making nicer neighborhoods wouldn't help the poor, it would push them out. Unless you want to magically guarantee them all good jobs (which you can't) they would be priced out of their homes. This process is called gentrification or "making a neighborhood more suitable to middle class tastes." You make a lower class neighborhood a middle class neighborhood and the old population gets priced out. https://www.theguardian.com... As for giving people guns, it's like Cesare Beccaria said in his famous essay (this quote is often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson.) Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one. There's a reason that mass shootings happen almost exclusively in gun free zones. If I shoot up a school I'll get a high body count because no one can do anything about it. If I try to shoot up an NRA convention I'll have 50 bullets in me in a matter of seconds. People are far less likely to be confident attacking someone if they think there's a good chance they have a weapon too. and since you already conceded that most criminals don't get their guns legally, it stands to reason that you would only disarm those who don't want to commit crimes. Also, the wealthy don't gain from dead poor people. Dead people can't buy products. The rich have zero motive to want the poor dead. First, if the criminal is concealing his weapon how would the police know he has one. Stop and frisk? I thought Democrats hated that. Next, driving the few criminals who buy their weapons legally underground will only make them harder to catch. I made this point a lot in a recent public forum debate topic. If a someone buys their gun legally then commits a crime its a hell of a lot easier to find them than if its a gun that they bought from some black market dealer. Secondly, it isn't all that difficult to access the black market just ask any of the drug users you know how hard it is to get some. Also, Making guns illegal would only make illegal firearm dealers more powerful. Similar to the criminal empires that sprung up around booze during prohibition, making things illegal makes dangerous black market dealers more powerful. Just in my dropped point about Australia, many of the people who have illegal guns there aren't criminals. They just want to be able to defend their families. Better to have these people dealing with a Federally registered firearms dealer who's on the up and up than some dealer in a dark alley. it's much safer. I don't want dead people and just because I disagree with how we can go about getting less dead people doesn't mean that I want more people dead. Australia is behaving like an authoritarian government when they strip the people of the ability to defend themselves yes. Also, if the government gets rid of all of their weapons then there will be literally no one left to defend people from criminals who get their guns illegally. You would give criminals free reign to take over. Actually, the economy was booming during the 80's despite Reagan inheriting Jimmy Carters mess. https://www.forbes.com... I don't see Wikipedia as a reliable source. None of these things you point out confer the right to live. None of them. there is a point when life begins and it's at conception. All science supports this. It is wrong to kill an innocent person even if they can't hear, if they're blind, braindead, emotionally stunted, none of this matters. All living humans have the right to life. No i'm not against killing bacteria because bacteria isn't human. The argument that because something doesn't look like a human therefore it doesn't deserve to live is disgusting. the only thing that determines whether or not something else has the right to live is whether or not it is a living organism that contains the human genome. A fetus is not a part of anyone's body. A fetus has a completely unique genetic and somatic identity separate from the mother. No one has the right to kill their baby. Let me explain conservative ideology to you because you clearly don't understand it. Let's look at it with this analogy. A conservative and a liberal buy a field. In this field there is a fence that goes around a part of the field. the liberal says: I don't see why this fence is here so i'm going to tear it out. the conservative says. I don't know why this fence is here. I'm going to find out why, then if I don't need it i'll tear it out. Women can have careers if they want to. That fence was not necessary. The "no killing your babies" fence is necessary so we should keep it. Again, having a fully developed brain does not confer personhood. Neither of us has a fully developed brain. Killing us is still murder. it isn't up to you or anyone else to decide what kind of life is deserving of preservation and what kind of life is worthless. Because I've already scientifically proven that the fetus is alive. Also, we don't unplug coma patients without either their consent before they fell into one or their guardian. Because they, like all other living humans have the right to live whether or not they're conscious. I'll answer both of your next questions together. I set the rule and say where the right comes from like this: you're profile says you're Catholic. Same as me. If you follow our doctrines then you believe that these human rights came from God. all of these human rights including the right to life come from the same primordial force. "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman"s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" (Exodus 21:22-25) Should a Child Conceived as a Result of Rape or Incest Be Aborted? "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16) "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)