Earth's Hottest Month

[Frankenkubota]

No it doesn’t, but losing all our industrial capacity isn’t acceptable, either.

I think we lost much of our industrial capacity because of global competition, specifically regarding labor. Other reasons too but, imho its labor.

I was born in Flint. In Flint you stumbled thru high school just so you were old enough to go to work in the plants. Unskilled labor.

Back in the day an unskilled american worker could earn a middle class living.

Those jobs have either been automated or shipped off shore.

What we ended up with is the worst public education on the planet producing many generations of unskilled and, unemployable citizens. That's ok because the govt will take care of them.

If the unskilled jobs are gone we better start producing some skilled workers.

I passed a high school the other day that had a big sign up that said

Future? Bring it on, we are prepared.

I about chit.

 

[Tinhack]

man oh man

gary had a special kind of reek to it. had to drive straight through prior to freeways

Ditto Akron, Ohio. You'd go out in the morning and everything would be covered in black soot. I kind of liked the smell of new rubber tires though.

 

[Hay Dude]

I think we lost much of our industrial capacity because of global competition, specifically regarding labor. Other reasons too but, imho its labor.

I was born in Flint. In Flint you stumbled thru high school just so you were old enough to go to work in the plants. Unskilled labor.

Back in the day an unskilled american worker could earn a middle class living.

Those jobs have either been automated or shipped off shore.

What we ended up with is the worst public education on the planet producing many generations of unskilled and, unemployable citizens. That's ok because the govt will take care of them.

If the unskilled jobs are gone we better start producing some skilled workers.

I passed a high school the other day that had a big sign up that said

Future? Bring it on, we are prepared.

I about chit.

Yeah probably true, but high regulations and corporate taxes are frequently names reasons. China has neither of those.
Several corporations moved or considered moving manufacturing back to the US during the previous administration (‘16-‘20) proves lowering the Corp taxes and cutting regulations is enough to get some to return home. Tariffs probably help too.

I think the wages are a big reason, of course, but when you factor in shipping costs to build something in China, the ship it back here to Chicago and it’s still cheaper than building it here and shipping it to Chicago, that’s pretty astounding.

On top of that, they want a “world economy” or “one world government“. If it’s going to be one world, and it’s going to be “fair”, then everyone plays by the same rules.

 

[Hay Dude]

This is solid, or we should use financial objects like tariffs to flatten the field. Your point is probably the single largest reason we compete so poorly with China. Well said.

Best,

ed

But we don’t (well, we did and that was good, but we stopped).

There such hypocrisy in beating American companies over the head with regulations on workplace safety, wages, etc. then happily importing products made in China made with low wages, in unsafe factories with no regulations.
The same clowns get on FB and virtue signal how they ran a smokestack industry out of the US to China, import the same product back home.
Like the water & air pollution magically go away and the human suffering of low pay and unsafe conditions just disappear.

 

[Hay Dude]

Well, I guess if everything is hunky-dorey in PA, that pretty much settles the climate change debate.

Someone made comments about tornados being excessive this year in PA and I commented that I haven’t seen they were above average and weather seemed pretty typical around here in SE PA.
I even said “of course climate changes” but I guess that doesn’t make your reply sound quite as ”interesting“.
Nice try though.

 

[deezler]

It seems like you just proved the point for the other side. If anything, heat should kill more people but it doesn't, by a factor of 20. The examples you gave of heat deaths are both anecdotal and exceedingly rare.

Hay Dude is 100% right. The system is mostly closed and self correcting. Increases in CO2 lead to increased plant life which decreases CO2 and increases O2. Don't confuse your Hollywood image of hot to mean desert. The historical record and common sense both show that increased global temps would lead to more global free moisture. Anyone who lives in cold climates can tell you about how much drier it is in winter when the moisture is frozen. Think an increase in rainforests and O2.

Most of the scientists who agree on this climate change hoax are using the same data that was proven to be manipulated years ago. You cannot simply travel back in time to collect real data.

I am sorry that you and others have been the pawns of people who have goals in mind that have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with power.

Eh, I'll probably have to log off this thread now, because folks like yourself come in with their minds made up, and don't want to do any research. You already know that the term climate change is just a ruse for the liberal elite to consolidate power, so, your mind won't be changed. We'll just continue to F%^ up the only climate we have and hope you were right, eh?

The conspiracy theory against climate change makes no sense to me. There isn't a clear motive or money trail to follow, it's just a faith-based belief that you deniers seem to have. The amount of research dollars flowing to this field is miniscule. And no one is situated to collect all the green energy dollars if we do make this vital shift. It's nonsense.

But anyway you didn't follow my link or do any research yourself, which only proves my point. You don't want to. Multiple accredited studies show that heat deaths outnumber cold deaths by a factor of 5-to-1 or more. I'm not here to prove that to people who aren't willing to do research themselves.

The good thing about reducing carbon emissions is that it improves human health, cleans our air, takes billions away from the actual, real corrupt conspiracy that y'all ignore, and yes, it would CREATE new jobs if we incentivize it properly. But I guess that's socialism, when somehow billions of subsidy for oil every year, is not.

 

[deezler]

There such hypocrisy in beating American companies over the head with regulations on workplace safety, wages, etc. then happily importing products made in China made with low wages, in unsafe factories with no regulations.
The same clowns get on FB and virtue signal how they ran a smokestack industry out of the US to China, import the same product back home.
Like the water & air pollution magically go away and the human suffering of low pay and unsafe conditions just disappear.

This is well said. 100% agree. Not only was everything you just said true, but for people like me that care about reducing carbon emissions, the international shipping trade is an abomination that needs reduction asap.

 

[deezler]

1. If we determined the climate was indeed changing, but, it was independent of human activity, would that be ok and accepted, or would we try to manage it?

2. On the outside chance the group of nearly everyone that overwhelmingly agrees that we are killing ourselves is wrong, will they take accountability for the tremendous debt they have created? In short, can we get R12 back if it didn't turn out to eat the ozone? Could we get the government out of health care if it somehow didn't bend the cost curve and save us all a couple a grand a year, or if the unthinkable happened and we could keep our doctor of choice?

Good questions, here are answers that are only my personal opinion.

1) No, if human activity did nothing to the climate, it would be incredibly foolish to try to engineer and manage it. Frankly I would be more scared of some of the greenwashed idiots conjuring up schemes to darken the skies and other hairbrained ideas, than I am of the actual climate change underway. We cannot engineer our way out of this mess. The answer is simple, emit less carbon starting decades ago.

2) This question is moot. We already have the data, and it shows rather conclusively that human impact is significantly adding to the changes underway. You want to believe that it is not. But you do not have data showing anything for your side, only a faith and skepticism of what is now presented and agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Mistakes and poor forecasts have been made in the past. That does not invalidate the best available current science. Also what does this have to do with healthcare....

 

[Hay Dude]

So what if the theory that man made climate change turns out to be wrong? We all know scientists were wrong about the coming ice age 40 years ago. We know scientists botched a lot of the recent virus pandemic.
What if they are wrong and we go 30 trillion in debt and chase all manufacturing off shore (only to have the pollution right back here from China) and allow China to become world dominant?
I ask these questions because what we are now undertaking is a fundamental and permanent change to the USA. We are eliminating middle class jobs and letting another country control supply chains, even to the extent that our military weapons now have components made by a country who doesn’t have our best interests.

My question is: is all we are giving up and giving away worth a “scientific“ theory that has HEAVY political influence?

Just asking, because I think it’s too much to give up, especially knowing the same goods are going to be manufactured elsewhere under much more enviromentally dirty conditions and the pollution ends up in the same atmosphere, whether it’s produced in Chicago or China.

 

[deezler]

See, this is where the facts are so easily skewed. This topic comes up all the time and I have personally seen it debunked here on TBN more than once. But I guess it's my turn now:

NO, SCIENTISTS DID NOT PREDICT AN COMING ICE AGE 40 YEARS AGO.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

<p>1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.</p>

skepticalscience.com

That ’70s myth—did climate science really call for a “coming ice age?”

Claims that scientists flip-flopped on climate don't reflect the science.

arstechnica.com

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

In reality, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of an ice age at some point in the future, prompting some pretty sensational media coverage

www.newscientist.com

So, as you can see, it only takes 4 minutes of research and reading to learn that your talking point is completely fabricated. Not by you, but, you believed it. If you base your opinion off of this flawed starting point, your position is more understandable.

But this is why I implore everyone here, and everywhere, to just DO the actual research. I don't take beliefs from news headlines on any network, and neither should y'all.

IMO, we need to restructure and reduce our trade with China regardless of climate change.