Who thinks CLIMATE CHANGE is a hoax?

90 posts / 0 new
Last post
Glacier's picture
I have no idea what you, said

I have no idea what you said, but apology accepted. ha ha

David Killens's picture
When I was a kid back in the

When I was a kid back in the 1950's, my grandfather had a cottage in the wilderness, at a lake named Lake St Peter, close to a national park. I recall very distinctly rowing around in the boat, and fishing a lot. Watching the sunfish in the shallows was a pleasant activity. The point is that back then that lake was very healthy and alive, full of fish and other creatures.

Spring forward to the present, and that lake is sterile, dead. Nothing lives or grows in the water, not even plants. We saw it coming, Lake St Peter was a few hundred miles downwind of Detroit, Chicago, many industrial areas. Acid rain. From this simple observation I can state that man's activities have an affect on the environment. I believe it as fact.

The big question is how much, and what the effects are. But we do affect the environment.

This planet has a carbon cycle, where plants absorb oxygen, convert it into oxygen, grow and build up more and more substance rife with carbon dioxide, die, get buried. If those buried plants lay underground long enough we get oil, hydrocarbons. This is the mechanism where carbon dioxide is removed from the surface and buried under the surface of this planet. The mechanism for release is geological activity, usually observed as volcanoes. This is the cycle, a perpetual and balanced system where the carbon dioxide is kept in balance. There are other checks and balances built in, but this is the gross picture.

But mankind's activities have altered this cycle, all the world's nations combined pump in excess of 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Each year less carbon dioxide is buried under the earth's surface, and more is being released.

The sun is the source of energy, and sunlight is one transport mechanism of this energy. When that sunlight enters the atmosphere, most of it passes through the carbon dioxide relatively unhindered. But when the sunlight strikes the ground it is reflected back, and up. That reflected light is of a different wavelength than when it entered, and this is a critical part of understanding the greenhouse effect. A lot of that reflected light does not pass back out through the atmosphere, but is reflected back by the carbon dioxide, and a lot of that energy is trapped in the atmosphere. There is more energy entering this planet than leaves it, we are warming up.

One argument against greenhouse gasses and global warming is that this planet has endured large scale events, and what is happening today may be one, one which we have no control over. This is one huge bone of contention, a central point of debate. Another argument is that this planet is self-healing. It is, to a degree.

But all large scale changes to this planet guarantee a mass extinction event. The Permian-Triassic extinction event was the largest, almost all life died. In fact, this planet came very close to having all life destroyed. It is estimated that it took 10 million years for the earth to recover. Trust me, since we are on the top of the food chain, we are 100% guaranteed to become extinct.

In summation, man's activities do affect this planet. The carbon cycle has been upset by man's activities, resulting in more of the sun's energy not leaving the planet.

IMO the only points of debate are the rate of change, when we reach the critical point of no return, and whether it can be reversed.

LogicFTW's picture
In my mind, it comes down to

In my mind, it comes down to this: if you care about your kids future, their kids, the kids of the rest of your family and friends, do you really want to ignore the science consensus of human caused climate change?

Also, trust me: billionaires like tRump do not care, their tax free family wealth will shield them regardless of the outcome.

Aswin Swaminathan's picture
It is quite funny to see

It is quite funny to see common men and women here denying man made climate change as if they are experts on this subject and that too based on their absolutely zero understanding of how it works and ignoring the fact that 97% of scientists all over the world agree that man made climate change is real. That is like disagreeing with Einstein on relativity coz you are not convinced with his data while sitting on your cozy couch with nothing but your intuition and logic saying Hmmm einstein might just have missed what I thought of now. When almost every scientist agrees on something it makes absolutely no sense to not get behind that. We aren't the experts on this by any measure. I don't get why the pointless denial of something experts agree so vehemently on.

Glacier's picture
No, that's anti-science

No, that's anti-science reasoning. 97% of scientists and the vast majority of non-sciensts agree, including almost all skeptics and "deniers." When you ask the question is such a way that everyone agrees with the question, and then when someone raises concerns about a totally different question, and you jump up and down claiming "97% agree, so shut up you bigot," it's dishonest and anti-truth.

sodette's picture
97% agree, huh? Uhm... I

97% agree, huh? Uhm... I work in a pharmaceutical company - trust me, most of them believe its all crap. Maybe I work with that other 3%?

It's okay to say that those you know agree or disagree but it's not okay to toss statistics around like they are nothing important. I'm not talking about deniers or believers - I'm saying its not responsible to use numbers in a manner you're doing here. You can call people names all you like, challenge their beliefs or positions - buy pulling statistics out of your ass is not the way to be considered credible.

Just saying.

Glacier's picture
The 97% figure is cooked.

The 97% figure is cooked. Literally. It was invented by John Cook who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good story. The question asked was, " do you believe the earth has warmed, and do you believe humans are contributing to the warming?"

Notice that there's nothing about it being a large part or most of it or if it's catastrophic and the like. In this respect even the Judith Currys and Roy Spencers of the world agree.

sodette's picture
Not true. What experts?

Not true. What experts? What 97%? What scientists? What proof? What absolute evidence are you referring to? This is what is dangerous - it's like talking to a fundamentalist who says "Everyone knows Jesus lived and existed and is the son of God." It's the same with religious people who say "Most scientists believe that God created the heavens and the Earth and evolution is BS." Anyone can make statements like these and claim they are truth... but only ignorant people fall for this kind of generality and leave it unchallenged.

Statistics should never be tossed around irresponsibly like this... especially those that cannot be substantiated any more than Christ rising from the dead.

Truth is a bitch - and she requires logic, reasoning, rational thinking and facts... not opinions, emotions and generalities that cannot be proved.

David Killens's picture
We do not have to blindly

We do not have to blindly follow the consensus of the scientific community.

Any reputable source has to refer to papers and studies. And we can access them. It just requires diligence and the willingness to search. It also requires that the reader learn enough to comprehend the science.

For any individual to learn this requires the willingness and ability to learn, and critical examination. If not then, that individual is wallowing in ignorance and accepting pronouncements from those they place in a position of authority.

And that is exactly how religion thrives, on ignorance and not being willing to find out for yourself. This is a scary parallel.

algebe's picture
Science should always be

Science should always be ready to test minority views on their merits. Lord Kelvin was one of the greatest scientists of his day, and I'm sure 97% of experts in his day agreed with him when he said the Earth was 20 million years old and heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible.

Climate change should be open to scrutiny and challenge like any other field of science. Above all we need to beware of turning it into a kind of religious dogma. Climate change obviously exists. You just need to look at the effects of glaciers on the landscape, for example. The causes of climate change, the role of humanity, and the actions we should take to slow or reverse changes are less obvious.

sodette's picture
Climate change has been a

Climate change has been a part of the earth for what? Billions and Billions of years? What makes people think the climate is static and will never change or that humans are the cause of these changes? Media, mostly. Reframing and spin.

I am all for responsible living on this planet and pollution is a HUGE issue - there is no doubt about that and it doesn't take a scientist to recognize this fact. Corporate pollution is a huge issue - much more so than populace pollution - but that's only an opinion, not based on any statistics. I'm all for a more responsible curation of the planets resources and well being.

However, like religion, anyone who gets emotionally attached to their particular view of climate change based on what has been well established as manipulated facts and figures presented by people who have agendas... should carefully reconsider, sit back, and - like religion issues, do their own research.

https://realityzone.com/inconvenient-lie-introduction - Not everyone believes the hype. G. Edward Griffin wrote The Creature From Jekyl Island, probably the most comprehensive and thorough look at the Federal Reserve and its history ever put together - based on facts easily substantiated historically. His group is clearly not into "conspiracy theories" but trying to discover truth aside from agendas. They had a pretty big event about climate change recently to discuss the facts - heard it was very enlightening.

I believe the temperature is changing - yes.
I believe that the temperature of the Earth has always changed and always will - yes.
I believe that we humans have, as a rule, a huge disregard for the planet and it's well being, preservation - yes.
I believe that global warming and climate change as an agenda is political and not based on good science and is being spun, reframed, twisted - yes.
I believe the topic is economical and political - not based on anything else (who funds the scientists who publish... hmmm?) - yes.
I believe that one can discover the truth if only facts are considered, sources researched, bias eliminated, the goal is truth - yes.

I believe we have about 70 years, give or take, on this earth to live, enjoy life, experience everything we can and die happy and healthy, if we are fortunate and it's our job to take care of the planet while we are here - but not at the expense of our own lives or years or joy or anything else. Sorry, my Ayn Rand just snuck out.

LogicFTW's picture
Climate change has been a

Climate change has been a part of the earth for what? Billions and Billions of years? What makes people think the climate is static and will never change or that humans are the cause of these changes?

Agreed. Once upon a time the earth had anywhere from 10-12 hour days, ocean tides/waves were 40-80 feet tall, we have gone through massive ice ages where the entire globe was covered in ice, and periods of great warmth (comparatively.) The last 40-50 years or so has seen an extraordinary fast rise of global temperature change, and other effects of rapid climate change.

However, like religion, anyone who gets emotionally attached to their particular view of climate change based on what has been well established as manipulated facts and figures presented by people who have agendas... should carefully reconsider, sit back, and - like religion issues, do their own research.

I strongly agree, we must separate emotion from fact. Have you done careful research on this subject using scientific journals from top scientist that study climate change? How sure are you that climate change is not going to be a major problem? How sure are you that it is not human caused? What careful scientific study, by top, highly regarded experts in their field were you able to draw these conclusions from? Are you sure you do not have an emotional bias where you do not want to feel guilty being addicted to the convenience of fossil fuels and all it brings, as well as being able to get a hamburger for 5 bucks? That current rapid climate change issues do not currently affect you yet, but the sacrifices to fix the problem will affect you? I have done quite a bit research on this, the conclusions I have found is climate change is very real, and it is human caused, and will affect anyone alive 100 years from now, greatly if we do not try to do something about it. And like everything else, it will affect the poor and vulnerable first, and far worse than the rich.

The site you link does not seem very scientific at all, but instead just lists various people that talk about various angles why global warming is not real. What is funny is it even immediately discredits itself by saying in its title "global warming." While there is warming going on, any real group that knows the topic at hand, know it is properly called climate change. As the oceans and the world warms up, some areas will cool, the global mean temperature will rise, but we will actually see greater temperature anomalies including cold. We will see greater and greater climate anomalies, hence the name climate change.

I believe that global warming and climate change as an agenda is political and not based on good science and is being
spun, reframed, twisted - yes.

If you think the global warming/climate change debate is based on junk science, what do you consider good science consensus? Scientific consensus on climate change is as strong as the consensus of evolution, the consensus of atomic theory, or quite frankly that the earth is indeed round. For the experts that study it and know how to read scientific findings there is no doubt.

I believe the topic is economical and political - not based on anything else (who funds the scientists who publish... hmmm?) - yes.

Agree with you there, it is very political and economical. No doubt, combating climate change will require a lot of political action and changes in economics (can be for the better, for everyone except those directly involved in fossil fuels.)

I believe we have about 70 years, give or take, on this earth to live, enjoy life, experience everything we can and die happy and healthy, if we are fortunate and it's our job to take care of the planet while we are here - but not at the expense of our own lives or years or joy or anything else

I agree, we should be able to enjoy our lives. I also believe it is our responsibility to have our children (or next generation), and their children be able to enjoy their lives too.

Have you ever considered that you may have fallen for the same tactic that big tobacco used to successfully delay for many years a simple basic well researched and tested truth that cigarettes kill? If you do not think the fossil fuel industry is not employing the same tactics, because well, they are good nice people not interested in protecting their trillion dollar industry, and they care about future generations over reporting large profits every quarter as their investors demand, I feel you are missing an important lesson on how a capitalism based world works.

Also I must add in reference to an earlier post: The US privatized pharmaceutical industry, (namely the drug makers.) Are definitely some of the very worst scum on the planet. I am not saying all of the employees are scum and all of pharmaceutical industry is scum, but a vast majority of the large profitable drug makers are helmed by some of the most vile, greedy opportunistic people on the planet and I personally think they should be rotting away in horrible prison conditions for crimes against humanity.

Just like religion, do not let the more "comfortable" answer steer you away from the truth.

In the end, even if you still have doubts either way, if you care at all about the next generations, why take the risk? The good news is, despite the best efforts of the fossil fuel industry, the world is turning increasingly away from its addiction to fossil fuels, but will it be enough soon enough? So far the data says, no.

sodette's picture


I hear you... and, your emotional attachment to this issue is clearly evident.

"Climate Change" or, what was previously called "Global Warming" is not as supported or fully substantiated as you want to believe but I understand how you would want to promote that these issues are "97% agreed upon by scientists" even if your numbers are skewed.

How much media was Ron Paul given during his presidential campaign? Virtually none. Why? I'm not saying I was for Ron Paul but the truth is media is full of agenda and he did not fit their agenda. Who is media in bed with, do you think? Why would climate change be given so much media attention if those with agenda's did not support it? Think about it. Almost all "green" movements are political and part of some agenda.

If you really care about the planet stop using anything plastic (for obvious reasons), anything metal (processing metal causes a great deal of pollution), anything wood (comes from trees cut down), stop drinking water (there is a global shortage), stop using fossil fuels (for obvious reasons), stop buying Prius's (because making one costs more to the environment than driving an existing twenty year old Cadillac boat until it's dead - as it already exists), start being a vegan (for obvious reasons), stop using anything leather, stop using anything rubber (pollution central for production), stop wearing any material other than naturally grown, stop drinking alcohol (grain is in such need for world hunger), blah, blah, blah.

I have no horse in this race - maybe it's more real than I believe, maybe it's less human caused than you want to believe. What do you want me to do about this? How do you want me to react or live or... what? As a result?

Climate change is devisive, not unifying. Like labels such as liberal or conservative. Nothing productive about them.

And, like religion, it would be good to know the truth about these things but to me, the truth is not going to come from only looking at the issue from one side or from generalities or from media or colleges or anyone whose funding is acquired from government sources (including NASA as was pointed out earlier). Who then is left? Who can we get information from that will bring us closer to the truth? Am I so interested in this that the truth really matters?

What I do know is that everything, even religion and climate change, for me - is my business not anyone elses. How I believe or live my life is not your business. If climate change is real and you can believe half of what you hear - we're all fucked anyway. If we can make positive changes that can help humanity as a whole today and tomorrow - then we should do so.

Yes, CORPORATE capitalism sucks and is the enemy of all humanity. Good luck changing this monolithic behomoth with a climate change agenda. If you really want to change that issue, get rid of all fiat money on the planet and go to a free market capitalist society and that problem would be solved.

Ultimately, knowing the truth about religion has given me and those I love back our lives and helped us understand how to live better, appreciate what we have even more.

Climate change as it relates to me is what? I am not giving up my comforts or my hard earned life in my free country or my mobility or my computers or anything else that will help my remaining existence be full of joy, happiness and whatever. I will do my part to ensure, as best I can, an earth worth passing on to the future but like every generation - it's their job to take stewardship of what they are handed down. If you want to go back to a Quaker living and eliminate all technology or advancements or if you feel that all corporations or producers or medicine or whatever is bad or the motives are only for money - which they well may be (because if those making cannot benefit, why would they do it?) then maybe you also want a perfect socialism and a Bernie Sanders world?

Good for you - but that is not my choice for me.

I'm an atheist... I will take care of the planet in my small, insignificant way as best I can but in the end, I will live my life as best I can until I have none left, my way, in my freedoms until they take them away from me (like religion and government always tries to do in the end).

If you want to burn your years getting passionate about a political issue like climate change - be my guest. But, please don't try to make your truth, your passion, your agenda more to me than it is or try to sell it to me by making generalities or statements of unsubstantiated truth your foundation - I am not stupid enough for two things at least:

1. I'm not foolish enough to buy into the idea that the majority in any movement or anything is right or correct. In fact, I believe that any majority is probably moved more by emotion than fact. The deeper, the more passionate the majority are the less credibility the issues or challenges any minority sees get attention. Majority is not right simply because its majority - often, the opposite is exactly the truth (look at history). The minority is often right - the majority is often proved to be part of confirmation bias and manipulation by others. Not always, but often.

2. History has proved over and over and over again that humanity is simply not as smart as we think we are - me included. I don't know everything and, in fact, the older I get the less I realize I understand. However, there are some facts I possess and one of them is that most people are lazy when it comes to understanding anything deeply and they would rather be told, follow, go with the flow, than be a minority who is right almost every time.

Take those for what you will...

I love your passion however and appreciate your desire for a better world now and in the future... Please tell me you do not believe socialism and taking from those who have to give to those who do not have is how that will be accomplished however. I'd lose a great deal of respect for you at that point.

LogicFTW's picture

Thanks for the long thoughtful reply. You took the time to respond to each point and did not attack but instead stated your thoughts.

I hear you... and, your emotional attachment to this issue is clearly evident.

I suppose some emotion popped out in my words, did not consider myself particularly emotional about it, but I do love to debate about it.

"Climate Change" or, what was previously called "Global Warming" is not as supported or fully substantiated as you want to believe but I understand how you would want to promote that these issues are "97% agreed upon by scientists" even if your numbers are skewed.

I looked at it again, actually it is 97 percent agree on human caused climate change, not just climate change. NASA agrees, AAAS agrees, ACS, AGU, AMA, AMS, APS, GSA, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, IPCC and many more, a page of all the global organizations that agree: http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php To think all these organizations got it wrong, purposely would make climate change hoax for funding dollars, one of the greatest, if not the greatest, by far! conspiracy of all time. Or, the more likely answer: there is a powerful little doubt consensus by scientist there is human caused global warming. To say those numbers are wrong, is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Also this theory is not new, this widespread scientific consensus is not new, are you saying such an enormous conspiracy has been carried out for 30+ years w/o getting caught and widespread exposed?

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

How much media was Ron Paul given during his presidential campaign? Virtually none. Why?

I agree with this paragraph for the most part. All kinds of media coverage bias and agendas being played out for many different things.

Yep we both agree corporate capitalism in its current form sucks, and it is going to be very difficult if not impossible to change it.

Good to hear about the freedoms you gained from seperating yourself from religion.

Climate change as it relates to me is what? I am not giving up my comforts... ... you also want a perfect socialism and a Bernie Sanders world?

You do not have to give up your comforts. Just make slight adjustments. I also do not really expect people to do so, and tech advances may solve the problem anyways. One example being the switch to all electric cars is picking up major momentum. Things like telecommuting, video conference calls and the internet also cuts down on amount of travel we need to do, and will only continue to do so.

Of the major candidates, and I know I am at risk to losing your respect, (that's alright,) Bernie Sanders had by far the most support from me. Even as a succesful, straight white male, that has been afforded every advantage, I feel we need to step away from pure capitalism, and work towards de corrupting the government by getting money out of politics and the government should step in for areas that should not be private and/or for profit. (Life saving medicine/drug/hospitalization industries, prison/criminal justice industry, education, water and environmental protection.) Bernie Sanders certainly was not the perfect candidate, but in my mind, far, FAR better than Trump and Clinton, (Clinton really is quite conservative/moderate.) This does not mean I want socialism. And clearing out the corruption in politics, - let us start with reversing citizens united ruling and corporate personhood and other similar in effect rulings in SCOTUS.

I will live my life as best I can until I have none left, my way, in my freedoms until they take them away from me (like religion and government always tries to do in the end).

I do not think you have to worry about government right now, especially at the current rates of defunding, and deregulation. (Except for military and criminal justice related industry which is being increased rapidly right now under GOP control.) Worry instead about large corporations and morbidly rich are given yet more power to do whatever they like.

If you want to burn your years getting passionate about a political issue like climate change - be my guest.

I actually do not feel I am particularly passionate about it, more like resigned to it, where I try to do what I can. But honestly to borrow your phrase, I do not have a horse in the game really eithir. I am financially well off, (especially compared to the world at large.) And I do not have any kids nor do I plan to have kids. I am an atheist so I am not worried about leaving a legacy behind. I do have concern for friends and family that have kids, but honestly my larger concerns lie elsewhere. I too still make use of plenty of things that add to the climate change problem. I have to fly by plane quite a lot of work, one of the worse activities we can do when it comes to climate change. I am not going to change my job anytime soon. I put solar on my roof, (makes financial sense even if you ignore the environmental benefit.) The next car I buy will likely be electric. I am a bit passionate about people that think climate change is not a problem and think it's all a giant conspiracy theory however. And I like to debate about it, it is a big reason why I am here on these boards. I feel when I talk about climate change, the 97% figure etc those claims are absolutely substatinated. Very well substantiated. And the claims that, those numbers are false are poorly substantiated as well as that human caused climate change is not real are also poorly substantiated.

...issues the minority see are overlooked

I agree with you there, we should always be looking also at what the minorities say, but sometimes we can dismiss it too, there is a tiny minority of people that are convinced the earth is flat. We can examine it briefly and then safely ignore it. Atheism/agnosticism is also a minority, and obviously I am definitely a part of that minority. Time wise, for a long period of time, human caused climate change was the minority opinion/science finding. Hell, science was mostly unaware of all of it until the 20th century.

I absolutely agree with your 2nd point. Perhaps visit the arctic where rapid climate change effects is obvious, or get a science/climatology degree and drill out ice cores and measure the co2 concentration over thousands of years your self. Learn how to read the data and find your own conclusions if you do not trust the current strong scientific consensus.

Please tell me you do not believe socialism and taking from those who have to give to those who do not have is how that will be accomplished however.

I do not believe in socialism, or think it is a viable solution, but right now in the US, uncontrolled capitalism is rapidly reaching its end game, where 1% get to control 99% of the wealth is a major issue that needs to be addressed. Some balance is needed, and as I mentioned before some basic services simply should not ever be for profit/capitalism based. Realize pure unfettered capitalism will always result in truly massive and staggering concentration of wealth and power. Setting up basic safety nets and pushing towards a more heavily subsidized health care system where it basic needs are met for everyone will push the needle on the balance of basic services versus pure capitalism a bit more towards the center. Right now it stuck ever more at pure profits and wealth/power concentration.

In the end is highly unlikely anything you or I do about climate change is going to change anything. It has to be a much larger movement. And that movement is happening, perhaps not fast enough, but it is happening and new technology may just save our collective (future generations) butts.

sodette's picture


Articulate and well presented.

I'm going to do some homework but thank you for patiently replying and sharing your detailed explanations and rationale.

Bernie Sanders - just don't get it or him. I've read through his history and am not impressed with his ideas of a "democratic socialist society." Whether he is better than the other people we had to choose from is, to me, not possible to answer because, in the end, each had their own terribly maladjusted agendas - all, aimed at getting into power and none really possible to enact because...

... Congress.
... America's overall uneducated ignorance and easily swayed masses
... Powerful money driven policies
... Fiat, banks, those who really rule are those who control the money - banks in cahoots with government being the largest issue.
... Corruption and Power in Government
... Inability for Citizens to check and balance government because we've grown too ignorant and soft and our education system has helped dumb us down into good little sheeple (welcome to a socialist run program).

And more.

Thank you for seeing that socialism is not the solution... I'm not sure what is really, but taking from those who earn and making us give it to those who do not - for any reason - is still stealing and as a premise - wrong. It's never right to take from one who has legally and ethically earned what he or she has and give it to another who has not done so.

Is that fair? No. Why? Because some people are short, some are tall, some are beautiful, smart, white, black, fat, thin etc. and that is just life.

What I mean is - there is no way to make the world fair, equal, even, etc.

If you can sing and you make a million dollars selling your albums - do you owe half of those earnings to others who have no singing voice? Should all rap artists give me half of their money because I cannot rap?

Going down this road is dangerous. Government makes no money, produces no products... yet, it gets 50% of everything I earn? I don't understand that.

I get taxed roughly 40% on what I earn.
I then pay 7% - 10% tax on everything I purchase with the 60% of my earnings I have left.
I then pay a tax on everything I OWN that I purchased with the money I earned after paying taxes on it.
I then pay a tax on everything I sell because I don't want to pay taxes on what I've already paid for.
I then pay taxes on any money I made selling anything I've already purchased but want to sell even though I already paid for it.

For what?

For government to give my money away to others who do not earn what they make but who cannot find a value to add to the world that gives them value in return?

My neighbors children went to college for free - because of their race? They now have better educations than my children because my children have another 30 years left paying off their educations.

But, if they would have been free also - who would pay for their educations in the end? Me, you, everyone through higher taxes!

There is no "FREE" medical or education or anything - everything costs money to run - and has to be paid for somehow.

I pay more to the system than any of the people making less than I do - yet, they want more and more and more from ME because I make more? This is not right... is it?

Robin Hood was a thief... a criminal and if he were not stealing from corrupt successful people - shame on him.

Bernie wanted to "give away free college educations, free healthcare, free - blah, blah, blah!" but I know what that means - socialism, taking from those who have more and more to give to those who do not have or who are not willing to work for what they want.

Sorry, can't buy into that.

Anyway, I agree with most of what you wrote and I'll look at the climate change issues more closely - admittedly, however, I love G. Edward Griffin and his group because he wrote such an amazing book (The Creature From Jekyl Island) which changed my perspective on everything when I was younger. I also admire his group for their fighting of collectivism... and climate change, real or spun, is a huge tool of collectivist's agendas as are all "green" issues. So, my skepticism has an origin with a bigger monster than Capitalism in its worst iteration... Collectivism. A much, much more dangerous issue for humanity than most others, in my opinion and experience.

Thank you again however - and I enjoy reading your posts throughout the site.... very well thought out and articulate.


Nyarlathotep's picture
DragonBonz - I love G. Edward

DragonBonz - I love G. Edward Griffin and his group because he wrote such an amazing book (The Creature From Jekyl Island) which changed my perspective on everything when I was younger.

The Creature from Jekyll Island is a conspira-tard book, written by a well known crackpot. I would suggest that a re-examination of your worldview might be in order; but I realize that is not likely to happen. Good luck.

sodette's picture
I don't understand your post.

I don't understand your post... first, because you make a blanket statement about a historical work with well researched and referenced documentation. The majority of the book is a documented history of the Federal Reserve, where is that anything but what it is? My bet is you've never read it... correct?

"Conspira-tard" - I see. And you come up with this position and criticism all by yourself? It's good to know I'm in the company of such an articulate and intelligent peer.

I have studied Keynesian and Austrian economics since the early 90's... and by studied, I mean just that - studied. It's hard to study without actually reading or learning and Griffin's book is certainly a resource that will give you a unique, not mainstream, understanding of economics unlike the dribble we are taught in college.

Like religion - you really shouldn't talk about something without first knowing more about it. I read... study, learn, research, and then make up my own mind about what is right or wrong, true or false, based on ALL the facts I've gathered. Then, I keep learning and challenging my own paradigms through more research, learning, study, conversations, etc.

I have changed my worldview more times in my life than you've probably changed your diapers... instead of attacking, why not make some valid arguments and discuss? What exactly is wrong or false about Griffin's history of the Fed or the books representation of how fiat, fractional reserve systems, etc. work?

I certainly don't agree with everything in the book - or any book, usually. However, what I intimated was - in opposition to what I was being taught in college and everywhere else, Griffin's book certainly gave me a different perspective on economics that was as relevant to my growth, education and understanding of money and economics as reading anything by Christopher Hitchens has been to my understanding of religion.

I don't agree with Hitch on everything he presented either - least of all his position on socialism. That doesn't mean I discount the other 95% of his arguments regarding religion, does it?

The Creature From Jekyl Island is a great foundational book for understanding our current economic mess and much of what is written in it is accurate and true.

I agree with Griffiin on the dangers of collectivism... but does that mean I agree with his views on everything or his presentations in total? No.

Have you read the book? Doubtful... and until you do, perhaps you should be less aggressive in your attacks and generalities.

What have you written and published lately, by the way? I'm curious.

Nyarlathotep's picture
DragonBonz - My bet is you've

DragonBonz - My bet is you've never read it... correct?...Have you read the book? Doubtful

Oh I have read it!

LogicFTW's picture


Articulate and well presented.

Thank you, yours too. It is a pleasant change to have a difference of opinion and be able to discuss it w/o it turning into what a lot of debates dissolve into.

... Congress.
... America's overall uneducated ignorance and easily swayed masses.
And more.

I strongly agree with your list, it is a huge problem. And what possible hope could Bernie have to enact his stuff when house/congress was republican controlled? Could of all been a pipe dream.

...but taking from those who earn and making us give it to those who do not - for any reason - is still stealing and as a premise - wrong.
I get taxed roughly 40% on what I earn.

The tax debate is an interesting and divisive one. I think all of us can agree we hate taxes. I feel being taxed on some well run corruption free programs can be beneficial. Every dollar spent on well run education programs can multiply into 5-10 dollars in return on investment, stuff like that. But a well run education program in this country is something of a misnomer. You pay 40% or so of your paycheck on taxes? Woah, where do you live? State income tax is usually around 5%, (depending on a lot of things.) FICA (ss and medicare) is 15.3, but only half of that is deducted from your paycheck. Federal tax rate is based on income, (or joint income if filed jointly with a spouse.) Is again based on income. Say your state tax was flat at 5%, + 7.6 from FICA leaves 28% of that 40% from federal. If you are an individual that means you are earning well over 200k a year (if no bonuses). Your discretionary income is much greater than that of someone that earns 20k a year. Getting taxed around 20% a year.

Me personally I do not mind getting taxed for things like education, infrastructure, and basic healthcare for all (all of which need to be well run and not corrupted as so they do not end up costing much more than they should.) Whereas I, have no interest in paying for a bloated military, wars, and badly abused criminal justice system or paying interest on loans/credit that the government borrowed before I even became an adult. So much so I give away money to my favorite charities just to get tax write offs to lower my federal tax amount.

I think the real crime here is what the extremely rich pay in taxes. (Almost none at times.) The top 1% should be paying at least the same tax rates as people in the middle class, not substantially less. As it stands now, a rich family can give their kid(s) billions tax free, and then as those billions grow in the market, the kid is only taxed a tiny fraction of his overall income/wealth generation. Frequently in the single digits in comparison to wealth generation. We also know many large corporations pay close to no taxes or instead get federal/state funding/subsidies where the american tax payers essentially pay for profit organizations to be profitable. (Boeing comes to mind.)

My neighbors children went to college for free - because of their race? They now have better educations than my children because my children have another 30 years left paying off their educations.

I never heard of people going to a good 4 year college for free based on their race but that may happen I do not know. Sure plenty of scholarships that tend to target race minorities, (minority races tend to have lower income and lower rates of college graduation.) But those scholarships by and large are not paid via tax dollars. Another 30 years to pay off student loans? Yikes. College education and cost is a whole another debate, and as this post is long I will not go into here.

I agree nothing is free. I just hope that some programs could actually be very efficient if implemented correctly, and if done correctly can be a "tide that lifts all boats." And I will agree lately the US government as a whole has failed to implement efficient government programs originally designed to create better welfare for all. And turning this waste and corruption around may be an impossible task.

Tax supported 4 year education and healthcare is not socialism. There are many democratic countries that have some sort of system like this that works just fine. Including the US. (K-12 education.) Do you think we should completely privatize K-12 education? Why or why not?

Thanks for the compliment on my other postings :)

sodette's picture
The wealthy use loopholes in

The wealthy use loopholes in the tax system to pay less tax as a percentage of their incomes... I own businesses to reduce my full taxable income from my w-2 wages - for instance.

Still, I pay more overall dollars into the tax system than any of my employees... as a percentage of my gross income, maybe not (due to tax write offs and deductions that help me stay in business) but as a dollar amount - absolutely.

Yet, those on the poorer side of the equation also gain huge financial benefits from NOT making money and for qualifying for government assistance - on average, these folks take away $16k - $49k in after tax benefits free. Where do you think that money comes from? (https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_we... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/05/grothman-...)

The real crime here is how middle class America pays for both ends of the stick. The income tax system was only started after 1913 due to, not what it's sold as - social programs, fireman, police, road repair, bridge building, etc. but instead - to begin paying interest on the loans (of fiat) the government was borrowing from the Federal Reserve Bank (instead of creating their own money which would have caused mass inflation).

Personally, I don't feel the income tax should be legal at all... but I don't have an alternative solution for what it now costs to run our government and pay for all of our programs and military, etc.

My original premise still holds though... when is it ever right to take (through coercion or law or taxes or whatever) from one person who has earned what he has and give to another who hasn't earned it? Never.

Why is it that those who have must give more or those who have must give to those who do not?

Better, in my opinion, to create the doors of opportunity for anyone who wants more and provide ways for them to earn what they want, provide value and get compensated for that value - and keep what they earn for themselves and their families.

Yes, stop corporate capitalism - absolutely. But taking from one group to give to another is not the answer.


Equality, equity, do not apply in real life. One lion is faster than one lamb... that is just the way it is.

You CHOOSE to give your money to charity - as do many, many others with excess. That is a wonderful thing - choice. How would you feel if the government MADE you give to a charity fund and then gave that fund out any way they wanted (after paying for administration of your money of course).

I don't know the answers - certainly, I'm no politician. All I am discussing here is principle.

Social programs like Social Security or Public Education or Socialized Health Care - frankly, I think that, yes... there are probably better programs, private programs, that would work for most people. Would they be equitable? Probably not - the wealthy could send their children to better schools, the poor to schools that are not so good. How do you fix that without charging the wealthy from what they earned and giving it to those less fortunate who have not earned it? I have no idea personally...

I see the issues, understand the questions and frustrations coming up with the solutions.. but just don't see how taking from those who have more and giving it to those who have less - through coercion or law - is the solution.

Disparity exists in the physical world... humanity is no different.

Some people are fat, short, ugly, unhealthy, weak, handicapped, mentally challenged, physically disadvantaged, have beautiful singing voices, can't sing a note to save their lives, lead, follow, are lazy or are industrious, etc. Is any of that fair?

Some are born women, some men, some minorities, some majorities. Are these right or wrong?

Should lions sacrifice one lion for every lamb they eat?

Should lambs be responsible for replanting the fields they deplete?

Nothing in this life is fair or equitalbe - survival of the fittest is a reality. Yes, as humans we have the ability to be responsible, to have sympathy or empathy and care - to be more, but in the end, we are all just biological beings, right?

Altruism doesn't work... never has, never will.

The man who sacrifices his life for the drowning child - is dead. Does that mean he should not have saved the child? No... what it means is the choice should be his and nobody has the right to push him into the water and make him give his life for the drowning person. Everyone has a right of self preservation and nobody has an obligation for the wellbeing of their fellow man - at their expense, at the expense of their own rights or happiness.

Principally... if not in reality.

I am not my brothers keeper - that's his job.

If we were all responsible for taking care of ourselves and did so... the world would be a better place. If government corruption and greed were removed - if everyone was given access to work their ass off and get rewarded for the value they delivered... the world would be happier.

Once people stop feeling guilty about having more and those with less stop bitching about it and start doing something of value to fix their own issues - I think the conversation will change.

Who is responsible for living your life? Who is responsible to take care of you? Who is responsible for your paycheck, your education, your value in the workplace? Who is responsible for your health?

When asked like that - what I'm saying makes so much sense, doesn't it?

Nyarlathotep's picture
DragonBonz - My original

DragonBonz - My original premise still holds though... when is it ever right to take (through coercion or law or taxes or whatever) from one person who has earned what he has and give to another who hasn't earned it? Never... But taking from one group to give to another is not the answer...Ever

What about the feeding of indigent children?

sodette's picture
How do you do the quote thing

How do you do the quote thing? I'm still trying to figure that out... ugh.

You asked "What about the feeding of indigent children?"

My answer is the same - voluntarily, out of my own heart and desire, if I want to help others by giving my time, energy, resources, money, home or even life... whose right is it to make me? It should be mine.

I am not for mandatory stealing from one person to give to another person. Once you remove the theft, you'll find there are plenty people who get joy out of giving to others.

Before the crash of 2008 when my family lost everything - and I mean everything.... we had given over $100k in charity to individual families we helped, fed, gave homes to (yes, GAVE), clothed, etc. and all of that because we WANTED to do so...

How much have you given to anyone in your lifetime? That was just over a two year period...

Before you go riding your high horse into the court room - maybe you should examine your own charity. Were you there to give me anything when we lost it all? Would you have given anything to us?

Where is it written that it's my job to take care of anyone but my own family? If more people took care of themselves, we'd have less of these issues to deal with.

How many indigent children would there be if those who can't afford to take care of another human life didn't perpetuate them?

Why is it my responsibility to fix what others irresponsibly created?

I'm not talking about caring here - I'm only presenting a rational point and argument. My heart goes out to these children, yes, been there, done that... my heart goes out to those who have less, who have need, who are not as fortunate as I am or who live in places where religion strips their hopes of any true joy in life by making them live in fear and ignorance.

The point is... where is it my legal fault or accountability for these things?

Armando Perez's picture
I very much agree "on

I very much agree "on principle" that the government should not take from some to give to others, however, there are situations in real life that require it. In my opinion, to make opportunities for all, money is needed, to help raise people out of poverty, money is needed. Allowing people to stay poor for generations is a sure recipe for social distress (as has been shown by history) and we all want a stable, safe society. Another fact to consider is that the happiest countries in the world, year after year, are countries with a strong taxation system that invest a lot in public services and social programs and where there is not a very large income gap.

Having lived most of my life in a socialist/ communist I know for sure that system does not work but I also think that a free for all each one to its own capitalist system will not be the best option either. I think that a middle way can preserve productivity and freedom while at the same time having strong support for the weakest members of the population, avoiding unrest and lifting all boats.

What is important, to me, is to cut the association between the political work and power and privilege. If a congressperson or president could not get more in salary and privileges that the average citizen, only those really interested in serving the people would choose that path. Now, all the power and privileges associated with political positions practically guarantee that most people going for a political career are greedy, power- hungry individuals who do not see themselves as servants of the public but as their shepherds.

David Killens's picture


"Thank you for seeing that socialism is not the solution."

The Interstate Highway System was a public works project, billions of dollars of federal money was spent to construct this system that benefited everyone. But any definition, this project was socialism at it's best. So was the Hoover Dam.

To assume that one political dogma can solve every issue is false because every dogma has it's own weaknesses.

To solve major problems, instead of accepting a political dogma, just look for a valid solution. Politics may have created the problem, but one does not need politics to solve problems, just the willingness to devise a solution dependent on the real problem, with a complete understanding on what the actual problem is.

And that is the problem with climate change, politics is driving the conversation instead of the science and facts.

sodette's picture
Hello David,

Hello David,

Very astute observations - I agree, the solution, I believe, probably lies in a combination of approaches, depending on the goals and circumstances in every situation. I'm a strong proponent of having a stance on issues, not taking a position based on a blanket philosophy or political position.

Well said, good examples.

Interstates, public works projects, "New Deal" programs kept American's employed and I think was not all bad - or good. We now have way too many government jobs however, I'm not sure that's really what was intended. The Hoover Dam was another great example of a worthy project.

As are some bonds, initiatives, programs, etc.

I'm not totally against socialized plans - hell, when we all pitch in to buy pizza for lunch, nobody really cares who gives a few dollars more or who eats more than everyone else - we usually buy the pizza to help get us through getting the job we are doing - each person pulling their own weight in that project.

And, frankly - I don't have nearly as many answers as I do criticisms and questions. A quality I wish I had more time to work on myself.

Great comment however, thank you.

Nyarlathotep's picture
For now I'll just post the

For now I'll just post the first paragraph from the Wikipedia (emp. mine) article on Mr. Griffon; so those who don't have an idea about him can get a feel:

G. Edward Griffin - ...is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, author, lecturer, and filmmaker. He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes false theories about the motives behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System...Griffin's writings include a number of views regarding various political, defense and health care interests. In his book World Without Cancer, he argues that cancer is a nutritional deficiency that can be cured by consuming amygdalin, a view regarded as quackery by the medical community...He is an HIV/AIDS denialist, supports the 9/11 Truth movement, and supports a specific John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. Also, he believes the actual geographical location of the biblical Noah's Ark is located at the Durupınar site in Turkey.

sodette's picture
I certainly do not idolize

I certainly do not idolize Griffin or agree with all of his perspectives or topics. Wikipedia says it so it must be true, right? I mean, that is certainly a scholastically acceptable reference, right? Bahahahaha!

Look, I am no hero worshipper here - I disagree that the HISTORY presented in the Creature From Jekyl Island was anything but accurate. Griffin's presentation of fiat and fractional reserve systems or his historical references to the economics of the US are generally documented and well researched.

However, I don't hold his - or anyone else' - viewpoints as gospel. All I alluded to which seems to have set off your wrath was that his book opened doors for me to a new way of looking at what I was being told - and helped me to understand that maybe what I was being told wasn't the whole story - about economics.

Christopher Hitchens books - same
Bertrand Russell's writings - same
Richard Dawkins - same

History books about Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine and Christopher Columbus, etc., have certainly given me a different perspective than what was taught in school about these folks.

My veering outside of the mainstream studies of what was told to me about religion and god, asking the questions and looking for the answers in all potential resources, helped me to see the world in a different light.

I could say that seeing my first Playboy magazine changed my life as well.. but you'd probably just tell me those girls were photoshopped - my response would be the same - "And your point is?"

A change of perspective and going to sources that the mainstream do not like, approve of or even consider credible, is exactly where I find growth. Not always truth, but certainly the ability to think outside of the mainstream conformist boxes we are all forced into.

Tell me - where is reading more and understanding all perspectives while seeking truth wrong?

Also, just because mainstream doesn't like someone or something doesn't mean it's wrong - it just means it pisses people off who don't like what is being said.

affable atheist's picture
Earth’s climate over the

Earth’s climate over the milleniums has always been in a state of flux. Whether mankind is influencing that change now is the question. I don’t believe it is, however anything that reduces polution is a positve to a degree. It is unfortunate that those promoting man’s causing climate change have falsified data to promote their cause. In my country (Australia) our government is spending too much in support of this present hysteria in the form of a carbon tax, for a possible reduction so negligible it is almost nothing. Meanwhile as a consequence electricity prices have soared, jobs are being lost, prices are escalating. For what? In my opinion Al Gore is an idiot! It’s just like religion....some people will believe anything if the numbers of others supporting something are high enough!

Nyarlathotep's picture
affable atheist - It is

affable atheist - It is unfortunate that those promoting man’s causing climate change have falsified data to promote their cause.



Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.