Four days until Darwin's 208th birthday. *
- Thread starter op2
- Start date
It's funny to me how some think that Darwin's theory undercuts religion. Almost as proof. The Creator of the universe can use any method he chooses to create humanity, including evolution And even for those that don't believe we are descended from monkeys (since no such proof exists), that doesn't prove that forms of evolution doesn't exist.
The Theory of Evolution doesn't say that we were descended from monkeys.
Also, whether Darwin's theory undercuts religion is just a matter of philosophical discussion. It doesn't mean anything beyond its entertainment value The reason evolution becomes a big thing isn't because some say it undercuts religion and some say it doesn't but rather because some (like 30-40% of the country) say evolution simply didn't happen.
I don't think Darwin's theory says anything about a Creator one way or the other. If there is a Creator of the Universe or Earth or Humanity or whatever then It is so powerful that It can do anything it wants and it's all beyond us anyway.
What the country thinks in terms of whether it's true does matter though. Having a significant segment of the country being uninformed on basic science is bad IMO.
Good, so we agree that Darwin's theory is NOT a tool that is effective in arguments against a Creator. Refreshing to hear a non believing liberal admit this. I give you credit.
Again, they may disagree with the theory. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I disagree with the man made global warming theory, as do many scientists, nothing wrong with that, right? Skepticism is central to science, right? If they disagreed that 1+ 1 = 2, that is a much different story.
Darwin's theory doesn't argue against a Creator but nothing I've ever seen argues for one. One (bad) argument for one is "How do you explain X?" and to the extent that there is one less thing (how humans came about) to apply that to Darwin's theory kind of implicitly argues against it but I don't think that really counts because "How do you explain X? isn't really a proper argument for it in the first place.
Nothing wrong with believing whatever you want but while "many" scientists disagreeing with global warming theory may be true in absolute numbers, it's not true in terms of percentages. Human-caused global warming is mainstream science at this point. That doesn't mean it's 100% certain and irrevocable because nothing in science ever is (which is one reason why science is so successful).
You're being a bit disingenuous. Many libs argue that Darwin disproves religion. You know it, I know it.
What is human caused global warming? Does this mean man is responsible for 100% of warming? Does this mean man is responsible for 50% of warming? 5%?
Since our emergence from the Little Ice Age in approximately 1850, the planet has warmed. It is called natural variation. Please tell me what percentages of scientists believe man is responsible for 100% of global warming? 50%? 5%?
And please don't cite that thoroughly debunked 97% figure.
Take it up with the people that make a career out of studying this stuff. I don't know if the figure is 97% or not but that exact number doesn't matter.
And people can argue that Darwin's theory disproves evolution or not. Whatever they like. Just because someone else believes something doesn't mean I do.
Thank you for recognizing my rational thought.
I don't know the answer to your question. I know there's an enormous out there to read on it though. Go for it. I'm not a climate scientist. But lots of other people are.
I don't know if there is a consensus of the percentage caused by humans but how would you know? You've looked into it less than me (what the mainstream scientists say, not the deniers) and you're trying to tell me what they think?
I don't know the specifics of the consensus but I know the consensus is that we should start cutting back on putting carbon in the air. Even the Republican politicians in the other thread I started today agree with that.
I don't know if there is one because I haven't looked into it. But the people that study is generally agree that we need to reduce the amount of carbon we put into the air. And since doing so will also reduce the funding for Islamic fundamentalists I think we can kill two birds with one stone.
If your last point is the case, then why did Obama deny Keystone? Why did he deny Dakota? Why did he place huge amounts of federal reserve off-limits to energy!?
Scotus already overturned the draconian EPA rule on coal. .001% impact on global warming, are you kidding me? How many careers, jobs, companies, lives destroyed?
I don't know much about Keystone or Dakota so I can't speak to that.
Jobs and careers are constantly being destroyed (and created) by a changing economy. How many people whose job it was to go out and kill whales so humans could burn whale oil lost their job when people switched from whale oil to coal?
It wasn't a changing economy, it was all due to regulation that was deemed unconstitutional later. Again, it impacted .001% on global warming and he destroys all of these jobs, companies, and even large parts of states.
If you haven't recently, drive through southern West Virginia and take a look. Or drive through eastern Kentucky.
When I first went to WVU (from out of state) about 35 years ago and became familiar with it and how it was so dependent on coal, I (naively) thought in terms of the world beginning at that time. "So, WV is highly dependent on coal, over time it'll diversify and things will be fine." It didn't occur to me that WV had been so dependent on coal for decades already or that it wouldn't change.
WV doesn't have to be so dependent on coal but it is anyway. Coal is an entrenched there and they want to keep WV dependent on coal. But take note that all those decades WV was so tightly hitched to coal, WV was still like 48th or 49th or 50th in most economic indicators. Coal wasn't turning WV into an economic paradise. Coal nor the coal companies were doing WV any favors. They were just taking what they could while they could and they'll continue to do so.
Like everything, coal is going away sooner or later. WV should be diversifying away from it.
And Obama's approach was to force diversification over a very short pretty time allowing for no transition whatsoever. If the marketplace decided that coal was no longer priced properly or no longer a fuel of choice, fine. But this happened through government edict. West Virginia does need a more diversified economy, what it doesn't need is unconstitutional regulations that destroy a significant part of their state economy.
You're a liberal with compassion. Drive through southern West Virginia. Drive through eastern Kentucky. Then let me know what you think. Devastation is not too strong a word.
WV should have become diversified long before Obama came along. I think it's been a long time since the marketplace was deciding the economy in WV. It took me a long time to figure it out but I've finally realized that king coal isn't going to give up power in WV until it is dragged away kicking and screaming. Other energy sources could be free and the power structure in WV would still find a way to say that coal is preferable.
Add to that the increasing amount of mechanization in the mining of coal, and each miner becomes much more efficient. The coal companies don't need as many miners to make a profit. That doesn't make the coal companies evil, but the point is that if you returned coal to the giant it was in the 60's and 70's, you'd still have a huge unemployment problem.
Mechanization had nothing to do with unemployment created by this piece of regulation. This unconstitutional piece of regulation, I might add. All to achieve a .001% drop in global warming.
The lengths that people go to to defend this unconstitutional piece of legislation and unbelievable impact it had in many parts of West Virginia, Kentucky Pennsylvania and Ohio is amazing. This would be a reasonable discussion if coal had simply become non-competitive against other fuels. That is not the case. This is all due to government intervention and illegal regulations.
Mule, what you seem to be ignoring are all the supportive jobs created around those mining operations. Manufacturing jobs to manufacture that mining equipment. Jobs within coal communities to support and provide services to all those employees. It has a ripple of fact that is tremendous.
I don't deny that supportive jobs would be created, but the point is that the number of miners required to dig the same amount of coal is much smaller now than when coal was booming. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that the mining equipment was manufactured in WV, or at least not much of it. If you have to ship coal, that's done by train and truck for the most part. Truck driving is already the number 1 profession in the state of WV. How many more jobs would that create?
The drop in US steel production, especially in western PA, hurt WV coal in at least as big a way as any regulation. That was a huge loss of consumer base.
Add into the equation that fracking has made natural gas insanely cheap relative to historic prices while the cost of coal has at best been stagnant, and you see another market force working against coal.
I'm not saying that regulation had nothing to do with the problems coal's facing. I'm saying that if you hold coal production constant from 1965 'til today, you are employing a fraction of the people to get the same amount of coal out of the ground. You are creating an economic crisis in the state without diversification no matter what. Half the reasons stated in favor of mountain top removal was that it allowed for industrial use of the flattened area. How many of those areas added an industry?
I believe you are significantly underestimating the amount of jobs created outside of the actual mine. There were many many many small manufacturers for underground mining operations. If you've never been under ground, and I have many many times and have spent many years in the industry, there are lots of support equipment used in conjunction with the big long wall minors. Shuttle cars. Roof Bolters. Utility vehicles. Conveyor belts. Transportation vehicles. Maintenance equipment. Rail equipment. Rock dust equipment. Safety shelters. And I could go on and on.
Again, I would have zero problem with these mines being impacted by market forces. That is how capitalism works. That is not the case here. Look at all the bankruptcies and jobs lost just during this regulatory period. That will tell you all you need to know. These regulations had a huge impact on the industry.
And if you don't believe me, go talk to some mine operators. They know more about their business then you or me and they can tell you how and why this massive downsizing and bankruptcies happened.
Don't forget all of the consumer businesses impacted. The decrease in tax base from all of this is also having an impact on schools and many other state jobs. It's not just coal and the coal support industries impacted. Restaurants, car dealerships, construction companies, real estate, retail, etc. This crushed WV in so many ways beyond coal. That's what is lost in all of this. People just focus on the coal aspect and don't realize everything was impacted negatively.
I tried to make your point in an earlier post but yours is much more thorough and better stated than mine. You are exactly right.
Frocking without question is a major competitor. However, why did all the bankruptcies and all the massive job loss occur because of this particular regulation? Been flagging for many many years, and it wasn't until this regulation was put in place that the decimation started.
Think about it, are coal fired power plants owned by utilities with long-term contracts going to be shut down and brand-new capital invested in natural gas turbines and other equipment going to be invested if there is not a tremendous, long-term price difference between the commodities? The answer is no. The only reason to do so, it's massive government regulation. That is exactly what happened and it was blatantly unconstitutional.
I understand and agree. The issue I see is a lack of foresight in trying to attract other industry. Mechanization was already reducing the number of people employed in the industry. That reduces the tax base and money to be spent by miners, although to a lesser degree. But putting all of the state's eggs in the coal basket is a bad idea. It always has been.
