If there were just enough food for the entire humanity..

[Scout]

Magical thinking, Papa.

[Papaphilly]

Scout wrote: "Magical thinking, Papa."

Oh I do not think so. Look at the last fifty years and compare to today.

[Scout]

Maybe you could reply to post 509 point by point, and I'd take you seriously.

[Papaphilly]

I do not need you to take me seriously Chicken Little. The world is better fed than ever and famines are political. Air is cleaner and water is cleaner than fifty years ago.

[J.]

Ubiquitous Food Additive Alters Human Microbiota and Intestinal Environment
https://news.gsu.edu/2021/11/30/ubiqu...

[Scout]

Papa, if you don't want to engage in reasoned debate, that's fine. No need to belittle me with name calling.

[Papaphilly]

Scout wrote: "Papa, if you don't want to engage in reasoned debate, that's fine. No need to belittle me with name calling."

As being told that you don't take me seriously? Way to go pot.

[Alan]

Scout wrote: "There are 81 million more people this year than last. That's 81 million more who drink water, use natural resources to build shelter and encroach on forested land, who produce trash and waste every..."

You are of course absolutely right. If anything this is only scratching the surface. With all the statistics that we have on loss of biodiversity, shortage of clean water, climate change, etc. it's simply miraculous that you still get people living in denial.

Not to mention that the vast majority of scientists are in consensus, but somehow they are the ones part of a major political agenda. Like a major worldwide scientific conspiracy. Meanwhile the good folks who want to keep burning coal are never motivated by economic and political issues.

[Scout]

I get your point, Papa. Sorry about that.

[Scout]

Nik wrote: "Scout wrote: "Or we could just do something to reduce population.."

We are talking, Chinese are doing: what with unleashing the virus and encouraging 1 kid families in the past :)"

OK Nik, you made me smile again :-)

[Papaphilly]

Scout wrote: "I get your point, Papa. Sorry about that."

NAH, do not worry about it. It is all good. If we cannot get testy with each other once in a while, what is the point.? It means we are invested in each other.

[Scout]

Thanks. Good deal. I'm all for keeping things civil. We all slip at times, only human.

[[deleted user]]

2 New Science Papers Cast Further Doubt on Human Contribution to Climate Change

In a paper to be published next month in the journal ‘Health Physics’, 3 physics professors led by Kenneth Skrable from the University of Massachusetts conclude that the amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning between 1750 and 2018 was ‘much too low to be the cause of global warming’.

https://journals.lww.com/health-physi...

Ascribing all climate change to just 1 cause – the burning of fossil fuel – is also given short shrift by the German physicist Dr Frank Stefani. In a paper published last year, the researcher at the Helmholtz Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf dismisses the ‘illusionary claims of an overwhelming scientific consensus’.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.05183.pdf

For those of us without Ian's expertise, an interesting article about this:

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/30/w...

The covid saga is coming to an end but I believe it was only a warm-up exercise for the cultists. Expect the globalists' push for net zero (or ‘war on climate change’) to include more lockdowns, mask mandates, universal digital identification projects, and a new attempt by the elite to completely control us.

[Nik]

Beau wrote: "....a new attempt by the elite to completely control us..."

Some say it's an eternal struggle btw privileged and disenfranchised

[Scout]

Politicians depend on donations from the rich elite, and then they become the rich elite. Do they feel the effect of inflation at the grocery store and the gas pump? Do they know what it's like to be a working person trying to pay the bills? I agree with you, Nik. A struggle between the privileged and the disenfranchised. But I don't think our constitution meant for our representatives in government to be the privileged and the governed to be the disenfranchised.

[Nik]

Scout wrote: "But I don't think our constitution meant for our representatives in government to be the privileged and the governed to be the disenfranchised. ..."

I think so too, but instead of government for the people, you/we get government for the few...

[Scout]

I'm not sure how many people feel this way, but I hope there will be a ground roots movement for change. Sadly, the young are usually the ones to do this, and in our country the young either disregard the Constitution and founding principles in favor of Marxism or are so dependent on government handouts that they don't want change. I think we may be, well, fracked :-)

[Papaphilly]

Scout wrote: "Politicians depend on donations from the rich elite, and then they become the rich elite. Do they feel the effect of inflation at the grocery store and the gas pump? Do they know what it's like to ..."

Really? Who do you think wrote the Constitution?

[Ian]

Which is why some of us here are quite happy to have a harmless monarchy. If we were to change to a republic we would need a constitution, which would be written by those self-serving politicians we know we have. At least the US constitution was mainly written by people who were really thinking about the country. Amendments are another matter.

[Scout]

Papa, true, the framers were of the privileged class. But they added the Bill of Rights, which limited the power of government and gave all citizens, regardless of class, certain rights. They didn't intend for representatives in government to be the privileged and the governed to be the disenfranchised. They intended our government to be, as Lincoln described it, "of the people, by the people, for the people . . ." What say you, Papa?

[Papaphilly]

Scout wrote: "Papa, true, the framers were of the privileged class. But they added the Bill of Rights, which limited the power of government and gave all citizens, regardless of class, certain rights. They didn'..."

Without getting into a full blown history lesson that will kill this group, your statement is factually wrong, but your overall point is taken. The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with voting, it was mostly about individual rights vs. Federal Government power.

The Constitution never set what the requirements were for voting, except no Religious test can be required to hold office, the voting requirements was left to the states and every state had some requirement of being property owners. What gets confused much of the time is that property is confused with land owning. So owning a horse is property as is a business and of course land. This lasted for 39 years after the ratification before non-property owners could vote. Generally speaking it was less than 10% of the population of men could vote up to then.

It was not until much later that the Constitution added in other Amendments about voting rights which protected or gave rights. None of those Amendments were before the Civil War and the last voting right Amendment was in 1971.

[J.]

The Bill of Rights exists to delineate how to hold the Federal government in check.

The simplest way to understand it is to read it.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-doc...

[Scout]

Well, Papa, I don't know where you got that I was talking about voting rights. Show me how you got that idea. Quote me.