US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1068

On May 22 2014 06:35 Roswell wrote:
Of course I do, I clearly do
\
Im just, not sure if I have what it takes to stop climate change

On May 22 2014 05:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think you vastly overestimate the ability of the proverbial common man to wipe his own ass.

The idea that free market forces can drive us towards adopting environmentally-friendly policy and technology has been pretty debunked. A company does not directly pay for pollution and damages because our planet's health is basically a tragedy of the commons thing. Thus, the lack of impact on their bottom line means they don't care.

I think I am fortunate enough that I will be able to get a job that will "be worth" my education after graduation (probably something over 200K, minus scholarships). I hope college prices don't go up any further though, because at the rate this stuff is going I see myself at the tail end of a the era where the middle class can afford higher education.

On May 22 2014 03:57 aksfjh wrote:

We have studies that show that adults with student debt are much less likely to own a home, at the same time that we're seeing more student debt. I think (young) people would rather own their own home, but find it economically unfeasible or undesirable next to serious student debt obligations.

On May 22 2014 06:47 Wolfstan wrote:


Call me an old fashioned idealist but the debate needs strength from both sides of the political spectrum, liberals outraged over the things wrong with society and how to fix them bringing public awareness to issues. The right pushing back and saying change for the sake of change isn't worth it. It is largely to the credit of the left that emissions are less than they were 20 years ago. They did this by bringing in awareness to young minds to get into climate studies and innovation. I'm going to give the right credit for slowing the changes that allowed us to wait for technology to catch up while maintaining prosperity.

On May 22 2014 06:35 Roswell wrote:
Of course I do, I clearly do
\
Im just, not sure if I have what it takes to stop climate change

On May 22 2014 06:47 Wolfstan wrote:


Call me an old fashioned idealist but the debate needs strength from both sides of the political spectrum, liberals outraged over the things wrong with society and how to fix them bringing public awareness to issues. The right pushing back and saying change for the sake of change isn't worth it. It is largely to the credit of the left that emissions are less than they were 20 years ago. They did this by bringing in awareness to young minds to get into climate studies and innovation. I'm going to give the right credit for slowing the changes that allowed us to wait for technology to catch up while maintaining prosperity.

On May 22 2014 07:39 Roswell wrote:
While I didnt know my http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783 source was talking about greenland, I apologize, but every single other graph you look at "globally" what we have right now is a plateau, and even the past 100 years of warming is 1/100th the ratio of the bigger changes that have happened over the past 10,000 years, so to jump on the bandwagon with no cause / correlation and base our entire future on that seems pretty goofy. I mean can u imagine if we had the present day technology and society right at the end of one of the ice ages? People would practically be murdered for driving to the grocery store. "Kill him before he kills us!"

On May 22 2014 08:04 Roswell wrote:
The general consensus? Is that what this comes down to? Science should always have debates, for without them we would still believe the earth is flat. Not 15 years ago the general consensus would be that the earths global temperature would exponentially increase, and yet here we are, the temperature has plateaued.

On May 22 2014 08:04 Roswell wrote:
The general consensus? Is that what this comes down to? Science should always have debates, for without them we would still believe the earth is flat. Not 15 years ago the general consensus would be that the earths global temperature would exponentially increase, and yet here we are, the temperature has plateaued.

On May 22 2014 08:12 Nyxisto wrote:


Do you even know what exponentially means?(the only thing that was supposed to exponentially increase is our co2 output, not the earths temperature) And regarding the flatness of the earth. I'm not entirely sold that this isn't the case, maybe we should also start discussing that?

On May 22 2014 07:36 ticklishmusic wrote:


It's not change for the sake of change. That implies that climate change is something neutral and generally harmless, when evidence suggests that it is, in general (and in a vast majority of specific cases) detrimental to the capability of Earth to sustain human (and other) life.

Generalizing left and right so neatly is simplifying the political debate about the environment far too much. I mean, we also ensured prosperity for some length of time with sub-prime mortgages and bundling debt, but hey that turned out to be what we call a bubble. Continued pollution is effectively borrowing against our future prosperity-- this can either be extremely long-term stuff like rising sea levels requiring evacuation of coastal cities, or closer-to-home stuff like reduced worker productivity because of health problems.

On May 22 2014 08:25 Roswell wrote:

Most predictions from the 90s argued that by 2010 the global temp would rise by 2 degrees. The link shows why "probably" the methods were wrong Link

But now we are supposed to know for real this time, and anyone who says otherwise will be labeled a "flat earther" seems legitimate.
Edit: no but really when you start blaming the next hurricane on CC then gg

On May 22 2014 08:48 GreenHorizons wrote:


I seriously hope you're reasonably young. Predictions are very different than simply acknowledging the observations...

No one is against a debate. Just as Nyx was pointing out, let's just not debate concepts/facts that for practical purposes are settled/irrelevant. (see my YEC's stuff)

Burning fossil fuels has consequences beyond global warming and has real immediate health consequences as well as many other drawbacks.


What do scientists have to say/do in order for conservatives to realize

1. man--made climate change is real.

2.It needs immediate and significant (not drastic) action.

3.'Self interests'/market magic alone won't solve this problem without government action

????

Like really what do they need to say/do?

On May 22 2014 08:57 Roswell wrote:

Last I checked I burned fossil fuels to get to work today, seems pretty good to me.

On May 22 2014 08:48 GreenHorizons wrote:

What do scientists/ 'The Left' have to say/do in order for conservatives to realize

1. man--made climate change is real.

2.It needs immediate and significant (not drastic) action.

3.'Self interests'/market magic alone won't solve this problem without government action

????

Like really what do they need to say/do?

Patent troll bill, lacking consensus, tossed out

Tech industry hopes of a solution to the problem of patent trolls became more elusive Wednesday when lawmakers gave up on patent legislation after being unable to reach a compromise on some details.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced Wednesday he's pulling the patent troll legislation for the foreseeable future because of an inability to resolve some outstanding issues.

"Unfortunately, there has been no agreement on how to combat the scourge of patent trolls on our economy without burdening the companies and universities who rely on the patent system every day to protect their inventions," Leahy said in a statement.

As we noted recently, a disagreement between tech companies and universities over "fee shifting," or who pays the legal fees when patent troll lawsuits fail, has been a stumbling block for lawmakers. It was one of a handful of issues that have divided senators in recent weeks as they tried unsuccessfully to reach a compromise.

The Senate bill was similar to legislation that easily passed the House in December, both aimed at reducing lawsuits brought by non-practicing entities, or patent trolls.

Leahy's decision to pull the legislation wasn't totally unexpected since he had previously delayed committee action on the measure five times while lawmakers tried to placate concerns raised by tech and pharmaceutical companies, academia and other industries(retail, financial services, etc.) with a stake in the debate.