EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7243
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 02 2017 08:35 Shield wrote: You don't believe in global warming? It must suck to have no appreciation for science. You don't believe politicians seeking fame can do harm to the science? Al Gores radically ludicrous claims haven't gone unnoticed. I should rest easy that we had until 2016 to do huge, global changes, or we're all toast ... it's 2017, relax, we're in unavoidable apocalypse. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 02 2017 10:07 Danglars wrote: You don't believe politicians seeking fame can do harm to the science? Al Gores radically ludicrous claims haven't gone unnoticed. I should rest easy that we had until 2016 to do huge, global changes, or we're all toast ... it's 2017, relax, we're in unavoidable apocalypse. which claims specifically are the ludicrous ones? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
On April 02 2017 10:07 Danglars wrote: You don't believe politicians seeking fame can do harm to the science? Al Gores radically ludicrous claims haven't gone unnoticed. I should rest easy that we had until 2016 to do huge, global changes, or we're all toast ... it's 2017, relax, we're in unavoidable apocalypse. The Arab Spring has been linked to climate related food insecurity. Global warming is more complicated than heatstroke and drowning. There is a reason the Pentagon considers it the greatest threat to American security. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44347 Posts
"That would have been great!" And it turns out that that conversation is pretty accurate, even though one might easily think that they were using hyperbole for dramatic effect. MoJo even fact checked the whole thing: http://m.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/11/climate-desk-fact-checks-aaron-sorkins-climate-science-newsroom | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 02 2017 11:12 KwarK wrote: The Arab Spring has been linked to climate related food insecurity. Global warming is more complicated than heatstroke and drowning. There is a reason the Pentagon considers it the greatest threat to American security. Climate insecurity or climate change insecurity? And is this related to April fools day? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
On April 02 2017 11:45 Danglars wrote: Climate insecurity or climate change insecurity? And is this related to April fools day? I'm not sure you understand your own question. Civilizations are built on a certain number of assumptions. Food prices, growing seasons, sea levels, that kind of thing. Regular and expected things, such as floods on floodplains, are fine because they're assumed within the system. Unexpected conditions are less fine because they disrupt the existing status quo. Climate insecurity is climate change insecurity because the status quo is considered security. If we relied upon growing large amounts of food in a desert then we'd have climate insecurity due to the catastrophe of being unable to get food because of the climate in the desert. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35150 Posts
On April 02 2017 12:10 LegalLord wrote: Bullshit artists masquerading as the voice of science diminishes collective respect for all scientists if they don't call them out. Claiming a climate apocalypse that didn't happen is dangerously close to that. Then can we laugh Reganomics out of political talk? Because that hasn't done shit either. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 02 2017 12:17 KwarK wrote: Legal, are you of the view that we shouldn't report on an impending apocalypse until after the apocalypse is over in order to avoid appearing like alarmists? Better be a real apocalypse if you claim it is one. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On April 02 2017 09:29 Leporello wrote: It's still wrong to take the Republican position. Even if you think burning the world's fossil-fuels (made from fossils, a million-to-billion year process) will not irrevocably harm the environment and the future of mankind, you're still just essentially arguing a completely selfish and ignorant position. One of the more amusing stances on the issue (from my PoV) is this argument: 1) We're in the middle of a series of ice ages. 2) We do not know what triggers the initial cooling of an ice age. 3) CO2 can offset the initial cooling of an ice age. 4) An ice age would be disastrous to human civilization. 5) Therefore we should maintain an elevated CO2 level to reduce the risk of an ice age. It's science-backed, derived from the longer term (10^4s of years) climate record. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 02 2017 11:57 KwarK wrote: I'm not sure you understand your own question. Civilizations are built on a certain number of assumptions. Food prices, growing seasons, sea levels, that kind of thing. Regular and expected things, such as floods on floodplains, are fine because they're assumed within the system. Unexpected conditions are less fine because they disrupt the existing status quo. Climate insecurity is climate change insecurity because the status quo is considered security. If we relied upon growing large amounts of food in a desert then we'd have climate insecurity due to the catastrophe of being unable to get food because of the climate in the desert. Food insecurity such as crops for subsistence farmers and changing climates like the patterns of rainy seasons and dry spells I can understand. They're very established throughout history. The modern phenomenon is people that expect carbon dioxide emissions to flood us, starve us, burn us, kill us in a thousand different proposed ways. And historically, the time periods are drastically different ... just ask somebody if they fear something 50 years in advance or 5 years in advance. So for a broad term, I stand by clarifying with people if they (laughably) claim the Arab Spring is related to middle eastern fears of a future anthropogenic climate change apocalypse compared to their short-term economic situations. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 02 2017 13:04 Danglars wrote: Food insecurity such as crops for subsistence farmers and changing climates like the patterns of rainy seasons and dry spells I can understand. They're very established throughout history. The modern phenomenon is people that expect carbon dioxide emissions to flood us, starve us, burn us, kill us in a thousand different proposed ways. And historically, the time periods are drastically different ... just ask somebody if they fear something 50 years in advance or 5 years in advance. So for a broad term, I stand by clarifying with people if they (laughably) claim the Arab Spring is related to middle eastern fears of a future anthropogenic climate change apocalypse compared to their short-term economic situations. The problem about catastrophic events and related risk is that you're not going to find data for them if you look back in time. That's what makes them catastrophic in the first place. Ask the dinosaurs how that strategy worked out for them. Probably one of the reasons some Conservative people don't believe in them. Meteors pose a serious problem to tradition based decision making. The financial crisis in 2008 wiped out more wealth than pretty much all financial crises combined before. Do you think it was smart to ignore the warning signs because our historical common sense told us that all will be well? When you assess risk you better include the unknown tail events that you've not encountered before. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 02 2017 13:22 Nyxisto wrote: The problem about catastrophic events and related risk is that you're not going to find data for them if you look back in time. That's what makes them catastrophic in the first place. Ask the dinosaurs how that strategy worked out for them. Probably one of the reasons some Conservative people don't believe in them. Meteors pose a serious problem to tradition based decision making. The financial crisis in 2008 wiped out more wealth than pretty much all financial crises combined before. Do you think it was smart to ignore the warning signs because our historical common sense told us that all will be well? When you assess risk you better include the unknown tail events that you've not encountered before. Right, blaming the dinosaurs for past catastrophes ("ask the dinosaurs") is about as apropos an example as I would use to describe the current situation. So I'm kind of glad you brought it up. Everybody raised the warning signs when climate science was overtaken by advocacy and witch trials, and I see parallels to 2008 with everybody proclaiming Fannie & Freddie were fine, community reinvestment act was great to combat redlining, and all the rest. You all are picking the worst ways to convince the doubters. But I'm getting used to this seeing all the lessons not learned from Trump's successful campaign, and I think something as grand as a Trump re-election or massive protest movement would have to occur another three or four times to shake some of this underlying assumptions bullshit. Global Warming back in the thread? Must be April Fool's Day (and hope you all enjoyed your Saturday) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
On April 02 2017 13:40 Danglars wrote: Right, blaming the dinosaurs for past catastrophes ("ask the dinosaurs") is about as apropos an example as I would use to describe the current situation. So I'm kind of glad you brought it up. Everybody raised the warning signs when climate science was overtaken by advocacy and witch trials, and I see parallels to 2008 with everybody proclaiming Fannie & Freddie were fine, community reinvestment act was great to combat redlining, and all the rest. You all are picking the worst ways to convince the doubters. But I'm getting used to this seeing all the lessons not learned from Trump's successful campaign, and I think something as grand as a Trump re-election or massive protest movement would have to occur another three or four times to shake some of this underlying assumptions bullshit. Global Warming back in the thread? Must be April Fool's Day (and hope you all enjoyed your Saturday) What is it that you doubt? I imagine it's not actually that humanity has a large and noticeable impact on our environment, or that the impact on our immediate environment has long term consequences on things like climate. If I understand the reasonable position correctly it's just that you think we should think harder/more carefully about identifying the important factors, how our solutions both address the problematic factors AND their economic impact, and avoid needless politicization and the "picking winners and losers" by the government. Which I think is actually pretty reasonable. One problem, that's not the Republican party's position at all. Maybe among the types that come here, but that's not Trump's position, the party's position, or the majority position in the party. I think it's fine if that's what conservatives here are essentially saying once you get past all the rhetorical jabs, but y'all can't pretend that's what the party is standing for or the reasoning behind their opposition. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7306 Posts
So most climate deniers I've seen simply... deny it? What has to be said to make a climate change denier reevaluate their beliefs that climate change is a pressing concern for humanity. Not that it's going to cause global catastrophic hyper-hurricanes within the next year, but that the world is becoming ever so slightly warmer due to excess co2 emissions and that the planet's environment is rather sensitive to these small shifts when they occur over a relatively long period of time (which is the part that differentiates weather from climate.) Like if you follow carbon levels in the atmosphere throughout the tenure of life on Earth you'll notice that carbon levels go up and down, with the largest spikes occuring around the time of mass extinction events. It makes sense too, think about it, we're carbon based life forms, if carbon based lifeforms die they decompose releasing carbon into the atmosphere, when life (an easy example being plant life, such as trees) grow and grow, you've got less carbon in the atmosphere because that carbon is contained within the living thing. In the case of fossil fuels, the carbon is contained in the fuel made up from the former-corpses of living things, so burning it releases it into the atmosphere. In the aforementioned mass extinction cases, carbon dioxide wasn't really the direct cause, but theres a lot of diversity in mass extinction events so why do people have SUCH a hard time believing that carbon dioxide could cause another one? And I'm not saying life has never prevailed in these circumstances, just that lots of life tends to go and human beings are lots of life. Some life will live on, the planet will obviously still exist, in our lifetimes and probably into the future still humanity will still live on, but global warming is going to cause issues that are going to be expensive and I get that climate deniers don't care because they're probably gonna be dead by then anyways, but hey, some of us care about future generations and children and all of that sappy shit. Climate change is just one of those things I really can't understand, I get the anti-SJW stuff to a certain extent, I get fiscal conservatism, but climate change and evolution denial I just really can't wrap my head around. | ||
| ||
