EPTOn October 21 2017 02:22 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Republicans brought this chaos upon themselves. They chose to not work for eight years, and during that time, broke off into their own subsections of republicans, with their own agenda's and views. At least democrats have more or less the same ideology of moving forward rather than backwards.
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2017 02:13 Danglars wrote:
He'd have 50-60% approval rating if he shut up and worked. I'm going to venture a guess that it is never going to happen.
I don't think he's getting his tax cuts through. The Republican majority is too fragmented and he lacks advisers with experience to help push bills through Congress. One sad side effect of living in chaos.
On October 21 2017 02:07 GoTuNk! wrote:
In the purely economic outlook, if governments REALLY cared about contamination, the would stop expending resources from the future in the present. This is called government debt.
But it seems they are more interested in a political agenda and buying people up, trough the welfare state or this CO2 grants.
Edit: Also, Trump should shut up (and not spoken on monday) and simply ride that ISIS was majorly defeated and the upcoming tax cuts.
On October 20 2017 22:37 Simberto wrote:
In the past, climate happened on timelines of tens thousands of years. That is natural climate change. Currently, global temperatures are rising on timelines of tens to hundreds of years. That is manmade climate change.
Humans are ok at dealing with climate change. No one thinks that this will lead to the extermination of humanity. Humanity will survive it. But that isn't really the baseline you should be looking at. Humanity can survive a lot of things. We should be looking at hardships put onto humans.
Maybe even take an economic outlook. We are currently taking a massive climate loan, which we will have to pay back eventually. We can keep on taking more loans for some time, but eventually we will have to deal with the fallout of all of this. It seems reasonable to make plans to both deal with the costs once they come up, and to reduce the total amount of those costs that eventually will come up. There are good reasons to take those loans. Like scientific advances, or having an agriculture that can feed the people. There are also bad reasons to take those climate loans. Like wanting to drive a giant big truck so everyone can see that you are a manly man.
On October 20 2017 22:08 Slydie wrote:
I am all for immigration, but very sceptical about the climate hysteria, for some reasons:
-We are talking about projections with a high degree of uncertainty of an extremely complicated system.
-Our scope of climate is extremely small. Right now, the climate is historically GREAT, fairly warm and stable. What should be looked for ib 10s of millions of years, not 100s. At some point, we will face something truely dramatic, like an ice age or an ash cloud from a supervolcano, but I do not think this global warming is comparable to that.
-Humans deal very well with climate change, emigrating and changing lifestyle. We always have, and will always have to deal with them, as or planet is not a stable place.
On October 20 2017 19:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When people speak of 'point of no return' with regard to climate change, it does not mean 'we are fucked from that date', it means 'it'll be too late to revert emissions to hinder stuff like permafrost thawing which might release trapped greenhouse gasses'.
Basically the point of no return is a 'this ensures that global warming will happen on a 'bad' scale 50-100 years from now', not a 'it's gonna go to hell right now'. And there seems to be a consensus that this has already happened. Climate change will have disastrous effects. That's inevitable regardless of what we do now. The question is how disastrous - it's not a binary 'we're fucked' or 'we're fine', it's about moving us closer to the 'we're fine' point of that scale.
I also think arguments such as 'it'll be more costly to hinder climate change than to deal with the effects of climate change' could be totally fine. It's just that this argument is almost exclusively presented by people who also don't acknowledge the scientific consensus, and who also seem entirely opposed to the idea of dealing with the effects of climate change. (For example, there's a strong correlation between 'opposed to immigration' and 'thinks climate change isn't a real problem', but to me, one of the biggest problems with climate change is that even moderate projections will forcibly relocate a 9 digit number of people. The recent refugee crisis was completely insignificant compared to what might happen if any degree of; bangladesh floods, himalayas run out of water, middle east becomes too hot for humans to live, north africa runs out of water, happen. Nobody you should take seriously claims that all of these will definitely happen for sure, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that some of these to some degree happen, and there are so many people living in those regions that even if changes happen that make 10% of the population of those regions have to relocate because those regions can no longer support that many people, then we're looking at a couple hundred million people.. If you wanna be like, 'yeah, but we need the energy to thrive, us western countries just need to accept a couple hundred million more immigrants then', that'd actually be kinda fine with me. It's just, I've never actually seen someone hold that position.
When people speak of 'point of no return' with regard to climate change, it does not mean 'we are fucked from that date', it means 'it'll be too late to revert emissions to hinder stuff like permafrost thawing which might release trapped greenhouse gasses'.
Basically the point of no return is a 'this ensures that global warming will happen on a 'bad' scale 50-100 years from now', not a 'it's gonna go to hell right now'. And there seems to be a consensus that this has already happened. Climate change will have disastrous effects. That's inevitable regardless of what we do now. The question is how disastrous - it's not a binary 'we're fucked' or 'we're fine', it's about moving us closer to the 'we're fine' point of that scale.
I also think arguments such as 'it'll be more costly to hinder climate change than to deal with the effects of climate change' could be totally fine. It's just that this argument is almost exclusively presented by people who also don't acknowledge the scientific consensus, and who also seem entirely opposed to the idea of dealing with the effects of climate change. (For example, there's a strong correlation between 'opposed to immigration' and 'thinks climate change isn't a real problem', but to me, one of the biggest problems with climate change is that even moderate projections will forcibly relocate a 9 digit number of people. The recent refugee crisis was completely insignificant compared to what might happen if any degree of; bangladesh floods, himalayas run out of water, middle east becomes too hot for humans to live, north africa runs out of water, happen. Nobody you should take seriously claims that all of these will definitely happen for sure, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that some of these to some degree happen, and there are so many people living in those regions that even if changes happen that make 10% of the population of those regions have to relocate because those regions can no longer support that many people, then we're looking at a couple hundred million people.. If you wanna be like, 'yeah, but we need the energy to thrive, us western countries just need to accept a couple hundred million more immigrants then', that'd actually be kinda fine with me. It's just, I've never actually seen someone hold that position.
I am all for immigration, but very sceptical about the climate hysteria, for some reasons:
-We are talking about projections with a high degree of uncertainty of an extremely complicated system.
-Our scope of climate is extremely small. Right now, the climate is historically GREAT, fairly warm and stable. What should be looked for ib 10s of millions of years, not 100s. At some point, we will face something truely dramatic, like an ice age or an ash cloud from a supervolcano, but I do not think this global warming is comparable to that.
-Humans deal very well with climate change, emigrating and changing lifestyle. We always have, and will always have to deal with them, as or planet is not a stable place.
In the past, climate happened on timelines of tens thousands of years. That is natural climate change. Currently, global temperatures are rising on timelines of tens to hundreds of years. That is manmade climate change.
Humans are ok at dealing with climate change. No one thinks that this will lead to the extermination of humanity. Humanity will survive it. But that isn't really the baseline you should be looking at. Humanity can survive a lot of things. We should be looking at hardships put onto humans.
Maybe even take an economic outlook. We are currently taking a massive climate loan, which we will have to pay back eventually. We can keep on taking more loans for some time, but eventually we will have to deal with the fallout of all of this. It seems reasonable to make plans to both deal with the costs once they come up, and to reduce the total amount of those costs that eventually will come up. There are good reasons to take those loans. Like scientific advances, or having an agriculture that can feed the people. There are also bad reasons to take those climate loans. Like wanting to drive a giant big truck so everyone can see that you are a manly man.
In the purely economic outlook, if governments REALLY cared about contamination, the would stop expending resources from the future in the present. This is called government debt.
But it seems they are more interested in a political agenda and buying people up, trough the welfare state or this CO2 grants.
Edit: Also, Trump should shut up (and not spoken on monday) and simply ride that ISIS was majorly defeated and the upcoming tax cuts.
He'd have 50-60% approval rating if he shut up and worked. I'm going to venture a guess that it is never going to happen.
I don't think he's getting his tax cuts through. The Republican majority is too fragmented and he lacks advisers with experience to help push bills through Congress. One sad side effect of living in chaos.
Republicans brought this chaos upon themselves. They chose to not work for eight years, and during that time, broke off into their own subsections of republicans, with their own agenda's and views. At least democrats have more or less the same ideology of moving forward rather than backwards.
You're absolutely right that Republicans brought this chaos upon themselves. My explanation is similar but different: they didn't spend time working out Obamacare repeal and replace, perhaps due to some only campaigning on the issue and never intending to push for repeal.
Democrats are now in the obstructionist mode, supported by their base, so I don't know if they get any props for at least moving forward. They're all in for 2018/2020 impeachment elections.
![[image loading]](https://am12.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2017/10/scaramucci-post-jews.jpg)
