|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 01 2019 05:43 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 05:42 Gorsameth wrote:
Wonderful appeal to authority.
Except the Nobel prize was for Physics on Quantum tunneling in 1973 and nothing to do with climate change.
I'd take his word before AOC's
Except that isn't the choice. The choice is actual climate scientists who study this or someone whose expertise is in a different.
I'm not calling the best plumber around to fix my car he is no matter how good he is at it, its not his area of expertise. You are choosing that option and instead of admitting it you instead created an illusionary choice to pretend the choice is something other than what it is.
Basically if you want to say you don't believe climate scientists who study climate for a living you are free to do that but don't pretend that its AOC or Obama or any other boogeyman in the choice.
|
On April 01 2019 06:21 Slydie wrote:
I choose to believe we will be ok, even though we might have contributed to some of the climate change by getting things like energy and transportation. What we burn was actually CO2 in the athmosphere at some point, taken from there by plants millions of years ago.
The sad thing about our planet is that its climate will always change for a variety of different reasons (solar activity, volcanoes, earth rotational patterns, changes in winds and currents etc.) and we have to deal with it the best we can.
In general, I think a global warming is much preferable to a global cooling and a neverending status quo is impossible.
The bolded part must be the most idiotic argument I've ever seen on that topic. "Hey, the Earth absorbed CO² over hundreds of millions of years, but it was at some point in the air right ? What's the deal with releasing it ?"
Yeah, absolutely no problem with burning in 200 years what the Earth had absorbed in dozens of millions (scaled down from hundreds since we don't have access to ALL fossil fuels, see, I'm even being reasonable). It was there at some point, should be no big deal !
Did it cross your mind that it was not there ALL AT ONCE ? (Did I really have to spell it ? I hope not ?)
From the rest of the post, I guess you only care what happens in your country, and not in places that were already in a pinch. Not everyone lives in temperate places you know ? Seas are disappearing, desert is expanding, water is going away in lots of places. A global warming by 2/3degrees will exponentially increase the amount of extreme weather events, and we have already started to see it. Even in the US.
Let me not even go to global warming vs cooling. Both are equally bad. A status quo is impossible, but changes usually happen over millenia, not tens of years, giving species time to adapt. Maybe not bringing an end by ourselves to most living life would be good ?
The earth has already started its 6th mass extinction event. Guess whose fault this is ?
|
On April 01 2019 07:21 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 06:21 Slydie wrote:
I choose to believe we will be ok, even though we might have contributed to some of the climate change by getting things like energy and transportation. What we burn was actually CO2 in the athmosphere at some point, taken from there by plants millions of years ago.
The sad thing about our planet is that its climate will always change for a variety of different reasons (solar activity, volcanoes, earth rotational patterns, changes in winds and currents etc.) and we have to deal with it the best we can.
In general, I think a global warming is much preferable to a global cooling and a neverending status quo is impossible. The bolded part must be the most idiotic argument I've ever seen on that topic. "Hey, the Earth absorbed CO² over hundreds of millions of years, but it was at some point in the air right ? What's the deal with releasing it ?" Yeah, absolutely no problem with burning in 200 years what the Earth had absorbed in dozens of millions (scaled down from hundreds since we don't have access to ALL fossil fuels, see, I'm even being reasonable). It was there at some point, should be no big deal ! Did it cross your mind that it was not there ALL AT ONCE ? (Did I really have to spell it ? I hope not ?) From the rest of the post, I guess you only care what happens in your country, and not in places that were already in a pinch. Not everyone lives in temperate places you know ? Seas are disappearing, desert is expanding, water is going away in lots of places. A global warming by 2/3degrees will exponentially increase the amount of extreme weather events, and we have already started to see it. Even in the US. Let me not even go to global warming vs cooling. Both are equally bad. A status quo is impossible, but changes usually happen over millenia, not tens of years, giving species time to adapt. Maybe not bringing an end by ourselves to most living life would be good ? The earth has already started its 6th mass extinction event. Guess whose fault this is ?
I think there is a bit of stuff here that needs clarifying:
Firstly, none of the climate stuff is about saving the planet. Earth doesn't care. Earth goes in ellipses around the sun for the next billion of years or so until the sun turns red giant and evaporates earth. There really isn't anything we could do about this.
Neither is it about saving life on earth. Life on earth is resilient and can deal with most things. It would be very hard to extinguish life on earth.
What it is about is people. Human life is a lot more fragile than either the earth or life on earth. People die if there is not enough water. People die if there is too much water. People die if it is too cold. People die if it is too hot. Any quick changes in earths climate mean a lot of people die, (also the economy takes a major hit, because that seems to be all that matters)
With regards to the extinction event, we are already doing that, but that does not have a lot to do with global climate change, and more with us just being a very invasive species that tends to destroy living habitats of a lot of species.
Ignoring a possible problem because i find one person that says that it might not be a problem sounds incredibly shortsighted. Just because solutions are hard and hard to find doesn't mean that the best thing you can do is simply do nothing. If there is a chance of something going bad and a chance of nothing bad happening, the best course of action is usually not just hoping that nothing bad happens. It is preparing to make the possible bad thing less bad and trying to reduce the chances of the bad thing happening.
This is what i find so weird. As long as you don't claim to be completely sure that climate change is not a problem, taking some action is simply reasonable. But the usual statement is "We cannot be sure that it is a problem, thus we best don't change anything that we are doing", which is both utterly stupid, and very convenient.
|
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world.
|
|
|
On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world.
Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic.
Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind.
|
On April 01 2019 08:33 JimmiC wrote:
People have known pure capitalism is bullshit for even longer than they have known communism is bullshit. This is not new information.
I also think the thread is getting trolled by BerserkSword. I mean there is videos now of half the shit he is saying isn't happening. He is not even up to date on his climate change denial. I think BS is just trying to get a rise out of everyone.
I doubt we're talking about the same thing, what is pure capitalism? In the 90s and the 2000s it definitely wasn't something that "people" knew. I don't want to overstate the importance of Fukuyama but he did write that thing about the end of history...
Climate change presents a uniquely interesting challenge because it is extremely difficult to conceive of a solution to this problem that doesn't drastically change the way our economic system works. And for a lot of people (possibly including myself), it is easier to envision the end of humanity than to envision the end of capitalism. I'm glad that a lot of young people doing protests right now don't have that limitation, it is an excellent sign.
|
On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind.
if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted
|
I see you guys are having a rather heated discussion on climate change.
I'll just chime in with my 2 cents:
Climate change is real. Humans are contributing to it. Even if the US became carbon-neutral today it would only slow things down slightly (I think the US contributes 15% of the world's carbon emissions or something like that?). As such I can't really get behind the Green New Deal as a "solution" to global warming.
I don't have a great solution. But I think effort would be much more wisely invested trying to science up a new solution. I've heard talk of geoengineering though I haven't looked into it very much. In all honesty though, we should trust our scientists that this is a real, impending threat, and we should put forth an (ideally worldwide) effort, not to reduce carbon emissions, but to come up with some sort of actual solution through scientific R&D.
I'll reiterate: If reducing carbon emissions is our "solution" to climate change, not only will it not actually save us, but we'll be arguing about it (see the last 4 pages of this thread) until we burn up.
|
On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted
It absolutely is warranted. The government can enact change, organization, and focus on an issue that "The Free Market" never will. In fact, if it has a say in the matter The Free Market would have nothing to do with climate change, ever, period. People lobby to hell and back to keep us reliant on crude oil, instead of pursuing a more sensible transition to alternate sources of energy. If you ever stopped to wonder why gas prices are still decent despite a depleting supply, it's because the people setting the prices want it to still be fiscally appealing, in light of developing technologies that will ultimately replace it.
The point is, the government is the only thing we have that can enact the kind of change we need here. Unregulated capitalism is not the jewel you think it is, and it damn sure won't solve the problem by itself. Entrenched monies are simply going to keep looking out for their own interests, in this case by stifling progress toward a more sustainable future. The purpose of the Green New Deal is to take our government, our only real way of addressing the issue, and get it thinking about solutions sooner rather than later.
|
On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted
Thats a really hard stretch to make for us you need to understand. If you believe in climate change you know the current path is unsustainable so you need to be in for some sort of government intervention or a "technology will solve things" based solution. The free market on its own has no reason to do anything about climate change.
I'm for the US to stand up as the global savior of the world and regulate ocean trade. mandating emission standards and other practices that threaten our strategic interests. If nothing else to justify the fact that we control the seas.
|
|
|
On April 01 2019 08:33 JimmiC wrote:
People have known pure capitalism is bullshit for even longer than they have known communism is bullshit. This is not new information.
I also think the thread is getting trolled by BerserkSword. I mean there is videos now of half the shit he is saying isn't happening. He is not even up to date on his climate change denial. I think BS is just trying to get a rise out of everyone.
Agreed. It has been obvious for a bit now. I think moderation on TL is in general very good, but it is rare that the less obvious trolls get banned.
When I read these posts, I see a freshman philosophy major practicing sophism.
|
Probably the biggest con that Trump pulled on his voters is that since he's a billionaire, he wouldn't be corrupt. This despite the fact that everything about his adult life screamed greed and corruption. Just a bald lie, right to their faces. Thankfully, I think his lying is catching up to him and as we head into 2020, voters are legitimately pretty skeptical of anything he says (outside of his base).
|
The imminent and catastrophic hypothesis is under contention whether people like it or not. Trolling about communism vs capitalism, and denialism, and trolling, and sophism is just ignoring some less convenient aspects of politics.
The most recent carbon reductions were from the switch to fracking, as an example of technological advancement. The points about China & developing countries are blindingly self-evident. I would suggest the climate trolls around these parts get more serious about nuclear and demanding bang for your buck in money spent (or wasted) in futile, wasteful efforts.
+ Show Spoiler +Referring specifically to accusations of trolling from JimmiC and Mohdoo
|
To the extent that the government should be spending money on anything related to climate change, mitigation of potential climate change effects should be at the top of the list. Nothing that the US could possibly do unilaterally will materially alter whatever course we're on. So if you truly believe that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow cities whole, best to start investing in capital improvements to mitigate that danger such as sea walls and pumps.
|
On April 01 2019 04:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 04:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 01 2019 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
Someone is leaking this Biden stuff now to deter him from getting in the race. What has surfaced already is likely just a warning shot, and there is more out there. Creepy Uncle Joe missed his chance. He should have run in 2016. Considering how much of an absolute pig the man you elected and keep supporting is, I would go soft on the “creepy uncle joe” and other trumpesque school boy taunts of that flavour. Trump flaunts his shit. No one cares about what he does anymore because we have been over-saturated by the reporting on it. I doubt that the same rules apply to Biden as Trump.
But since we are all gentlemen of high intellectual integrity and void of crass hypocrisy, we will hold them to the same standard here, won’t we?
|
On April 01 2019 12:59 Danglars wrote:The imminent and catastrophic hypothesis is under contention whether people like it or not. Trolling about communism vs capitalism, and denialism, and trolling, and sophism is just ignoring some less convenient aspects of politics. The most recent carbon reductions were from the switch to fracking, as an example of technological advancement. The points about China & developing countries are blindingly self-evident. I would suggest the climate trolls around these parts get more serious about nuclear and demanding bang for your buck in money spent (or wasted) in futile, wasteful efforts. + Show Spoiler +Referring specifically to accusations of trolling from JimmiC and Mohdoo
yeah, I am going to need an actual source for that, and maybe also add the negative with the positive externalities which can rather easily be attributed to the "drill baby drill" policy one party is particularly inclined to favor. cheap energy prices are not actually cheap if you look close enough.
and no sophism please. I know you are a big fan and like it, but we are all big boys here. right?
|
People who wants to experience true free marked should read up on how Russia experienced the 90s and how the most free free-market ever known worked out for them.
|
On April 01 2019 13:21 xDaunt wrote:
To the extent that the government should be spending money on anything related to climate change, mitigation of potential climate change effects should be at the top of the list. Nothing that the US could possibly do unilaterally will materially alter whatever course we're on. So if you truly believe that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow cities whole, best to start investing in capital improvements to mitigate that danger such as sea walls and pumps.
US carbon footprint: 17.3 tons per capita
China carbon footprint: 9.5 tons per capita
Yes, China is rapidly expanding their coal-based economy, which is belching ridiculous amounts of CO2 into the air. However, they are still only at half of the CO2 per capita that the US is right now, and any time anybody talks to them about this, they just point to the US and say "look, they emit over double per person what we do, and have done so for far longer than us. How about they lead by example!" This is obviously not a helpful standpoint, but climate accords have found ways to compromise, allowing China limited further expansion that their economy relies on while at the same time they lower their reliance on coal. Along comes Trump, torpedoes the Paris accords, and says US coal should be subsidized. How do you think China reacts to that? Do you thin this rhetoric helps convince China to change their CO2 belching ways? Or is it just convenient that you now bring up China and say "why should we change, look at China"?
Oh, and in general, China is slowly coming around on general pollution, because they have poisoned the air in their cities and all their rivers and are (slowly) starting to realize that that maybe unbridled industry is not what they need after all.
On April 01 2019 13:21 xDaunt wrote:
To the extent that the government should be spending money on anything related to climate change, mitigation of potential climate change effects should be at the top of the list. Nothing that the US could possibly do unilaterally will materially alter whatever course we're on. So if you truly believe that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow cities whole, best to start investing in capital improvements to mitigate that danger such as sea walls and pumps.
What makes you think that isn't already being done, and isn't explicitly part of any plan for dealing with climate change going forward? It just isn't enough. It's like you have a hole in your ship, and you're pumping water out. If the ship continues to sink the solution isn't to install increasingly bigger pumps, it's to patch the hole. Even if you'll still need to pump the water out for the foreseeable future. Your first order of business is to simply stop the problem from getting worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
