|
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 May 01 2020 08:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Here's your good news for the day. The climate is positively responding to humans not being out and about and we could actually start to see some reverses of the damage done. Show nested quote + The COVID-19 pandemic is delivering the biggest shock to the global energy system in seven decades, according to a new report by the International Energy Agency.
Global energy demand is expected to fall by 6% this year, seven times the decline brought by the financial crisis 10 years ago. IEA projections show oil and gas being hit hard. But demand for coal could fall by an extraordinary 8% — the largest decline since World War II.
Not all the drop in demand was because of the coronavirus; in the U.S. especially, a large share was caused by a warmer-than-average winter.
The IEA says the lower emissions will reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change by almost 8% this year, which would be the largest annual decrease ever recorded.
But the U.N. has said global emissions must be cut that much every year for the next decade in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid its worst impacts. Posting from phone but source is NPR.
Yea, in the meantime a high number of tankers used for oil storage is out at the coasts representing a big risk to marine environments if something goes wrong.
|
On May 01 2020 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2020 08:25 Gorsameth wrote:On May 01 2020 08:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Here's your good news for the day. The climate is positively responding to humans not being out and about and we could actually start to see some reverses of the damage done. The COVID-19 pandemic is delivering the biggest shock to the global energy system in seven decades, according to a new report by the International Energy Agency.
Global energy demand is expected to fall by 6% this year, seven times the decline brought by the financial crisis 10 years ago. IEA projections show oil and gas being hit hard. But demand for coal could fall by an extraordinary 8% — the largest decline since World War II.
Not all the drop in demand was because of the coronavirus; in the U.S. especially, a large share was caused by a warmer-than-average winter.
The IEA says the lower emissions will reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change by almost 8% this year, which would be the largest annual decrease ever recorded.
But the U.N. has said global emissions must be cut that much every year for the next decade in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid its worst impacts. Posting from phone but source is NPR. Yeah, except a one time drop in emissions for a few months isn't going to do anything. Gz, the end of the world is postponed for 2 months, lets celebrate... If we can reorganize our society to these levels of emissions (seems survivable enough) then we can actually be on track for mitigating climate change. Makes me sorta see the people hoping to return to anything like we had before as bewilderingly oblivious.
This level of emissions with our current infrastructure is just as unsustainable as pre-corona levels. Aren't you the one going for to door telling people not to pay rent because without a job they should worry about buying food. Now imagine that there are no jobs for the next 10 years or so. Eventually we'll run out of something essential, because all those non-essential industries that are shut down are mostly only non-essential in the short term. Oh, and because pretty much all entertainment is shut down, those hordes of unemployed people don't even have any sports, tv, theater, cinema, bars, restaurants, etc. to distract them from their misery. If it's riots in the streets you want, that sounds like a good recipe.
Don't get me wrong, we cannot continue the way we were, but the way from here to there is not piggy backing on the lockdown for Corona and proposing to make this situation permanent.
|
On May 01 2020 08:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2020 08:25 Gorsameth wrote:On May 01 2020 08:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Here's your good news for the day. The climate is positively responding to humans not being out and about and we could actually start to see some reverses of the damage done. The COVID-19 pandemic is delivering the biggest shock to the global energy system in seven decades, according to a new report by the International Energy Agency.
Global energy demand is expected to fall by 6% this year, seven times the decline brought by the financial crisis 10 years ago. IEA projections show oil and gas being hit hard. But demand for coal could fall by an extraordinary 8% — the largest decline since World War II.
Not all the drop in demand was because of the coronavirus; in the U.S. especially, a large share was caused by a warmer-than-average winter.
The IEA says the lower emissions will reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change by almost 8% this year, which would be the largest annual decrease ever recorded.
But the U.N. has said global emissions must be cut that much every year for the next decade in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid its worst impacts. Posting from phone but source is NPR. Yeah, except a one time drop in emissions for a few months isn't going to do anything. Gz, the end of the world is postponed for 2 months, lets celebrate... Take the little good news there is. The point being, wishful thinking people take this little dose and think how they've managed so far. Will commutes to work slow? Will wfh remain a thing for a lot of jobs that aren't essential to have someone at the office? Can we continue the reduction in emissions?
For me, work has told me that we're straight up closed in our office except for essential staff (maintenance, facilities, security), and it'll be that way til end of May at minimum. It'll likely be longer than that, and with a soft re-opening (Office will be open for those that want to get away from home, but optional. I know for me, if it's good weather, I'll start biking into work rather than taking public transit and work from home otherwise. If some people go from cars to working from home, or cars to bikes or other low carbon commutes, that would significantly affect long term emissions, especially now that we can see starkly how unnecessary going into the office is.
|
On May 01 2020 11:43 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2020 08:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 01 2020 08:25 Gorsameth wrote:On May 01 2020 08:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Here's your good news for the day. The climate is positively responding to humans not being out and about and we could actually start to see some reverses of the damage done. The COVID-19 pandemic is delivering the biggest shock to the global energy system in seven decades, according to a new report by the International Energy Agency.
Global energy demand is expected to fall by 6% this year, seven times the decline brought by the financial crisis 10 years ago. IEA projections show oil and gas being hit hard. But demand for coal could fall by an extraordinary 8% — the largest decline since World War II.
Not all the drop in demand was because of the coronavirus; in the U.S. especially, a large share was caused by a warmer-than-average winter.
The IEA says the lower emissions will reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change by almost 8% this year, which would be the largest annual decrease ever recorded.
But the U.N. has said global emissions must be cut that much every year for the next decade in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid its worst impacts. Posting from phone but source is NPR. Yeah, except a one time drop in emissions for a few months isn't going to do anything. Gz, the end of the world is postponed for 2 months, lets celebrate... Take the little good news there is. The point being, wishful thinking people take this little dose and think how they've managed so far. Will commutes to work slow? Will wfh remain a thing for a lot of jobs that aren't essential to have someone at the office? Can we continue the reduction in emissions? For me, work has told me that we're straight up closed in our office except for essential staff (maintenance, facilities, security), and it'll be that way til end of May at minimum. It'll likely be longer than that, and with a soft re-opening (Office will be open for those that want to get away from home, but optional. I know for me, if it's good weather, I'll start biking into work rather than taking public transit and work from home otherwise. If some people go from cars to working from home, or cars to bikes or other low carbon commutes, that would significantly affect long term emissions, especially now that we can see starkly how unnecessary going into the office is.
But if people start living healthier lives they live longer and put more strain on the pension system. Think about the economy!
Seriously though, it should be apparent to everyone that all but radical change is like driving whiskey to hydrate on a scorchingly hot day. Might be fun while it lasts but the wake-up is going to be brutal.
|
Nearly half a billion people who got out of poverty in the last couple of decades could be dragged right back in. That's heartbreaking.
We in the West have very little interest and awareness on how many people in India, China and elsewhere got lifted out of poverty recently, but that's the greatest success story of our time. It's devastating to see that progress destroyed in a matter of months.
|
Biden's denial convinced me. He's outlining where to determine if this is true or not. Woman's story changing. Supported Biden for VP and pres before, but suddenly not ok? I don't buy it. Ford didn't openly support Kavohol on multiple occasions prior to deciding he was a rapist. The two situations are not comparable IMO.
|
|
|
The right’s embrace of hydroxychloroquine is fascinating to me. While they’ve proven more than willing to embrace or at least remain nebulously agnostic on pseudoscience and conspiracy theories in recent years, I don’t remember them going in for bad/fake medicine before, particularly the more mainstream right-wing (i.e. Fox News, rather than Breitbart or Infowars).
I don’t immediately have an explanation. Maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt, and acknowledge that understanding clinical trial data is hard and it’s easy to misinterpret or overinterpret (especially for a layman, but even seasoned experts make the same mistakes sometimes). The first time I saw Didier Raoult’s chart comparing no treatment, HCQ, and HCQ+AZM I was nearly sold, too.
What’s harder to explain is the absolute determination to tout it as a miracle drug regardless of facts or expert opinion to the contrary. Usually this type of motivated reasoning has a clear ideological incentive, but in this case the only obvious one is to defend Trump’s touting of the drug, and it seems easy enough to just say “Trump’s enthusiasm was justified based on promising early results but evidence since then suggests the safety and efficacy are not what we had hoped.” Maybe now some of them will switch to pushing remdesivir, but I still don’t really get why they embraced HCQ in the first place, and why they defended (past tense?) it so vigorously.
|
On May 02 2020 03:13 ChristianS wrote:
The right’s embrace of hydroxychloroquine is fascinating to me. While they’ve proven more than willing to embrace or at least remain nebulously agnostic on pseudoscience and conspiracy theories in recent years, I don’t remember them going in for bad/fake medicine before, particularly the more mainstream right-wing (i.e. Fox News, rather than Breitbart or Infowars).
I don’t immediately have an explanation. Maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt, and acknowledge that understanding clinical trial data is hard and it’s easy to misinterpret or overinterpret (especially for a layman, but even seasoned experts make the same mistakes sometimes). The first time I saw Didier Raoult’s chart comparing no treatment, HCQ, and HCQ+AZM I was nearly sold, too.
What’s harder to explain is the absolute determination to tout it as a miracle drug regardless of facts or expert opinion to the contrary. Usually this type of motivated reasoning has a clear ideological incentive, but in this case the only obvious one is to defend Trump’s touting of the drug, and it seems easy enough to just say “Trump’s enthusiasm was justified based on promising early results but evidence since then suggests the safety and efficacy are not what we had hoped.” Maybe now some of them will switch to pushing remdesivir, but I still don’t really get why they embraced HCQ in the first place, and why they defended (past tense?) it so vigorously. I think you found the reason yourself. Trump is their leader and must be defended.
In the past the public faces of their beliefs were not so blatantly stupid so they didn't have the defend such blatantly stupid behaviour to themselves and others.
|
They also are fed a whole host of miracle cure advertising on right wing networks so its not unlikely for them to believe in a miracle cure "the elites" dont want you to know about.
|
Sure, and I guess it was inevitable that the pseudoscience and conspiracy theories would dip into bad/fake medicine eventually. It’s one of the easier and more lucrative forms of grift. Sick people are desperate for people to tell them there’s an easy answer to theirvproblems, and where there’s an unmet demand, the free market must deliver...
But they haven’t usually gone so hard on it before. “The Deep State is giving Americans cancer” or “Diamond and Silk have a cure for Alzheimers *they* don’t want you to know about” hasn’t been a big thing up to now (or maybe I just haven’t heard about it?).
|
Isn't the classic rightwing fake medicine faith healing stuff?
|
On May 02 2020 03:13 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t remember them going in for bad/fake medicine before, particularly the more mainstream right-wing (i.e. Fox News, rather than Breitbart or Infowars).
Have you ever seen how much anti-vax, supplement and vitamin bullshit Alex Jones tries to sell his viewers? Nonsensical treatments, cures, home remedies and whatever else has always been a staple of channels like this. It's grifters capitalizing on the fact that the viewer base is scientifically illiterate, scared of 'establishment treatments', and there's a huge market for selling snakeoil to that demographic.
|
|
|
On May 02 2020 05:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2020 03:13 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t remember them going in for bad/fake medicine before, particularly the more mainstream right-wing (i.e. Fox News, rather than Breitbart or Infowars).
Have you ever seen how much anti-vax, supplement and vitamin bullshit Alex Jones tries to sell his viewers? Nonsensical treatments, cures, home remedies and whatever else has always been a staple of channels like this. It's grifters capitalizing on the fact that the viewer base is scientifically illiterate, scared of 'establishment treatments', and there's a huge market for selling snakeoil to that demographic.
Sure, I don’t follow Jones’ movements much but I was vaguely aware he was hawking some of that stuff. But what about, say, Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity? Is this a new direction for them? Or were they pushing, like, MMS and hydrogen peroxide and I just didn’t hear about it?
|
On May 02 2020 03:43 ChristianS wrote:
Sure, and I guess it was inevitable that the pseudoscience and conspiracy theories would dip into bad/fake medicine eventually. It’s one of the easier and more lucrative forms of grift. Sick people are desperate for people to tell them there’s an easy answer to theirvproblems, and where there’s an unmet demand, the free market must deliver...
But they haven’t usually gone so hard on it before. “The Deep State is giving Americans cancer” or “Diamond and Silk have a cure for Alzheimers *they* don’t want you to know about” hasn’t been a big thing up to now (or maybe I just haven’t heard about it?).
The seed for conspiratorial lines of thought has always been there, and the current situation is quite unprecedented in modern times. The entire Republican core would like to believe that it's all bunk or easily handled because the want the "beautiful economy" to keep on rolling, and the lockdown is getting in the way of that. I don't really see a need for a deeper explanation than that.
I have definitely seen more than the average number of them in recent times, but the development seems to make perfect sense given the unprecedented situation in the modern era.
|
On May 02 2020 06:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2020 03:43 ChristianS wrote:
Sure, and I guess it was inevitable that the pseudoscience and conspiracy theories would dip into bad/fake medicine eventually. It’s one of the easier and more lucrative forms of grift. Sick people are desperate for people to tell them there’s an easy answer to theirvproblems, and where there’s an unmet demand, the free market must deliver...
But they haven’t usually gone so hard on it before. “The Deep State is giving Americans cancer” or “Diamond and Silk have a cure for Alzheimers *they* don’t want you to know about” hasn’t been a big thing up to now (or maybe I just haven’t heard about it?). The seed for conspiratorial lines of thought has always been there, and the current situation is quite unprecedented in modern times. The entire Republican core would like to believe that it's all bunk or easily handled because the want the "beautiful economy" to keep on rolling, and the lockdown is getting in the way of that. I don't really see a need for a deeper explanation than that. I have definitely seen more than the average number of them in recent times, but the development seems to make perfect sense given the unprecedented situation in the modern era.
Yeah, maybe I’m looking for an explanation where none is needed. With Trump in charge, partisanship dictates that Republicans will be fundamentally credulous to any narrative that presents the pandemic as less severe and inevitable; Democrats to any narrative that presents it as more severe and preventable.
I just don’t know what to expect. Are they gonna get way into homeopathy? Colloidal silver? I can’t imagine that crowd getting into chakras or Ayurveda, but you never know I suppose.
|
On May 02 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2020 06:13 LegalLord wrote:On May 02 2020 03:43 ChristianS wrote:
Sure, and I guess it was inevitable that the pseudoscience and conspiracy theories would dip into bad/fake medicine eventually. It’s one of the easier and more lucrative forms of grift. Sick people are desperate for people to tell them there’s an easy answer to theirvproblems, and where there’s an unmet demand, the free market must deliver...
But they haven’t usually gone so hard on it before. “The Deep State is giving Americans cancer” or “Diamond and Silk have a cure for Alzheimers *they* don’t want you to know about” hasn’t been a big thing up to now (or maybe I just haven’t heard about it?). The seed for conspiratorial lines of thought has always been there, and the current situation is quite unprecedented in modern times. The entire Republican core would like to believe that it's all bunk or easily handled because the want the "beautiful economy" to keep on rolling, and the lockdown is getting in the way of that. I don't really see a need for a deeper explanation than that. I have definitely seen more than the average number of them in recent times, but the development seems to make perfect sense given the unprecedented situation in the modern era. Yeah, maybe I’m looking for an explanation where none is needed. With Trump in charge, partisanship dictates that Republicans will be fundamentally credulous to any narrative that presents the pandemic as less severe and inevitable; Democrats to any narrative that presents it as more severe and preventable. I just don’t know what to expect. Are they gonna get way into homeopathy? Colloidal silver? I can’t imagine that crowd getting into chakras or Ayurveda, but you never know I suppose.
My Republican family already believes in Ayurveda, lol. 
|
|
|
I think this is a good sign. Biden is asking for the senate to release any info it has regarding the Tara Reade situation. Per PBS newshour correspondent, but it's a link to his letter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
