|
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 September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph.
Biden isn't even offering to put on the brakes, he's (especially if we limit it to what people actually believe his administration can do) to take his foot off the accelerator.
Problem is that cruise control is set and we have to (even if that means it can't be done through traditional political channels) hit the brakes and hard. The Paris Climate Accord for example has been thoroughly shown to be catastrophically inadequate and even if the signatories held themselves to their promises it'd put us over 2C precipitating catastrophic consequences.
There's also the larger issue that banking on no Republicans winning and accelerating again under the status quo system is painfully naive at best.
|
On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. That both are unacceptable isn't particularly relevant in a US election. There is no 3e option, in January one of the 2 will become President. (barring extraordinary circumstances).
|
On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else.
Well right now, this year, you don't have the choice of choosing anything other than 30mph or 70mph. That is the point.
Anyone who are educated in the field would love that we had a response with the same strength (probably stronger, in some areas of the world) as covid19, but the political will and support from the population isn't there. It is a major problem, but I would still prefer a candidate which causes in the end a 2 degree increase than a guy who goes full speed ahead towards 4 degrees. So that when the political will and support from the population is there, we haven't gone full speed and have some leeway to mitigate some parts of the disaster. Anyone who still believes the climate and ecological disaster can still be averted, are fooling themselves. We don't have the time for that anymore and we are already there.
On September 16 2020 18:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. Biden isn't even offering to put on the brakes, he's (especially if we limit it to what people actually believe his administration can do) to take his foot off the accelerator. Problem is that cruise control is set and we have to (even if that means it can't be done through traditional political channels) hit the brakes and hard. The Paris Climate Accord for example has been thoroughly shown to be catastrophically inadequate and even if the signatories held themselves to their promises it'd put us over 2C precipitating catastrophic consequences. There's also the larger issue that banking on no Republicans winning and accelerating again under the status quo system is painfully naive at best.
The Paris Climate Accord were harpooned in its power by your current president.
|
|
|
On September 16 2020 18:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. Biden isn't even offering to put on the brakes, he's (especially if we limit it to what people actually believe his administration can do) to take his foot off the accelerator. Problem is that cruise control is set and we have to (even if that means it can't be done through traditional political channels) hit the brakes and hard. The Paris Climate Accord for example has been thoroughly shown to be catastrophically inadequate and even if the signatories held themselves to their promises it'd put us over 2C precipitating catastrophic consequences. There's also the larger issue that banking on no Republicans winning and accelerating again under the status quo system is painfully naive at best.
The same people who would put Biden in the 'reasonable pro science guy' camp are usually the ones arguing against the measures put forward by those labelled 'hard left'. The measures that actually address the issues that scientists are bringing up.
Science is being used as a weapon to beat up on republicans, instead of a guiding light to help humanity survive.
|
On this topic of climate change / environmental support for each ticket, I think it's also useful to point out that Kamala Harris literally cowrote the Climate Equity Act alongside AOC, which is based on the Green New Deal. I'm way more optimistic for a Biden/Harris ticket in terms of actually supporting the scientific community than I am with another Trump/Pence term. I know the VP positions aren't as important as the P positions, but Trump isn't simply not-addressing-problems; he's literally going out of his way to make them worse.
|
On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else.
It's nice to know this stuff isn't falling completely on deaf ears.
The "popular" term is "climate delayers" and they are essentially the climate version of MLK's white moderate on race. Not so coincidentally, these groups have a lot of overlap.
|
On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters.
You're mischaracterizing my argument,
I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother.
I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate.
Think about the endorsement like this:
Biden's policies are a half measure between the anti-science polic of Trump and the Pro-science policy of earlier left wing primary candidates.
Why are they backing the half measure now, instead of backing the pro science measures that were available earlier?
I would suggest it has more to do with funding streams for science than it does any particular dedication to using science for good outcomes for everyone.
|
On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile.
Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science.
The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan.
It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate.
However one of them accelerates faster.
|
On September 16 2020 18:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. Biden isn't even offering to put on the brakes, he's (especially if we limit it to what people actually believe his administration can do) to take his foot off the accelerator. Problem is that cruise control is set and we have to (even if that means it can't be done through traditional political channels) hit the brakes and hard. The Paris Climate Accord for example has been thoroughly shown to be catastrophically inadequate and even if the signatories held themselves to their promises it'd put us over 2C precipitating catastrophic consequences. There's also the larger issue that banking on no Republicans winning and accelerating again under the status quo system is painfully naive at best. The same people who would put Biden in the 'reasonable pro science guy' camp are usually the ones arguing against the measures put forward by those labelled 'hard left'. The measures that actually address the issues that scientists are bringing up. Science is being used as a weapon to beat up on republicans, instead of a guiding light to help humanity survive.
Yup. Any ideas why so many people here don't see this?
On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile.
Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science.
The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan.
It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument,I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate.
I'm not sure he can help himself
|
On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway).
Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable?
[quote]
It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working.
I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster.
Yes, I agree.
Unfortunately, once the consequences of climate change really become clear, I'm not sure how fast we got there will be a relevant point of discussion.
|
On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway).
Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable?
[quote]
It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working.
I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster.
I'm not sure a death at 65mph is worse than a death at 80mph
|
On September 16 2020 18:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description.
That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster. Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, once the consequences of climate change really become clear, I'm not sure how fast we got there will be a relevant point of discussion.
To large regions of the world they are already quite clear, both in understanding and in consequences.
How fast an irrevertible disaster develops has a big role in how we react, which has been shown over and over again in our history.
On September 16 2020 18:43 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description.
That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster. I'm not sure a death at 65mph is worse than a death at 80mph
I am sure being maimed is better than death, to most.
|
On September 16 2020 18:49 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then.
Which one is the good guy?
Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:
[quote]
Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster. Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, once the consequences of climate change really become clear, I'm not sure how fast we got there will be a relevant point of discussion. To large regions of the world they are already quite clear, both in understanding and in consequences. How fast an irrevertible disaster develops has a big role in how we react, which has been shown over and over again in our history. Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:43 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then.
Which one is the good guy?
Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:
[quote]
Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster. I'm not sure a death at 65mph is worse than a death at 80mph I am sure being maimed is better than death, to most.
I'm not sure driving into a brick wall without a seatbelt on at either speeds is likely to wind up with many survivors.
|
On September 16 2020 18:52 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:49 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value.
Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:
[quote]
I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster. Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, once the consequences of climate change really become clear, I'm not sure how fast we got there will be a relevant point of discussion. To large regions of the world they are already quite clear, both in understanding and in consequences. How fast an irrevertible disaster develops has a big role in how we react, which has been shown over and over again in our history. On September 16 2020 18:43 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value.
Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:
[quote]
I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster. I'm not sure a death at 65mph is worse than a death at 80mph I am sure being maimed is better than death, to most. I'm not sure driving into a brick wall without a seatbelt on at either speeds is likely to wind up with many survivors.
And I am sure that you understand that there are different scenarios of different global temperature increases. All which have different consequences. It is not death vs death. Or is everything black vs white?
|
On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile.
Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science.
The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan.
It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. And yet one of them will be President.
So pick.
Most here are not saying that we shouldn't be doing more. We should do more, but there is no climate Jesus on the ticket come November, thanks to the wonders of the US election system it's Trump or Biden.
|
On September 16 2020 18:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. Biden isn't even offering to put on the brakes, he's (especially if we limit it to what people actually believe his administration can do) to take his foot off the accelerator. Problem is that cruise control is set and we have to (even if that means it can't be done through traditional political channels) hit the brakes and hard. The Paris Climate Accord for example has been thoroughly shown to be catastrophically inadequate and even if the signatories held themselves to their promises it'd put us over 2C precipitating catastrophic consequences. There's also the larger issue that banking on no Republicans winning and accelerating again under the status quo system is painfully naive at best. The same people who would put Biden in the 'reasonable pro science guy' camp are usually the ones arguing against the measures put forward by those labelled 'hard left'. The measures that actually address the issues that scientists are bringing up. Science is being used as a weapon to beat up on republicans, instead of a guiding light to help humanity survive. Yup. Any ideas why so many people here don't see this?
I've been trying to answer this for a while but can't quite figure it out. The best I can come up with is:
A few years ago when climate warnings from the scientific community really started increasing in volume and frequency, people started realizing that we need to do something radical and very soon. Then Trump came along and said 'Fuck the environment.'
I guess compared to that, continuing to do nothing seems better right?
So in short, people have extremely short memories and aren't willing to look beyond their narrow world view and see things in context.
On September 16 2020 18:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway).
Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable?
[quote]
It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working.
I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. And yet one of them will be President. So pick. Most here are not saying that we shouldn't be doing more. We should do more, but there is no climate Jesus on the ticket come November, thanks to the wonders of the US election system it's Trump or Biden.
1: I don't have to pick. I have my own moronic apocalyptic government.
2: The choice at this election is one thing. Having people misrepresent Biden as the pro-science candidate is a huge problem for me. Biden is the acceptable face of ignoring science. If people accept that, my job here is done.
|
On September 16 2020 18:53 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:52 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 18:49 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable.
You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable.
In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster. Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, once the consequences of climate change really become clear, I'm not sure how fast we got there will be a relevant point of discussion. To large regions of the world they are already quite clear, both in understanding and in consequences. How fast an irrevertible disaster develops has a big role in how we react, which has been shown over and over again in our history. On September 16 2020 18:43 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable.
You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable.
In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster. I'm not sure a death at 65mph is worse than a death at 80mph I am sure being maimed is better than death, to most. I'm not sure driving into a brick wall without a seatbelt on at either speeds is likely to wind up with many survivors. And I am sure that you understand that there are different scenarios of different global temperature increases. All which have different consequences. It is not death vs death. Or is everything black vs white?
And you mean to say that Joe Biden will take us to a place where climate change will claim no lives?
Joe Biden won't even minimize the loss of life, his and the Democrats priorities are firmly rooted in not giving enough of a shit.
It's literally death vs death, Joe Biden doesn't even shift it from Lots of Death down to Quite a Bit of Death.
|
On September 16 2020 18:43 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:36 Neneu wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description.
That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. However one of them accelerates faster. I'm not sure a death at 65mph is worse than a death at 80mph
More time to yell out the window at the idiots that refused to gas up and hop in either deathtrap but are still put at risk by the fallout? Fallout caused by the mature reasonable adults that insisted the only rational choice is to gas up and hop in the slower death trap because a terminal status quo is preferable to risking their precarious comfort for a balanced and sustainable society focused on equity, justice, and critical consciousness (conscientização).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
