|
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 |
|
|
They are backing the half measures now because there are only two choices
The thing that bothers me the most about this rewriting of history is that it pretends all the candidates (more importantly their supporters) that beat Biden in primaries had no choice but to rally to him when "the only two choices" were Sanders and Biden.
They chose Biden and his policy over Sanders and his policy because the Democrats as a party support bad policy.
|
On September 16 2020 19:24 JimmiC 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. 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. They are backing the half measures now because there are only two choices. It is the trolley problem and you can obstain or pick c because it does not exist. The best you can do is pick the better of the two and try to influence other things. They are also backing him because climate is not the only area where Trump is attacking science he is doing it everywhere. Saying there is no difference is wrong, there is a major difference. Back to your analogy is one was suggesting to beat him to death and take his stuff and the other one was suggesting to give him a backpack of water, which might save him if it buys him enough time to get more help from others or find water himself but also could just mean he dies later. Who is better? And if you don't pick they will just beat him to death and take his stuff. GHs the dems too schtick had a lot more traction when there was a much smaller difference between. The two options. Now there is a massive difference. It is just as nonsensical to say climate change is a hoax as it is too say that making major differences in policy will make no change. 2+2 =3 is different than 2+2=5 but both are wrong.
C did exist, and Scientific American was silent.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 16 2020 19:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 19:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:24 JimmiC 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. 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. They are backing the half measures now because there are only two choices. It is the trolley problem and you can obstain or pick c because it does not exist. The best you can do is pick the better of the two and try to influence other things. They are also backing him because climate is not the only area where Trump is attacking science he is doing it everywhere. Saying there is no difference is wrong, there is a major difference. Back to your analogy is one was suggesting to beat him to death and take his stuff and the other one was suggesting to give him a backpack of water, which might save him if it buys him enough time to get more help from others or find water himself but also could just mean he dies later. Who is better? And if you don't pick they will just beat him to death and take his stuff. GHs the dems too schtick had a lot more traction when there was a much smaller difference between. The two options. Now there is a massive difference. It is just as nonsensical to say climate change is a hoax as it is too say that making major differences in policy will make no change. 2+2 =3 is different than 2+2=5 but both are wrong. C did exist, and Scientific American was silent. So they should double down on their mistake and remain silent?
No, but as a science publication, endorsing an anti-science candidate because he isn't as anti-science as the other guy is embarrassing.
|
|
|
On September 16 2020 19:32 GreenHorizons wrote:The thing that bothers me the most about this revisionism is that it pretends all the candidates (more importantly their supporters) that beat Biden in primaries had no choice but to rally to him when "the only two choices" were Sanders and Biden. They chose Biden and his policy over Sanders and his policy because the Democrats as a party support bad policy. I'd say its because Sanders and his supporters are a minority within the party and within the US, but Sanders isn't even part of the Democratic Party.
You can jump up and down proclaiming how bad people are for not recognising the threat of climate change and most here will agree with you, many here also preferred Sanders over Biden. But, again, that is a minority. And no amount of huffing and puffing is going to change that the choice is Biden vs Trump, and more then your huffing and puffing last time mattered when it was Clinton vs Trump or your huffing and puffing next time is going to matter when its still not Sanders or however else would be good enough for you.
|
On September 16 2020 19:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 19:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:34 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 19:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:24 JimmiC 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. 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. They are backing the half measures now because there are only two choices. It is the trolley problem and you can obstain or pick c because it does not exist. The best you can do is pick the better of the two and try to influence other things. They are also backing him because climate is not the only area where Trump is attacking science he is doing it everywhere. Saying there is no difference is wrong, there is a major difference. Back to your analogy is one was suggesting to beat him to death and take his stuff and the other one was suggesting to give him a backpack of water, which might save him if it buys him enough time to get more help from others or find water himself but also could just mean he dies later. Who is better? And if you don't pick they will just beat him to death and take his stuff. GHs the dems too schtick had a lot more traction when there was a much smaller difference between. The two options. Now there is a massive difference. It is just as nonsensical to say climate change is a hoax as it is too say that making major differences in policy will make no change. 2+2 =3 is different than 2+2=5 but both are wrong. C did exist, and Scientific American was silent. So they should double down on their mistake and remain silent? No, but as a science publication, endorsing an anti-science candidate because he isn't as anti-science as the other guy is embarrassing. That America only has those two choices right now? So they should stay silent to avoid embarrassment instead of trying to make the better choice?
No, they should have backed the pro-science candidates before, unless they are prepared to admit that this is about funding for science and getting revenge on Trump for shutting science programs down.
Would you be happy if they endorsed a hardcore right wing Christian activist who was equally 'not as bad as Trump'? How about a flat Earther?
|
Northern Ireland27412 Posts
While this back and forth on the climate is novel for this thread, it is worth noting that the first line of the Scientific American op ed is about the Covid response, which features prominently along with cuts to public health agencies, Trump’s attitude to the WHO and scientific expertise etc.
While climate does feature it’s not exactly the focus here. If it were then, or if there wasn’t all this other stuff and they were making a virtue of endorsing the slightly less bad candidate here then sure I’d be a bit critical of it being grandstanding too.
It’s really not the focus it’s a factor though sure, it’s all this other stuff. Depending on one’s view on the climate the Biden platform is considerably better thru being close to as bad.
On the persistent willingness to both ignore and discredit advice from the scientific community across all sorts of areas more generally they are poles apart and I think an endorsement is somewhat prudent.
Aside from any high falutin’ defence of the importance of science, scientists have to feel professionally valued and eat too, defunding various organisations directly impacts on scientists as people as well.
|
On September 16 2020 19:43 WombaT wrote:While this back and forth on the climate is novel for this thread, it is worth noting that the first line of the Scientific American op ed is about the Covid response, which features prominently along with cuts to public health agencies, Trump’s attitude to the WHO and scientific expertise etc. While climate does feature it’s not exactly the focus here. If it were then, or if there wasn’t all this other stuff and they were making a virtue of endorsing the slightly less bad candidate here then sure I’d be a bit critical of it being grandstanding too. It’s really not the focus it’s a factor though sure, it’s all this other stuff. Depending on one’s view on the climate the Biden platform is considerably better thru being close to as bad. On the persistent willingness to both ignore and discredit advice from the scientific community across all sorts of areas more generally they are poles apart and I think an endorsement is somewhat prudent. Aside from any high falutin’ defence of the importance of science, scientists have to feel professionally valued and eat too, defunding various organisations directly impacts on scientists as people as well.
The actual text seems to be far more focused on Trump than Biden.
I would be fine with it if they were just criticizing Trump's performance. I have concerns about a science publication endorsing a man who will definitely ignore science in favor of short term economic concerns. Its the principle of the thing.
|
|
|
On September 16 2020 19:48 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 19:43 WombaT wrote:While this back and forth on the climate is novel for this thread, it is worth noting that the first line of the Scientific American op ed is about the Covid response, which features prominently along with cuts to public health agencies, Trump’s attitude to the WHO and scientific expertise etc. While climate does feature it’s not exactly the focus here. If it were then, or if there wasn’t all this other stuff and they were making a virtue of endorsing the slightly less bad candidate here then sure I’d be a bit critical of it being grandstanding too. It’s really not the focus it’s a factor though sure, it’s all this other stuff. Depending on one’s view on the climate the Biden platform is considerably better thru being close to as bad. On the persistent willingness to both ignore and discredit advice from the scientific community across all sorts of areas more generally they are poles apart and I think an endorsement is somewhat prudent. Aside from any high falutin’ defence of the importance of science, scientists have to feel professionally valued and eat too, defunding various organisations directly impacts on scientists as people as well. The actual text seems to be far more focused on Trump than Biden. I would be fine with it if they were just criticizing Trump's performance. I have concerns about a science publication endorsing a man who will definitely ignore science in favor of short term economic concerns. Its the principle of the thing.
It wouldn't be the clickbaity "175 years...SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN endorses Biden!" then. It'd just be another of the million "OMG Trumpocalypse by the editors of ____" pieces.
|
On September 16 2020 19:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:39 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 19:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:34 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 19:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:24 JimmiC 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:
[quote]
[quote]
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. They are backing the half measures now because there are only two choices. It is the trolley problem and you can obstain or pick c because it does not exist. The best you can do is pick the better of the two and try to influence other things. They are also backing him because climate is not the only area where Trump is attacking science he is doing it everywhere. Saying there is no difference is wrong, there is a major difference. Back to your analogy is one was suggesting to beat him to death and take his stuff and the other one was suggesting to give him a backpack of water, which might save him if it buys him enough time to get more help from others or find water himself but also could just mean he dies later. Who is better? And if you don't pick they will just beat him to death and take his stuff. GHs the dems too schtick had a lot more traction when there was a much smaller difference between. The two options. Now there is a massive difference. It is just as nonsensical to say climate change is a hoax as it is too say that making major differences in policy will make no change. 2+2 =3 is different than 2+2=5 but both are wrong. C did exist, and Scientific American was silent. So they should double down on their mistake and remain silent? No, but as a science publication, endorsing an anti-science candidate because he isn't as anti-science as the other guy is embarrassing. That America only has those two choices right now? So they should stay silent to avoid embarrassment instead of trying to make the better choice? No, they should have backed the pro-science candidates before, unless they are prepared to admit that this is about funding for science and getting revenge on Trump for shutting science programs down. Would you be happy if they endorsed a hardcore right wing Christian activist who was equally 'not as bad as Trump'? How about a flat Earther? They can't those are not options. I'm not playing the fantasy version where we can make up alternative realities and then talk to those dealing with the actual current options.
*sigh*
Its amazing how people like you refuse to engage their imagination even for a second if its inconvenient. Its like you can't bring yourself to honestly answer the question so you have to avoid it.
As a scientific publication, their primary interest should be getting people to take science seriously.
Backing a candidate who in all likelihood will spend the next few years ignoring any scientific advice he gets if its inconvenient for him is very. very bad for science, when compared to just not backing any candidate.
Shit they can criticize Trump all they want, but they have tied the fate of science in the US to someone who isn't worth it, and will show himself to be not worth it.
|
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing, so this has the air of pearl clutching on a grand scale.
On a related note, political neutrality is itself a political stance, as is adhering to that stance when presented with a given scenario.
|
On September 16 2020 20:23 farvacola wrote:
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing.
You don't think the way this has been reported is as if Scientific American speaks for the scientific community?
|
Yikes.
Are we living in a world where our ideas and hopes become real as we share them ? Let's pray for a united green world lads!
There is 2 choices in the coming US election. One of them doesn't listen to science _at all_, The other is doing baby steps.
You can't put democrats and republicans together on climate change when you look at the votes in congress/senate. One party does everything it can to deregulates, the other somewhat tries to do things better.
It's a choice of bad vs worse, just like most 2nd round of elections.
|
On September 16 2020 18:58 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 18:53 Neneu wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
Ah so it is black vs white for you. Sad to tell you, but we will have lives lost as they already have been lives lost. There will be ecological catastrophe, because it already is. How many lives will be lost in the future and how much biological diversity we will lose, are however not set in stone and how fast you move towards the disaster can actually make a change. It basically decides how much leeway and type of responses your next president after either Trump or Biden have to mitigate the ongoing catastrophe.
|
On September 16 2020 20:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 20:23 farvacola wrote:
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing. You don't think the way this has been reported is as if Scientific American speaks for the scientific community?
I’m not sure, the relationship between flagship professional mouthpieces and professional consensus writ large is one I would label very complicated. That some media are presenting SA as the de-facto face of science is of middling relevance to whether SAs endorsement bears any relation to the status of science as a thing people do, particularly when viewed in the context of just how poorly millions of Americans understand scientific basics. There’s effectively no one out there saying, “well I was gonna be pro science, but then SA endorsed Biden, guess I’m anti science now,” and if anyone actually thinks that, they were never going to be pro science in the first place lol
|
On September 16 2020 20:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 20:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 20:23 farvacola wrote:
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing. You don't think the way this has been reported is as if Scientific American speaks for the scientific community? I’m not sure, the relationship between flagship professional mouthpieces and professional consensus writ large is one I would label very complicated. That some media are presenting SA as the de-facto face of science is of middling relevance to whether SAs endorsement bears any relation to the status of science as a thing people do, particularly when viewed in the context of just how poorly millions of Americans understand scientific basics. There’s effectively no one out there saying, “well I was gonna be pro science, but then SA endorsed Biden, guess I’m anti science now,” and if anyone actually thinks that, they were never going to be pro science in the first place lol
This is correct, but i would contend that there's plenty of people who do think that they are pro science and support Biden partly based on that, and the SA's endorsement is likely to reinforce that.
Public opinion is a big factor, and yeah I accept that the relationship between SA and science as a whole is complex, but public opinion of science is more and more becoming yet another political battleground, and endorsing Biden isn't going to help that situation at all in the long run, because it misrepresents what it means for a politician to be pro-science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
