|
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 |
3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math.
|
Theres an extra point to Nuclear as being a reliable power source throughout the day. Theres a problem right now in the power grid called the "duck curve" where while solar is great and lowering stress on the power grid it isn't effective in the evening where power consumption is the greatest. Wind also isn't a constantly reliable source of power.
|
On October 09 2018 14:07 Bigtony wrote:3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math.
Yes, I don't get it! I have decided not to worry about climate change, as extremely few people and governments are willing to put cutting CO2 emissions first once it seriously hurts their economy or lifestyle. Humans are great at adapting to changing conditions anyway. America is populated by Europeans partly because of a COLD period in Europe, causing famine.
Colder is worse than warmer, and I believe the climate will prove to be uncontrollable, despite our best efforts.
|
Canada11586 Posts
On October 09 2018 05:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 04:44 Sermokala wrote:
Amy Klobuchar would be the easy win candidate for the Democrats. A safe nice midwestern woman would secure The blue firewall that was promised in 2016. She's an incredibly hard target seeing how she even got Kavanaugh to apologize to her.
Booker would be an easy target for Republicans from being in New Jersey to being well lets be objective black (disclaimers about it being me saying he's bad because hes black I don't think being black means hes inferior I'm not saying that I'm saying that it would be easy to sling mud at him for the conservative base because hes black)
Warren would be an even worse candidate than Hillary. I don't know why she's considered a serious candidate for the presidency. She's probably pretty popular within her crowd but would die a death on any national campaign.
Bernie could give a candidate a rocket at the start of a campaign but I don't think the party could survive another Bernie Sanders campaign pulling the party apart (through no fault of his own) Half the country is never going to vote for a woman. Or, for that matter, a Jew. They need to run an old rich white Christian male that the country can somehow all relate to despite having nothing in common.
Half? Being a wee bit hyperbolic aren't we? They already do vote in Americans Jews: Eric Cantor, Jason Chaffetz, and David Kustoff for example. But there aren't many to pick from as I think it's something like only 3 in 10 American Jews identify as Republican. As for women... if Fox News is anything to go by, I don't think Republicans would be adverse to voting for a woman. At least they don't seem adverse to female political commentators and outright provocateurs. And since the 90's there seems to be an uptick in female governors for both parties in about equal numbers, so I wouldn't rule it out. It's not like there has been a lot of women even in the governor position until very recently and the Democrats had a bit of a head start with 'Ma' Ferguson. Give it time, and it'll happen for both, I suspect. But if I had to guess the sort of woman a Republican would vote in as president, I'd hazard one that you'd be familiar with: a Thatcher-type. Follow Trump's one or two terms with a woman that has the grit of the Iron Lady and I think you'd see a woman leading the charge on the right, no problem.
|
On October 09 2018 15:30 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 14:07 Bigtony wrote:3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math. Yes, I don't get it! I have decided not to worry about climate change, as extremely few people and governments are willing to put cutting CO2 emissions first once it seriously hurts their economy or lifestyle. Humans are great at adapting to changing conditions anyway. America is populated by Europeans partly because of a COLD period in Europe, causing famine. Colder is worse than warmer, and I believe the climate will prove to be uncontrollable, despite our best efforts.
Well if you are not worried I advice you to at least glance over the summary of the report:
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
Also, I don't get how people can be against nuclear power, but still have trust in climate change. The only difference between climate deniers and people against nuclear power is that while climate deniers deny the disease, people against nuclear power refuse the medicine. It is cherry picking of science to confirm your own believes at its best.
Well unless one believes the effects of climate change to be less dangerous than nuclear power, but that would be just absurd.
|
On October 09 2018 16:23 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 05:38 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2018 04:44 Sermokala wrote:
Amy Klobuchar would be the easy win candidate for the Democrats. A safe nice midwestern woman would secure The blue firewall that was promised in 2016. She's an incredibly hard target seeing how she even got Kavanaugh to apologize to her.
Booker would be an easy target for Republicans from being in New Jersey to being well lets be objective black (disclaimers about it being me saying he's bad because hes black I don't think being black means hes inferior I'm not saying that I'm saying that it would be easy to sling mud at him for the conservative base because hes black)
Warren would be an even worse candidate than Hillary. I don't know why she's considered a serious candidate for the presidency. She's probably pretty popular within her crowd but would die a death on any national campaign.
Bernie could give a candidate a rocket at the start of a campaign but I don't think the party could survive another Bernie Sanders campaign pulling the party apart (through no fault of his own) Half the country is never going to vote for a woman. Or, for that matter, a Jew. They need to run an old rich white Christian male that the country can somehow all relate to despite having nothing in common. Half? Being a wee bit hyperbolic aren't we? They already do vote in Americans Jews: Eric Cantor, Jason Chaffetz, and David Kustoff for example. But there aren't many to pick from as I think it's something like only 3 in 10 American Jews identify as Republican. As for women... if Fox News is anything to go by, I don't think Republicans would be adverse to voting for a woman. At least they don't seem adverse to female political commentators and outright provocateurs. And since the 90's there seems to be an uptick in female governors for both parties in about equal numbers, so I wouldn't rule it out. It's not like there has been a lot of women even in the governor position until very recently and the Democrats had a bit of a head start with 'Ma' Ferguson. Give it time, and it'll happen for both, I suspect. But if I had to guess the sort of woman a Republican would vote in as president, I'd hazard one that you'd be familiar with: a Thatcher-type. Follow Trump's one or two terms with a woman that has the grit of the Iron Lady and I think you'd see a woman leading the charge on the right, no problem.
Thatcher was a very unique human, but yes, something along those lines. Some people forget that in the home she was utterly obedient to her husband, as she was a devout Christian.
If a Thatcher type rose in the Republican ranks nobody could stop her. But that's because a lot of them are spineless, and a will like Thatcher's just completely dominates people like that. I don't really see anyone like that in the landscape currently.
I don't know the wisdom of running a woman against Trump in 2020. He did win white women overall, and it just seems to play into the type of playing identity politics that pisses Conservatives off these days.
|
The tory party in the 1980’s didn’t have a base of mysoginists and male chauvinists as far as I know. The central question for Trump ectorate is whether or not white heterosexual men keep being at the top of social hierarchy. I think even someone as hard as Thatcher would be a liability at that point. A white macho bully is the only realistic persectove to lead the GOP as long as the thematics that interest its voters haven’t changed.
|
On October 09 2018 17:29 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 15:30 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 14:07 Bigtony wrote:3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math. Yes, I don't get it! I have decided not to worry about climate change, as extremely few people and governments are willing to put cutting CO2 emissions first once it seriously hurts their economy or lifestyle. Humans are great at adapting to changing conditions anyway. America is populated by Europeans partly because of a COLD period in Europe, causing famine. Colder is worse than warmer, and I believe the climate will prove to be uncontrollable, despite our best efforts. Well if you are not worried I advice you to at least glance over the summary of the report: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdfAlso, I don't get how people can be against nuclear power, but still have trust in climate change. The only difference between climate deniers and people against nuclear power is that while climate deniers deny the disease, people against nuclear power refuse the medicine. It is cherry picking of science to confirm your own believes at its best. Well unless one believes the effects of climate change to be less dangerous than nuclear power, but that would be just absurd.
I will read it more carefully at some point, but no, I am not worried.
-There will be significant posetive effects of a warmer climate locally. Humans don't like change, but it is not always bad.
-I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality. I also assume that there are strong incentives to making negative prognosis, as they make more awarness of the field and eventually more funding for climate research.
-Our perspective of what is "normal" is extremely narrow. If we had detailed data from the last 1 million years, I think we would have looked very differently at current events: Super volcanoes, ice ages, big swings in solar activity, changing currents, knowing what is actually extreme weather, knowing with certainty how much CO2 and other gasses influence the climate or if they fluctuate together, natural changes in polar ice caps etc.
-Stability isn't normal! Somehow, it seems like we are expected to believe that the current world climate is supposed to stay the same for the foreseable future. We shouldn't! It will get warmer or cooler, and both will have significant on where we can live, how we migrate and where food is grown among other things.
-We currently cause much bigger migration problems through wars and misgovernance than climate change.
That being said, there are other very good reasons to get rid of fossile fuels too, but I dislike that CO2 is treated like pollution, which it isn't.
|
On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 17:29 Neneu wrote:On October 09 2018 15:30 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 14:07 Bigtony wrote:3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math. Yes, I don't get it! I have decided not to worry about climate change, as extremely few people and governments are willing to put cutting CO2 emissions first once it seriously hurts their economy or lifestyle. Humans are great at adapting to changing conditions anyway. America is populated by Europeans partly because of a COLD period in Europe, causing famine. Colder is worse than warmer, and I believe the climate will prove to be uncontrollable, despite our best efforts. Well if you are not worried I advice you to at least glance over the summary of the report: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdfAlso, I don't get how people can be against nuclear power, but still have trust in climate change. The only difference between climate deniers and people against nuclear power is that while climate deniers deny the disease, people against nuclear power refuse the medicine. It is cherry picking of science to confirm your own believes at its best. Well unless one believes the effects of climate change to be less dangerous than nuclear power, but that would be just absurd. I will read it more carefully at some point, but no, I am not worried. -There will be significant posetive effects of a warmer climate locally. Humans don't like change, but it is not always bad. -I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality. I also assume that there are strong incentives to making negative prognosis, as they make more awarness of the field and eventually more funding for climate research. -Our perspective of what is "normal" is extremely narrow. If we had detailed data from the last 1 million years, I think we would have looked very differently at current events: Super volcanoes, ice ages, big swings in solar activity, changing currents, knowing what is actually extreme weather, knowing with certainty how much CO2 and other gasses influence the climate or if they fluctuate together, natural changes in polar ice caps etc. -Stability isn't normal! Somehow, it seems like we are expected to believe that the current world climate is supposed to stay the same for the foreseable future. We shouldn't! It will get warmer or cooler, and both will have significant on where we can live, how we migrate and where food is grown among other things. -We currently cause much bigger migration problems through wars and misgovernance than climate change. That being said, there are other very good reasons to get rid of fossile fuels too, but I dislike that CO2 is treated like pollution, which it isn't.
So you haven't read it then. Point 1, 3, 4 and 5 is addressed. When it comes to point 2, do you honestly believe that the financial incentive is bigger than financial incentive provided by every industry dependent on fossil fuel? It's not like there have been lacking funding from the petroleum industry. The report summary have been criticized for being too positive compared to the actual report, because of said pressure.
edit: forgot to add point 5
|
So you haven't read it then. Point 1, 3, 4 and 5 is addressed. When it comes to point 2, do you honestly believe that the financial incentive is bigger than financial incentive provided by every industry dependent on fossil fuel? It's not like there have been lacking funding from the petroleum industry. The report summary have been criticized for being too positive compared to the actual report, because of said pressure.
edit: forgot to add point 5
From the scientist's pov, it is problematic when one outcome is more profitable than another, and even more so in uncertain exercises like predicting the future based on present data. Bad prognosis create more media attention which in turn will even force the petroleum industry to fund more research, so I am pretty sure the doomsday prophets win out in any scenario.
The Norwegian state oil company even changed it's name to "equinor" to greenwash themselves. The hypocricy is stunning at any level, so I don't have any hope in significant change. If we really wanted impact, we would do things like forbidding fracking, close airports and highways, hinder global trade, stop taxfree sales in airports, encourage more people to live in big cities and rejoice when oil prices go up, but that won't happen. It is much more convenient to heavily subsidize expensive and unreliable solar/wind energy and electric cars (which won't solve anything except moving pollution out of the cities.)
|
Canada11586 Posts
On October 09 2018 17:50 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 16:23 Falling wrote:On October 09 2018 05:38 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2018 04:44 Sermokala wrote:
Amy Klobuchar would be the easy win candidate for the Democrats. A safe nice midwestern woman would secure The blue firewall that was promised in 2016. She's an incredibly hard target seeing how she even got Kavanaugh to apologize to her.
Booker would be an easy target for Republicans from being in New Jersey to being well lets be objective black (disclaimers about it being me saying he's bad because hes black I don't think being black means hes inferior I'm not saying that I'm saying that it would be easy to sling mud at him for the conservative base because hes black)
Warren would be an even worse candidate than Hillary. I don't know why she's considered a serious candidate for the presidency. She's probably pretty popular within her crowd but would die a death on any national campaign.
Bernie could give a candidate a rocket at the start of a campaign but I don't think the party could survive another Bernie Sanders campaign pulling the party apart (through no fault of his own) Half the country is never going to vote for a woman. Or, for that matter, a Jew. They need to run an old rich white Christian male that the country can somehow all relate to despite having nothing in common. Half? Being a wee bit hyperbolic aren't we? They already do vote in Americans Jews: Eric Cantor, Jason Chaffetz, and David Kustoff for example. But there aren't many to pick from as I think it's something like only 3 in 10 American Jews identify as Republican. As for women... if Fox News is anything to go by, I don't think Republicans would be adverse to voting for a woman. At least they don't seem adverse to female political commentators and outright provocateurs. And since the 90's there seems to be an uptick in female governors for both parties in about equal numbers, so I wouldn't rule it out. It's not like there has been a lot of women even in the governor position until very recently and the Democrats had a bit of a head start with 'Ma' Ferguson. Give it time, and it'll happen for both, I suspect. But if I had to guess the sort of woman a Republican would vote in as president, I'd hazard one that you'd be familiar with: a Thatcher-type. Follow Trump's one or two terms with a woman that has the grit of the Iron Lady and I think you'd see a woman leading the charge on the right, no problem. Thatcher was a very unique human, but yes, something along those lines. Some people forget that in the home she was utterly obedient to her husband, as she was a devout Christian. I f a Thatcher type rose in the Republican ranks nobody could stop her. But that's because a lot of them are spineless, and a will like Thatcher's just completely dominates people like that. I don't really see anyone like that in the landscape currently. I don't know the wisdom of running a woman against Trump in 2020. He did win white women overall, and it just seems to play into the type of playing identity politics that pisses Conservatives off these days.
Yes, that's exactly why a Thatcher type could and would clean up on the Republican side. But you are right, I don't really see someone like that right now.
|
On October 09 2018 19:31 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +So you haven't read it then. Point 1, 3, 4 and 5 is addressed. When it comes to point 2, do you honestly believe that the financial incentive is bigger than financial incentive provided by every industry dependent on fossil fuel? It's not like there have been lacking funding from the petroleum industry. The report summary have been criticized for being too positive compared to the actual report, because of said pressure.
edit: forgot to add point 5 From the scientist's pov, it is problematic when one outcome is more profitable than another, and even more so in uncertain exercises like predicting the future based on present data. Bad prognosis create more media attention which in turn will even force the petroleum industry to fund more research, so I am pretty sure the doomsday prophets win out in any scenario. The Norwegian state oil company even changed it's name to "equinor" to greenwash themselves. The hypocricy is stunning at any level, so I don't have any hope in significant change. If we really wanted impact, we would do things like forbidding fracking, close airports and highways, hinder global trade, stop taxfree sales in airports, encourage more people to live in big cities and rejoice when oil prices go up, but that won't happen. It is much more convenient to heavily subsidize expensive and unreliable solar/wind energy and electric cars (which won't solve anything except moving pollution out of the cities.)
Some scientists make a career of telling the public what the corporations want to hear, they certainly receive more than the alarmists.
It's true that the system as it is won't do enough/much to fight climate change, but that leads me to worry and want to change it more, not less. Giving up isn't sexy.
|
On October 09 2018 19:31 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +So you haven't read it then. Point 1, 3, 4 and 5 is addressed. When it comes to point 2, do you honestly believe that the financial incentive is bigger than financial incentive provided by every industry dependent on fossil fuel? It's not like there have been lacking funding from the petroleum industry. The report summary have been criticized for being too positive compared to the actual report, because of said pressure.
edit: forgot to add point 5 From the scientist's pov, it is problematic when one outcome is more profitable than another, and even more so in uncertain exercises like predicting the future based on present data. Bad prognosis create more media attention which in turn will even force the petroleum industry to fund more research, so I am pretty sure the doomsday prophets win out in any scenario. The Norwegian state oil company even changed it's name to "equinor" to greenwash themselves. The hypocricy is stunning at any level, so I don't have any hope in significant change. If we really wanted impact, we would do things like forbidding fracking, close airports and highways, hinder global trade, stop taxfree sales in airports, encourage more people to live in big cities and rejoice when oil prices go up, but that won't happen. It is much more convenient to heavily subsidize expensive and unreliable solar/wind energy and electric cars (which won't solve anything except moving pollution out of the cities.)
Media attention when reports that downplay the climate change is released, is not in any way lacking. If you look at the media attention of negative and positive scientific reports, when released, the chance of getting media attention is heavily in favor of the positive report. Which is not strange, considering that almost every single report is negative. If you would give them all equal media attention, you would have a lot more negative articles in the media.
Oh I know, I've lived in Stavanger for 8 years. I know how the petroleum industry works. I also know that there are more reasons behind the name change. Diversifying and weaken the internationally perceived link between the state and the company (which is important in diplomatic relations, it is a public limited company after all), is also an important reason for the change.
Edit:"Sorry btw, will stop with the offtopic now. This doesnt really belong in the US politics thread, even though climate change is a global issue.
|
On October 09 2018 17:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The tory party in the 1980’s didn’t have a base of mysoginists and male chauvinists as far as I know. The central question for Trump ectorate is whether or not white heterosexual men keep being at the top of social hierarchy. I think even someone as hard as Thatcher would be a liability at that point. A white macho bully is the only realistic persectove to lead the GOP as long as the thematics that interest its voters haven’t changed.
Right, that's why there are many women GOP Senators and Representatives. That's also why they nominated a woman as VP....a woman, I might add, that was viciously attacked by Democrats. I suppose it's like GOP African Americans - they're called all sorts of names and derided by Democrats. Is there no shame in the hypocrisy? I really really dislike having to defend people like Palin and Bachmann or Sarah Huckabee, but damn, man, the hypocrisy is a lot worse. Don't ya'll get tired of name calling all the time? It's why you guys keep losing elections and are huddled in small enclaves by alienating everyone outside your little bubbles. At least GH tends to argue on the merits and policies (outside of calling every white person by default a racist, but I digress).
|
On October 09 2018 20:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 17:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The tory party in the 1980’s didn’t have a base of mysoginists and male chauvinists as far as I know. The central question for Trump ectorate is whether or not white heterosexual men keep being at the top of social hierarchy. I think even someone as hard as Thatcher would be a liability at that point. A white macho bully is the only realistic persectove to lead the GOP as long as the thematics that interest its voters haven’t changed. Right, that's why there are many women GOP Senators and Representatives. That's also why they nominated a woman as a VP....a woman, I might add, that was viciously attacked by Democrats. I suppose it's like GOP African Americans - they're called all sorts of names and derided by Democrats. Is there no shame in the hypocrisy? I really really dislike having to defend people like Palin and Bachmann or Sarah Huckabee, but damn, man, the hypocrisy is a lot worse. Don't ya'll get tired of name calling all the time? It's why you guys keep losing elections and are huddled in small enclaves by alienating everyone outside your little bubbles. At least GH tends to argue on the merits and policies (outside of calling every white person by default a racist, but I digress). Palin was attacked because shes pants on head retarded. Even most Republicans admit she is a disgrace and helped sink McCains campaign.
Huckabee is attacked because she spends all day every day lying to the American public on behalf of Trump
Neither of them 'lead' the GOP in any shape or fashion, neither is attacked because they are a women.
Donno enough about Bachmann to comment.
|
On October 09 2018 14:07 Bigtony wrote:3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math.
It also takes over a decade to get approval for a nuclear plant and get it built, so building a new plant will be pissing money away by the time it finishes and you'd have to deal with the drawbacks of nuclear.
|
On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 17:29 Neneu wrote:On October 09 2018 15:30 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 14:07 Bigtony wrote:3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math. Yes, I don't get it! I have decided not to worry about climate change, as extremely few people and governments are willing to put cutting CO2 emissions first once it seriously hurts their economy or lifestyle. Humans are great at adapting to changing conditions anyway. America is populated by Europeans partly because of a COLD period in Europe, causing famine. Colder is worse than warmer, and I believe the climate will prove to be uncontrollable, despite our best efforts. Well if you are not worried I advice you to at least glance over the summary of the report: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdfAlso, I don't get how people can be against nuclear power, but still have trust in climate change. The only difference between climate deniers and people against nuclear power is that while climate deniers deny the disease, people against nuclear power refuse the medicine. It is cherry picking of science to confirm your own believes at its best. Well unless one believes the effects of climate change to be less dangerous than nuclear power, but that would be just absurd. I will read it more carefully at some point, but no, I am not worried. -There will be significant posetive effects of a warmer climate locally. Humans don't like change, but it is not always bad. -I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality. I also assume that there are strong incentives to making negative prognosis, as they make more awarness of the field and eventually more funding for climate research. -Our perspective of what is "normal" is extremely narrow. If we had detailed data from the last 1 million years, I think we would have looked very differently at current events: Super volcanoes, ice ages, big swings in solar activity, changing currents, knowing what is actually extreme weather, knowing with certainty how much CO2 and other gasses influence the climate or if they fluctuate together, natural changes in polar ice caps etc. -Stability isn't normal! Somehow, it seems like we are expected to believe that the current world climate is supposed to stay the same for the foreseable future. We shouldn't! It will get warmer or cooler, and both will have significant on where we can live, how we migrate and where food is grown among other things. -We currently cause much bigger migration problems through wars and misgovernance than climate change. That being said, there are other very good reasons to get rid of fossile fuels too, but I dislike that CO2 is treated like pollution, which it isn't.
Someone living in Norway cheering global warming because it will make their winters a bit softer is just great. What about the vast majority of people that don’t live on the north pole?
|
It also takes pretty profound hubris to underestimate the widespread migratory effects that unmitigated climate change would spur. All of those quiet Northern Hemisphere countries that love their seclusion will only be able to maintain that kind of thing for so long.
|
On October 09 2018 20:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 17:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The tory party in the 1980’s didn’t have a base of mysoginists and male chauvinists as far as I know. The central question for Trump ectorate is whether or not white heterosexual men keep being at the top of social hierarchy. I think even someone as hard as Thatcher would be a liability at that point. A white macho bully is the only realistic persectove to lead the GOP as long as the thematics that interest its voters haven’t changed. Right, that's why there are many women GOP Senators and Representatives. That's also why they nominated a woman as VP....a woman, I might add, that was viciously attacked by Democrats. I suppose it's like GOP African Americans - they're called all sorts of names and derided by Democrats. Is there no shame in the hypocrisy? I really really dislike having to defend people like Palin and Bachmann or Sarah Huckabee, but damn, man, the hypocrisy is a lot worse. Don't ya'll get tired of name calling all the time? It's why you guys keep losing elections and are huddled in small enclaves by alienating everyone outside your little bubbles. At least GH tends to argue on the merits and policies (outside of calling every white person by default a racist, but I digress).
I’ve read a bit of the litterature of the alt right’s “intellectuals” such as Milo or Saphiro, and have had opportunities to interract a bit with them on the internets. I’m sorry to say that the fact they embraced Palin as VP doesn’t make those people for whom feminism is cancer any less mysoginists in my views.
|
On October 09 2018 21:04 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 17:29 Neneu wrote:On October 09 2018 15:30 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 14:07 Bigtony wrote:3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math. Yes, I don't get it! I have decided not to worry about climate change, as extremely few people and governments are willing to put cutting CO2 emissions first once it seriously hurts their economy or lifestyle. Humans are great at adapting to changing conditions anyway. America is populated by Europeans partly because of a COLD period in Europe, causing famine. Colder is worse than warmer, and I believe the climate will prove to be uncontrollable, despite our best efforts. Well if you are not worried I advice you to at least glance over the summary of the report: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdfAlso, I don't get how people can be against nuclear power, but still have trust in climate change. The only difference between climate deniers and people against nuclear power is that while climate deniers deny the disease, people against nuclear power refuse the medicine. It is cherry picking of science to confirm your own believes at its best. Well unless one believes the effects of climate change to be less dangerous than nuclear power, but that would be just absurd. I will read it more carefully at some point, but no, I am not worried. -There will be significant posetive effects of a warmer climate locally. Humans don't like change, but it is not always bad. -I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality. I also assume that there are strong incentives to making negative prognosis, as they make more awarness of the field and eventually more funding for climate research. -Our perspective of what is "normal" is extremely narrow. If we had detailed data from the last 1 million years, I think we would have looked very differently at current events: Super volcanoes, ice ages, big swings in solar activity, changing currents, knowing what is actually extreme weather, knowing with certainty how much CO2 and other gasses influence the climate or if they fluctuate together, natural changes in polar ice caps etc. -Stability isn't normal! Somehow, it seems like we are expected to believe that the current world climate is supposed to stay the same for the foreseable future. We shouldn't! It will get warmer or cooler, and both will have significant on where we can live, how we migrate and where food is grown among other things. -We currently cause much bigger migration problems through wars and misgovernance than climate change. That being said, there are other very good reasons to get rid of fossile fuels too, but I dislike that CO2 is treated like pollution, which it isn't. Someone living in Norway cheering global warming because it will make their winters a bit softer is just great. What about the vast majority of people that don’t live on the north pole?
I don't live in Norway, but I am from there. Please go for the ball, not the man! I am happy to listen to other points of view!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
