Reminder: hold onto your butts

[mickmoranis]

There are two types of people in politics. There is Hitler's, and there are Stalin's.

Luckily for us Hitler's, Hitler made it pretty much a faux pas to want to genocide people.

Unfortunately for the Communists Stalin didn't make it fopa to starve and murder and execute millions of dissonants.

so if you vote for the Hitler's you won't get genocide but if you vote for the Stalin's, you will.

[Lune]

Climate change religiosity by the left is a myth perpetuated by the Fox News type.

Other than college campus liberals, who are just stupid about everything, most people on the left treat climate change skepticism like they treat skepticism about how kidneys function or the structure of DNA: These are exceptionally well-established theories and you better have some god damned exceptional evidence to support a more plausible alternative hypothesis, or reject the current one.

That evidence does not exist.

Ironically, many of the half-baked criticisms that people come up with resemble those employed by evangelicals in their limp-dicked attempts to dispute evolution, like irreducible complexity or intelligent design.

It should also raise an eyebrow that most of the scientists skeptical of climate change are paid off by fossil fuel companies. There are very few wealthy stakeholders in climate change regulation.

However, that doesn't make the notion of a "Green New Deal" any less retarded. That would be as big a waste of money as a wall on the mexican border.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Climate change religiosity by the left is a myth perpetuated by the Fox News type.

Other than college campus liberals, who are just stupid about everything, most people on the left treat climate change skepticism like they treat skepticism about how kidneys function or the structure of DNA: These are exceptionally well-established theories and you better have some god damned exceptional evidence to support a more plausible alternative hypothesis, or reject the current one.

That evidence does not exist.

Ironically, many of the half-baked criticisms that people come up with resemble those employed by evangelicals in their limp-dicked attempts to dispute evolution, like irreducible complexity or intelligent design.

It should also raise an eyebrow that most of the scientists skeptical of climate change are paid off by fossil fuel companies. There are very few wealthy stakeholders in climate change regulation.

However, that doesn't make the notion of a "Green New Deal" any less retarded. That would be as big a waste of money as a wall on the mexican border.

no, climate change religiosity is a notion I've advanced on my own and displayed by you here in your dismissal of valid criticism as rightwing propaganda. I clearly stated that it is a reality. The problems however a numerous. We have a very poor grasp on many aspects of climate change including, but most certainly not limited to:

1. The magnitude of our contribution, despite broad agreement that it exists.
2. The efficacy of any countermeasures we might employ, complicated not the least by varying it states of economic development and urbanization of major players.
3. The actual effects we can anticipate despite a robust collection of climate models due to the amplification of error across time.

Closing the door to discussion is precisely the sort of religious zealotry im talking about. it's unscientific.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, climate change religiosity is a notion I've advanced on my own and displayed by you here in your dismissal of valid criticism as rightwing propaganda. I clearly stated that it is a reality. The problems however a numerous. We have a very poor grasp on many aspects of climate change including, but most certainly not limited to:

1. The magnitude of our contribution, despite broad agreement that it exists.
2. The efficacy of any countermeasures we might employ, complicated not the least by varying it states of economic development and urbanization of major players.
3. The actual effects we can anticipate despite a robust collection of climate models due to the amplification of error across time.

Closing the door to discussion is precisely the sort of religious zealotry im talking about. it's unscientific.

#2 and #3 have nothing to do with the existence of climate change which is the topic at hand and where the skepticism is undue. I agree with #2 and #3. Rightwing propaganda purports that the entire thing, climate change as a whole, is a hoax, which is the most retarded position one can have. We know:

1. The climate is becoming hotter.
2. Humans are responsible for this abrupt and sizable change.
3. It's too late to quickly reverse.

We do not know: All the effects of this change going forward.

Every major economic stakeholder in the United States except renewable energy companies, which are poor and sparse, stands to benefit from muddying the waters on this. Your Republican representatives don't care what the truth is or what the evidence says, they only care about what the people who are paying their bribes want. And the people paying their bribes want to pollute.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

#2 and #3 have nothing to do with the existence of climate change which is the topic at hand and where the skepticism is undue. I agree with #2 and #3. Rightwing propaganda purports that the entire thing, climate change as a whole, is a hoax, which is the most retarded position one can have. We know:

1. The climate is becoming hotter.
2. Humans are responsible for this abrupt and sizable change.
3. It's too late to quickly reverse.

We do not know: All the effects of this change going forward.

Every major economic stakeholder in the United States except renewable energy companies, which are poor and sparse, stands to benefit from muddying the waters on this. Your Republican representatives don't care what the truth is or what the evidence says, they only care about what the people who are paying their bribes want. And the people paying their bribes want to pollute.

this is a reasonable position and i agree with most of it. i think your second assertion is a bit off though. we are very confident humans have contributed to the change, but we do not know the magnitude of the contribution. the problem with advancing absolutes is that any grain of contrary evidence shatters the argument.

I've a question though. Given that it cannot be reversed quickly and despite broad agreement that we should do what we can to avoid exacerbating the condition (ignoring that there are benefits to warmer climates such as increased crop yields and an overall greener planet) do you think adaptation ought to be prioritized more, especially given that the west's ability to throttle any changes diminishes as rapidly as the third world industrializes?

[Throndor]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this is a reasonable position and i agree with most of it. i think your second assertion is a bit off though. we are very confident humans have contributed to the change, but we do not know the magnitude of the contribution. the problem with advancing absolutes is that any grain of contrary evidence shatters the argument.

I've a question though. Given that it cannot be reversed quickly and despite broad agreement that we should do what we can to avoid exacerbating the condition (ignoring that there are benefits to warmer climates such as increased crop yields and an overall greener planet) do you think adaptation ought to be prioritized more, especially given that the west's ability to throttle any changes diminishes as rapidly as the third world industrializes?

Also, how does a world without borders and open migration into the first world help to alleviate concerns over Climate Change considering that the carbon footprint per capita is much higher in the first world than the third world.

Also, how does the globalized distribution of wares produced in distant lands with cheaper communist labor pools help to alleviate the effects of Climate Change.


Both of these abovementioned points, are included in the leftist platform. How do we reconcile the leftist platform of Globalization/Migration without borders with Environmentalism IF this is true?

[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've a question though. Given that it cannot be reversed quickly and despite broad agreement that we should do what we can to avoid exacerbating the condition (ignoring that there are benefits to warmer climates such as increased crop yields and an overall greener planet) do you think adaptation ought to be prioritized more, especially given that the west's ability to throttle any changes diminishes as rapidly as the third world industrializes?

Yes, which is why I'm so opposed to "green new deal" as a waste of money. I think we should be focusing more on toxic emissions, you know the kind that give everyone cancer and lung disease, instead of greenhouse gases.

The US and Europe are uniquely situated to deal with any destabilizing effects of climate change due to our wealth and comparatively low population.

Over the next 50 years Africa will undergo a population boom and subsequent refugee crisis that will threaten the entire planet, and their inability to adapt to climate change could be a mitigating factor. In effect we're pyrogens giving the planet a fever.

[Throndor]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

#2 and #3 have nothing to do with the existence of climate change which is the topic at hand and where the skepticism is undue. I agree with #2 and #3. Rightwing propaganda purports that the entire thing, climate change as a whole, is a hoax, which is the most retarded position one can have. We know:

1. The climate is becoming hotter.
2. Humans are responsible for this abrupt and sizable change.
3. It's too late to quickly reverse.

We do not know: All the effects of this change going forward.

Every major economic stakeholder in the United States except renewable energy companies, which are poor and sparse, stands to benefit from muddying the waters on this. Your Republican representatives don't care what the truth is or what the evidence says, they only care about what the people who are paying their bribes want. And the people paying their bribes want to pollute.

You have to sign it, to see what's in it.

If you like your insurance, you can keep it (at 300% of it's former price)

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It should also raise an eyebrow that most of the scientists skeptical of climate change are paid off by fossil fuel companies. There are very few wealthy stakeholders in climate change regulation.

Can scientists also be paid off by Democratic politicians? There are a massive amount of wealthy political stakeholders in climate change regulation.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can scientists also be paid off by Democratic politicians?

Reflect for a moment on how braindead this post is