Reminder: hold onto your butts

[mickmoranis]

lol look at this post from just what, hours ago?

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

law is pretty much arguing about morality, so let's call compromise and call it religious studies

he has a masters in Secularism

Cant separate god and government if government is god! godvernment we can call it! And the followers can be called Athiocrats.

[ScaringChildren]

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

Reflect for a moment on how braindead this post is

Why is it braindead?

Politicians can't pay off scientists to argue and validate one of their points?

[Irulan]

So I am skeptical about stuff like climate change but I am also very considerate of the great models I played with as a kid regarding it.

Most of my questioning is "how bad or what".

Climate change will actually be good for some people.

Also as a general rule I think we can adapt technologically to a toilet bowl full of poopy smells and methane.

Now I have been putting serious thoughts into ok google: howto hold onto my butt

So far, these are the best results: http://romanfitnesssystems.com/artic...y-female-body/

[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?

[Irulan]

So like climate change even if you are a poor helpless person which could get hurt by it, being paralyzed mad isn't going to change the climate or help you just as an FYI

Same thing with ocean plastic, we could end up destroying more important ecosystems depending on the methods we use to try to clean it up. It may actually be better to let the garbage float around and hand pick it up off our own little section of the beaches.

[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.

[Irulan]

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

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?

I agree Throndor. Climate change is indeed mostly a 1st. World problem. A lot of it is driven by our consumerism and inefficieny geared towards production quantity and time to market also

Naturally increasing costs will counter this in a free market. Say as less people can continue to afford an unsustainable number of vehicles throughout their lives

[Patriam1066]

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

Reflect for a moment on how braindead this post is

Floridians can’t reflect

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Floridians can’t reflect

Don't make me eat your face, Tex.

[ScaringChildren]

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

Why is it braindead?

Politicians can't pay off scientists to argue and validate one of their points?