The Global Warming Thread

Dude, you're going to have to help me out, because I just went back 5 pages and didn't see anything like that.

Nope, I would never be a Democrat. I've never aligned to any political party. If my political views were to be aggregated, I'd probably come out as anarcho-communist, which puts me somewhere between the Unabomber and Lenin (via the back roads rather than through the middle ground).

Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you in particular. It was a general point regarding how us-and-them politics leads to clinging onto ridiculous views just because it is the opposite of your political enemies. It is self-defeating and childish.

Democratic party leaders.

EDIT: what about the Mulford Act?

 

Post 460.

One does not have to repeal the 2A to have a detrimental effect on it.

Edit, I have never heard of it. Will look it up.

 

Look. I am bowing out for a while. Call it defeat or what ever. I will get back with anyone who wants to have a polite conversation as soon as I get the book. I am ordering it tonight as we speak.

I want to do my own googling and research for a while. I have questions that need to be answered but know that it is to hostile here to ask them. Such as, how do I know the models are not influenced by political bias?(A question I am asking due to it being something the talking heads on my side ask all the time, I don't know the answer.) Or how GHG are measured. Things of that nature.

So I will do this on my own, and spare this forum my "idiocy".

 

Good luck and happy hunting

Even though I've never aligned with a political party, I would still describe myself as socialist, for the simple reason that I think people are stronger in cooperation than in competition. It's also for that reason that I like hearing other people's views, and as long as they do not violate the lives of others, I can appreciate them. All political differences are resolved through diplomacy, never through conflict. That's part of the reason why I stuck up for you being given a fair shake of the stick in this thread, and also because I don't think we can ask any more of anyone than to honestly consider the other side of the argument, which you have.

Hope you come back to us with some killer links

 

I am currently reading up on the Climate gate thing. I promised to research that and I am. Will say this, I have learned some things that, had they been actually articulated on the channels I watched, they would have had a influence in my opinion. Namely, I didn't know that some of the important data was contractually obligated to be kept confidential, hence why some of it was denied FOIA. I was not told this, and in fact, I don't remember the American MSM even mentioning that fact.

I am looking in to the "Trick" that was mentioned and the "decline" as well. Should be a lot of reading, but I can read pretty quickly.

I know one thing, I and some conservatives mistrust the scientific consensus thing for a number of reasons. But one of those is that some really bad and evil things were once accepted by a scientific consensus. Such as Eugenics. We all know what that lead too.

David I appreciate your sticking up for me. I really do. Now, you being a socialist and given what you have stated are your views, who would you have voted for? I don't know if Hillary would be your Huckleberry, maybe Jill or the libertarian?

For me, i tend to oppose socialism as i was taught to equate it with communist Russia, and all the atrocities that government committed against it's own people. Though I wonder if there is a way to be socialist with out communist. I was taught that socialism stamps out individuality, and creativity. That it stamps out the desire to strive for more. IF everyone is forced in to a equality, then wont everyone be mediocre? That is what i was taught on it. That in a socialist society, everyone is equal, until you get to the people in power, then they live like kings.

Again, I am going to also include more reading into this subject as well, as i find i am developing some socialistic thoughts quite organically.

 

This thread is a good example of why those that are scientifically minded are not put in charge of talking to the public in general. Even people like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye sometimes come up short in reaching others with their rhetoric and they are great public speakers.

You don't really have to look far to see why chastising and belittling others, even if you're 100% right, isn't going to win the majority of people over. Hell, just look at most relationships/marriages. People will put their foot down for the hell of it, even if they KNOW they're wrong. You have to deal with it.

Or murder them all. Because when there is only one side with one opinion, it's a united front.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!!

 

It's interesting you blame that on the scientifically minded and not the scientifically illiterate, like it's our job to undo years or even decades of wilful ignorance.

The fact that people are more likely to believe Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump or Ann Coulter over ten thousand climate scientists isn't an indictment of the scientific community, it is an indictment of American conservatism, because this collective delusion is a unique feature of that society. Nowhere else in the world do you find such intransigence in the face of overwhelming evidence.

North Korea, Russia, China, the EU are all standing up and taking steps to tackle climate change - is there a single other issue that all of those actors agree on? But the American right, which wields a hugely disproportionate amount of power globally, is threatening all of that progress. I wouldn't be surprised to find out ISIS have a more reasonable climate change position than the average Republican voter.

But it's the scientists that are all fault for not communicating clearly enough.

 

Who is actually wilfully ignorant?

Yes, people wilfully mislead others, but how many people have you met who've said "yeah, I've seen the data and climate change is gonna wipe us out, but I could never admit it because a Democrat might get in the White House".

Yes. Them and the politicians who bow to fossil fuel lobbyists, or simply fail to ensure children get a decent education.

 

Maybe you should read a book or two on something before you oppose it?

All Communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communist.

Very basically, I'd say that if you believe a government should not let a child die of malnutrition, then you have socialist leanings.

 

TESTIFY!

(...for the blood god)

 

Then why are American Republicans the only major political party in the developed world who oppose the idea of man made climate change (unless there is one I've missed). It's a political issue that they pretend is a scientific one.

They are absolutely wilfully ignorant. They'll gladly listen to and cite the opinion of experts whenever it suits them, but for this issue, no, the experts are corrupt.

Scientists have clearly explained climate change for years. 7 year old children can explain the greenhouse effect - that's the level that scientists have managed to break it down to.

 

As I said a few pages ago, the Democrat record on climate change is woeful. It's only the fact that they have done anything at all, no matter how minimal, that puts them above the Republicans. I think we should be judging politicians by their actions, not their words.

No, the people who feed the opinions are misleading, many of the mouthpieces, and the vast majority of the followers, are just plain ignorant.

Ignorance is not a sin. There but for the grace of God go I.

Have you spoken to many Americans?

 

I think you underestimate my distaste and absolute resentment of people who like to deny facts and follow their own selfish desires and are willfully ignorant, especially in the world of information we live in today.

The second part of my prior post was said in jest, but you know, if that happened I wouldn't lose any sleep at night and might even take part in the culling. :hat:

It's not the scientists fault, it's the fault of those who don't want to pay attention. But we're not talking right or wrong here, we're talking about reaching people. And the scientific community isn't great at it. That's why there are human relations groups. The social construct does not operate on facts as often as it needs to.

Face it, you guys aren't good at being manipulative.

 

Exactly.

Where's the joy in being sat on a pile of ashes saying "I told you so"?

Bingo.

 

Showing them the facts, explaining it, and coming up with cost/benefit analyses certainly hasn't either.

Because the political process is supposed to be more than squabbling, it's supposed to serve the people.

How else to interpret the sentiment that we must make it economically beneficial for people to save the world? If it's simply about petty partisan politics and accruing money for themselves, then yes, it's short sighted and selfish.

Let's also be clear that the wealthiest nations on earth profited from the past 150 years of unregulated industrial development; now climate change is poised to strike most at the very poorest nations of the world. Any moral system would levy the costs of redressing climate change against those nations that accrued that wealth.

 

I interpreted your posts as advancing arguments that you thought other people would advance. Had I known that these were your beliefs, I would have been more diplomatic with my wording, but the sentiment would largely be the same. That's as close to an apology as you'll get

I thought you lot believed in the free market sorting out that kind of thing. Yes, I think free secondary education makes sense, especially in the STEM fields. Unfortunately we're going to be facing a metric ton of these sorts of problems as technology advances; pity the steamboat captains as well.

So uhh... remember when I said you lack a sense of proportion?

So far looks like 1.6% of GDP according to these folks: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy

It's also been implicated in global conflict by the Pentagon: http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710

 

Of course not. Adults are just toddlers with slightly better vocabulary and ability to lie about their emotions.

You've got to bribe them with ice-cream if you want them to tidy up their toys.

Let's be honest here. For the majority of politicians who get to high office, it is about serving themselves.

Toddlers. Ice-cream.

Not holding my breath for a moral system.

 

Where's the joy in banging your head against a brick wall trying to convince people who deep down don't want to be convinced. Might as well try to convince the Pope that God doesn't exist.

KFrame has had several people answering his own personal questions and still he's unconvinced. That model isn't sustainable and it isn't even working. It'll take one Breitbart article or one Fox News story to undo all the work people have done on this thread.

We don't need to convince 100% of Americans that climate change is a thing, we need to beg, bribe or bully a couple of hundred. If the US pulls out of the Paris Climate Accord, I think the world needs to consider taking drastic action to combat the US' recklessness.

If we can sanction Russia for invading Ukraine, then we can sanction the US for doing far worse in not taking its responsibilities seriously. And as luck would have it, they just elected a moron with a massive international business empire as President - all we'd have to do is freeze his assets overseas or otherwise interfere with his business and all of a sudden, Climate Change would be top of the US' foreign policy agenda.

 

You've just suddenly made me optimistic about a Trump presidency!

 

Which couple of hundred? We've been waiting nearly two decades for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

Trouble is, we can sanction Russia because they don't have a military presence across the majority of the surface of the earth.

The US might not be in control of the world's capital anymore, but they are in control of most of the important strategic locations on the planet.

I'm all for sanctions, but unless we elect Corbyn as prime minister, and he survives a military coup instigated by the aristocracy, I don't see any British PM having the guts to do it.