SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the very-cool-when-he's-hot-under-the-collar dept.
The Center for American Progress reports:
Obama is famously low key. That's why on the hit Comedy Central show "Key & Peele", Keegan-Michael Key plays "Luther, President Obama's anger translator". The [annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner], however, is a rare place where the President can cut loose--as long as he uses humor.
In a hilarious admission that he has been too low key to convey the moral outrage justified by humanity's myopic march toward self-destruction--and by the brazen denial of climate science by many conservatives--Obama brought out "Luther" to express that outrage. And then, in an ingenious twist, Obama became so outraged that he didn't need Luther and in fact Luther himself couldn't take the genuinely angry Obama, who says of denial, "What kind of stupid, shortsighted, irresponsible, bull-"
Here's a video of the event.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sigma on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:14AM
Sadly, confronting conservative science deniers with the truth just strengthens their resolve, no matter how severe the consequences are. Denial of the link between HIV and AIDS led to more than 330,000 premature deaths in South Africa. Denial of the link between smoking and cancer has caused millions of premature deaths worldwide. Thanks to vaccination denial, preventable diseases are making a comeback.There's an excellent article on Gizmodo explaining the effect and how to get around it.
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/04/how-to-deal-with-science-deniers/ [gizmodo.com.au]
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:36AM
Yes you're right, but from the viewpoint of nature, everything works as it should. There is a situation on earth of overpopulation by humans. Overpopulation is always corrected by nature, there is no getting around that fact. If assuming humans are part of nature, then it is expected that humans will, statistically, act on its behalf. What is good for nature isn't neccesarily good for us and vice-versa. We would like to overpopulate even more and somehow magically not destroy the environment, nature just wants to see the population cut. Guess who's going to win?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:25AM
Hate to be rude to you AC, but that's a load of quasi-religious crap. Nature isn't an anthropomorphic sentient force with a plan and a will that cannot be denied. It's the culmination of many and various cause-and-effect physical processes. If we can understand those processes, we can manipulate them to our own ends and achieve things far beyond the realms of "nature". In fact, we've been doing exactly that for the last ten thousand years or more. It's called "technology".
I can guarantee that whatever rose-tinted agrarian utopia you'd like to return us to after nature's great purge - be it just before the industrial revolution, the classical greek/ roman era or whatever - the world was already overpopulated according to "nature's limits", due to us having invented technologies like farming, medicine and transport that allowed us to extend those limits. Unless you really want us to go back to snivelling in caves, scavenging rancid leftovers from hyenas.
Yes, there are physical limits to how many people the Earth can support, but just what those limits are depend on how cleverly and responsibly we manage the resources available to us. Right now we aren't being particularly responsible, as a species, but we're quickly getting better. The beneficial changes we've made to our attitude and behaviour in the last forty or fifty years are amazing. I'm confident that we are accelerating down the path towards a technological and social tipping point, probably within our lifetimes, where we actually manage to feed, house and clothe tens of billions of people in a comfortable, liberated and sustainable fashion. The only question is, can we get there before irrevocably fucking everything up?
Ultimately we could manage the Earth like we manage a forest or a park, maintaining the global environment in a steady state that is optimal not only us and our agriculture and industry, but for all (well, most) of the cuddly animals and seakittens too. All population models show that once we reach sufficient levels of comfort and freedom for everyone, population growth will level off (or even decline) on its own, with no cataclysmic Gaian intervention required. There are plenty of obstacles in our way (greed being the main one) but I think it's achievable. However we'll never get there by deliberately stunting our progress via wishy-washy luddite appeals to "nature".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gallondr00nk on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:51PM
I think we've already solved most of the technological challenges to survival and providing a good standard of living to every being on the planet. That these problems remain seem to be mostly due to our economic system of outdated, pig headed industrial age thinking.
Population growth, as you say, tends to decline as affluence and education increases. One interesting trend is that that birth rates decline very sharply once infant mortality rates improve - suggesting that in the past, as grim as this sounds, a lot of huge families were more an insurance policy against mortality than a positive choice.
We're also finally changing our social codes so that a woman not having children isn't seen as having some kind of character flaw.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:01PM
I don't find people who don't want kids flawed, I just can't understand them. But I see no difference between men or women who don't want kids.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:15PM
...don't want kids... I just can't understand them.
I was one of three kids, both siblings have serious mental issues, with signs visible at an early age. When I started questioning family history (after my college years), I worked out that well over half of the aunts, uncles and grandparents on both sides also suffer(ed) from mental illness. When I saw what this heartbreak did to my parents (who continue to support non-functioning adult children), it played a big part in my decision to not have kids.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:21PM
Understandable. In this day and age there are other options for people with worrying genes for example adoption or sperm / egg / womb surrogacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:48PM
There was a story in the news recently that demonstrates what a mess this still is.
One of the hosts of a morning network gabfest decided she wanted a kid though she couldn't conceive one of her own.
The Sherri Shepherd Case: One More Reason to Ban Commercial Surrogacy [dissidentvoice.org]
After the surrogate was well and truly pregnant, Shepherd decided she didn't want the kid.
The article also mentions the cases where a surrogate delivers an infant with a birth defect.
...and, frankly, there's enough already-been-born children to fill any need for a household full of still-growing bodies.
Comedian Paula Poundstone has such a household.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by morgauxo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:47PM
I'd love to see people like this A/C adopt rather than go childless. No, it's not that I think everyone necessarily needs to have children. But.. this person has demonstrated a certain level of level headed rational thought in deciding not to pass on those genes. Isn't that a good thing to pass on to the next generation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @08:36AM
I'd love to see people like this A/C adopt rather than go childless. ...
[I'm the ac that chose to not have kids.]
If I'd found the right gf/wife when I was younger, adoption could have been an option, but it didn't happen. Instead I've had plenty of exposure to the kids of a few close friends where I'm sort of an honorary uncle, or something like that.
My experience roughly mirrors a childless couple that were both co-workers with my father. When I was little we often visited with this couple on holidays and other occasions. Unfortunately he died early, but she (widow) is now in her 90s and I visit her several times a week. The employees at the senior residence often mistake me for her son...I just reply that she's known me all my life and I've known her since I could remember (age 4-5?).
In addition to bad family genes, another early influence was a college prof (mid-1970s) who projected our current energy situation very clearly. He framed the question, would we (humans) have the sense use cheap non-renewable petroleum to switch to renewables (or fusion, which he called "star power")...before the petroleum became too scarce to make the switch? The prof wasn't optimistic then and I'm not now. Bringing a kid into an energy scarce world (and overcrowded too) seemed like a very selfish and mean thing to do.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:23PM
Well.. I was trying to be careful but inserting that "people like..." part of the comment. I would never presume to tell any specific person how they should plan and live their life! It's yours not mine and kids may very well not be the right thing for you.
I was just observing that you made a rather intelligent decision based on facts rather then emotion. That's one good decision more than many people out there with large families! If it's not all genetic but it can be passed down through teaching then...
As for bringing a kid into a doomed world.. well.. again, not trying to talk YOU specifically into anything... adopting doesn't bring anyone into the world who wasn't already in it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @06:33PM
I was just observing that you made a rather intelligent decision based on facts rather then emotion.
Thanks for the compliment! It's worked out OK so far...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:21PM
We're also finally changing our social codes so that a woman not having children isn't seen as having some kind of character flaw.
I agree. Sorta. I fail to see the problem with people taking themselves out of the gene pool. The future will belong to those who show up, and progressives are reproducing far below replacement rate. Where is the problem, other than we sane folk have to manage to survive your team's idiocy long enough for you to breed yourselves out of our way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:17PM
I agree. Sorta. I fail to see the problem with people taking themselves out of the gene pool. The future will belong to those who show up, and progressives are reproducing far below replacement rate. Where is the problem, other than we sane folk have to manage to survive your team's idiocy long enough for you to breed yourselves out of our way.
Ah, a right winger whose beliefs are based almost entirely on lies or fairy tales claiming to be one of the "sane" folks.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:23AM
we sane folk have to manage to survive your team's idiocy long enough for you to breed yourselves out of our way.
You know, this is the thing: where do you think all progressives, liberals, socialists, Social Justice Warriors, et cetera, come from? Yes, just like gays, they come from straight conservative parents!! Being a rightwing nut-job is not an inheritable condition! Well, unless you are a Cheney, or a Bush, or a Koch, but then I think it is more about the money than genes. Your fiendishly clever plan to survive either Global Warming or the attempts to reverse it (or, the Great Arklesiezure!) will fail!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:02PM
The majority of people who believe[1] as you do tend to not be especially affluent.
They have to spread what limited resources they have over what spawn they generate.
The Progressive couple who chose to have 1 kid can dedicate all of their resources to that 1 resource sink.
With a for-profit educational system in place, their 1 kid will likely become the well-educated overlord and the spawn of your group will be the less-educated serfs.
Your little revolution is a silly fantasy.
[1] Notice that I didn't say "think".
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:21AM
Hate to be rude to you AC, but that's a load of quasi-religious crap. Nature isn't an anthropomorphic sentient force with a plan and a will that cannot be denied. It's the culmination of many and various cause-and-effect physical processes. If we can understand those processes, we can manipulate them to our own ends and achieve things far beyond the realms of "nature". In fact, we've been doing exactly that for the last ten thousand years or more. It's called "technology".
We have proven to be capable of manipulating those processes far more than we can claim to understand them. Humanity's history is full of advances for humankind with disastrous consequences for many of the rest of its inhabitants. Several times those consequences have included local humans. We are still to this day driving other living organisms into extinction at an incredible rate, we are still altering ecosystems to what we think is our benefit (we have often found to great cost, that it was not), we are changing our climate with likely unforeseen results, and so on. Most of these things are happening not for the benefit of humanity, but for the benefit of a very small part of humanity, and that probably not for the long term. Tipping point? We will likely reach several. Whether they tip for the benefit of humanity and the planet (two things that are probably closely interwoven), or towards a series of disasters that will greatly affect our cultures, is something that remains to be seen. I'm not confident, we rarely see action on any issue until it reaches a crisis.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:01PM
Nature is a system, a system can be personified. Just like when I call a colony of cells... "you". That personifying doesn't make a hypothesis more or less valid, it's only a POV.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:33AM
No offence taken, I don't think you're being rude. I'm surprised you see any kind of (quasi) religious content in my post. I'm not a religious person. I think I was just stating the fact that 'Nature' includes Humans. You and other posters may find this hard to believe, or even think that humans are somehow 'above' nature. That's simply not true. By the way, with nature I mean the physical universe, not only earth.
You then fill in my thoughts about some rose tinted agrarian utopia you made up and that I'm supposed to be longing for, both of which I also never spoke. And you assume a 'great purge' of some kind. You further believe that I would want to 'go back' in time somewhere, which I also didn't say and by the way is also not true.
The world has indeed been overpopulated before, and the pospulation has also been cut before, for instance by epidemic disease. These are plain facts. You may find them scary, or not agree with them, then we arrive at the original point of science, and how some people don't seem to be able to get that.
I agree with the last two paragraphs of your post.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:32AM
Nature isn't a conscious being, and we are certainly not on behalf of nature. What is true is that overpopulation will get "corrected" one way or the other. That's already in the word "overpopulation": "over" as in "to much to be sustainable". Note that there are two ways this may be corrected: Either in the population shrinking (probably in a catastrophic way), or in a larger population getting sustainable. The latter goal can be achieved by reducing the average consumption of humans, so the same resources can support more people (and, of course, limiting further growth of the population which otherwise would outgrow also the increased sustainability).
Unfortunately there's no indication that humanity will choose the second way.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 28 2015, @02:27PM
Overpopulation is always corrected by nature, there is no getting around that fact.
As GreatAuntAnesthesia already noted, humanity has gotten around that "fact" for centuries. And now we're close to a stage where we can not only do global-scale terraforming (here, defined as transforming land or ocean into something more conducive to human use), but change the human body (and other organisms) in ways that aren't available to current nature and go places in space where nature as you know it has never existed. For example, how many people can Earth support, if we can survive solely off of direct sunlight and a small amount of replacement mass? How many people can we support if we're colonizing the entire Solar System? Overpopulation has a completely different meaning when you can engineering people to consume far less and create new places to live far from Earth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nukkel on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:48PM
Why don't we start with colonizing the ocean floor, before heading off to space.
If you think humanity is ready for the latter, the former should be a piece of cake, right?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:13AM
Why don't we start with colonizing the ocean floor, before heading off to space.
Ocean floor doesn't get 1300 watts per square meter.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:51AM
The question about the climate is about denial of what exactly? That the climate changes and is not now set in stone? That we will all drown within 10 years? That it's all man made? That there is a chance to stop it? That all the big natural "disasters" that happen are because of climate change? That when something bad does not happen, it's just weather, not climate? That cars should be outlawed, because they are the root of all evil? That none of the environmental scientist aren't just playing into their own idealogy/cash? That none of the non-environmental scientist aren't just playing into their own idealogy/cash? That shit happens?
Some of those things should not be denied, some should. Some of it is under "investigation" and are not set in stone. Infact none of that is set in stone. It is not black and white you know.
I'm just fucking tired of people calling others "denier" when some of the things are questioned, and not accepted as the ultimate truth. The point is to find the truth and extent of what is happening and base the limits on those facts. There really aren't that many facts going around today about climate change or global warming or whatever you personally want to call it. Science works by questioning things. That's how things get investigated.
That MOOC course sounds nothing more than brainwashing and how to do more brainwashing yourself. Probaganda and nothing more.
"A typical response of scientists to science denial is to teach more science. But that only provides half of what’s needed. Scientific research has offered us a solution: build resistance to science denial by exposing people to a weak form of science denial."
Holy fucking shit. Translated: 'If unquestioned current theories are not enough, we'll just attack you personally until you accept the ultimate truth'
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:13AM
nothing more than brainwashing and how to do more brainwashing yourself.
When a brain is too dirty to understand and accept science, it is a good thing for it to be washed. And it is better to do it yourself, because if we have to do it for you at the climate change re-education camps, we will not be so gentle. Now we can do this the easy way, or the hard way. But you really need to stop being so negative!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:43AM
You're on a train, and are approaching something that looks like a strong wall. You know if the train hits a strong wall, a big disaster is the result. You are told that acting on the controls of the train affects the movement of the train, and that if you don't act quickly you'll no longer be able to stop the train before it hits the wall. However, you've got no unambiguous proof that the wall is really massive (it might just look massive, after all), and there are some people telling you that any correlation between acting on the controls and train movements that have been observed are pure coincidence. They also warn you of the inconveniences caused by halting the train.
So what do you do, halt the train, or run the train into the wall in the hope that it won't be as massive as it looks?
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:44PM
No, you're not on a train.
You're waiting for a train. A train that'll take you far away. You know where you hope this train will take you. But you can't know for sure. Yet it doesn't matter. Now, tell me why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:24PM
> You're waiting for a train. A train that'll take you far away. You know where you hope this train will take you. But you can't know for sure. Yet it doesn't matter. Now, tell me why?
I've never seen a turtle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:46PM
You're on a train
No, you're not on a train.
You're on a train called "denial"?
Not as much fun as "A Streetcar Named Desire", but deniers can't be choosers!! (Stella!!!!!!!)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fritsd on Tuesday April 28 2015, @02:09PM
They also scream at you that they'll sue you for your last penny, if you cause the train to halt and thereby cause them to miss their important appointment.
FTFY.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fritsd on Tuesday April 28 2015, @02:15PM
Anecdote: something similar actually happened to me. In my life I have (so far) pulled the emergency brake of a train thrice; twice to save someone's life (running along on the outside with their hand stuck inside), and once to save someone's fingers (stuck between the door from the inside, so invisible from the outside, and with 10 minutes to the next station). I was screamed at for causing the train delay, and threatened to have to pay a € 250 fine (the other two times I was thanked instead). I'm glad I never had to pay, otherwise I might be reluctant to pull the brake the next time I see the same event unfolding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:42AM
After three incidents I have to conclude that you must be putting people in jeopardy to create an excuse to pull the brake.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:26PM
What matters most is, that you take your meds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:43PM
I suppose you have first-hand experience about that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:59PM
That analogy only holds if you acknowledge the big hairy toll-taking troll who guards the engine room. He'll only let you turn the knobs on the controls some amount proportional to all of the things that you care or enjoy about modern living that you turn over to him.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:18AM
And you left out that he left the back door unlocked and fell asleep.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:52AM
When someone says "it's day time" and you poke your eyes out and say "no, it's not", you're gonna get called a denier. it's that simple.
Unfortunately, there have been so many of those that even asking reasonable questions gets you lumped into their camp, Part of that of course is that the deniers generally wear a veneer of vague reasonability kinda like some spammers try to choose subject lines that seem like an email you might actually want to read. But look deeper and you'll find yet another "It snowed on the coldest day of winter so there is no global warming anywhere ever" or even lunatic fringe stuff about Kenyan conspiracies and such.
You MAY just be that unfortunate guy who sent an email with a subject line matching one of the spam runs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:41AM
From what I've read ships are a bigger problem [wikipedia.org] due to lack of regulation to limit their pollution and the sheer amount of cargo they are shipping across the globe, for example goods manufactured in China shipped to the west.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:25AM
That's an invalid comparison. No-one pops to work on a bulk cargo freighter and stops off at an out-of-town supermarket on the way home to pick up milk and bread, just like no company would shift 50,000 units of widgets from the manufacturer to the retail store by shuttling cars back and forth to China.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:46AM
It's true you cannot draw a direct comparison. The issue is that the ships are producing more pollution per kilo carried than road vehicles. Car emissions are heavily regulated because governments have control over their construction and use. The engines and fuel of container ships aren't subject to the same restrictions.
It's easy for governments to score eco points by restricting domestic behaviour. It's of course much harder and less attractive for them to restrict global industry, but that has a bigger impact on the climate.
A shift back to local manufacturing would help.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:38PM
Almost wrong [timeforchange.org]:
Also, in regards with CO2, shipping by sea amounts to 4.5% of total world's emission [theguardian.com], coming in the 5th place after cars, housing, agriculture and industry.
What is true, however, is the sulphur oxides emission, where ships are leading [theguardian.com] (better said... sulphuring?)
(devil's advocate) Ships burn the heavies fraction of the oil - when cold, you can walk on it. If not for the ships, what would you like to be done with this fraction: bury it back into the extraction wells? Or would you like better to have it burnt into your friendly neighbourhood power plant?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:51PM
Interesting figures, thanks. It just goes to show that identifying the biggest greenhouse gas contributors isn't a clear cut task and probably anything making a significant contribution should be scrutinized.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday April 28 2015, @02:21PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:54PM
per KM needs to be as the crow flies for the petrol usage to be useful. I can't speak Deutch, can anyone confirm from http://fluglaerm.de/hamburg/klima.htm [fluglaerm.de] ?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:03AM
The solution, of course, is to offer to relocate all of the deniers to nice, tropical beaches in the South Pacific where they can continue to enjoy the non-rising of global sea levels.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:15AM
Yes. Of course, they shouldn't just be given the land - they should have to buy it from the locals at a discount price, or trade it for some property in the denier's home country. This would be a great solution for countries like Kiribati and the Maldives, who are already making evacuation plans.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:47PM
Better still, give them some spots in the Arctics to share with those drowning polar bears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:04PM
See, this is what I find really irritating. As if any skeptics would claim that sea level isn't rising. Of course sea level is rising. [wikipedia.org]
Those pacific islands? Like the rest of the world, some are naturally shrinking, but many - perhaps most - are growing [abc.net.au]. Coral islands are inherently dynamic things; left to their own devices, the islands compensate for increased sea level by accumulating more sand. The one thing that is pretty much guaranteed to cause problems is over-development and mismanagement of local resources. Islands complaining of brackish water (Tuvalu) have exhausted the very small reservoirs of fresh water that these islands naturally capture from rainfall.
But let's get back to sea level.
Look at the Wikipedia chart (first link) from 1870 to 1950 (i.e., before the biggest input of CO2 from people), sea level rose about 1.5mm/year. Do keep in mind that there are huge local variations [noaa.gov], which means that it's hard to calculate a global value before we have satellite data. Then, let's look at recent satellite data. The University of Colorado has sea level data online from the 1990s onward [colorado.edu]. If we look at their charts, we see a steady annual rate of change of around 3mm/year.
So the current rate of sea level increase is 3mm/year. A century ago it was 1.5mm/year. If we extrapolate from this, then we are looking at a difference of 15cm per century. Maybe we don't need to panic just yet.
Then we have the next question: why is the current rate of sea level increase higher than it was a century ago? The warmists want to say "because CO2". That may be right, but it is not the only possible explanation. Here's an alternative: Sea level actually dropped during the "little ice age" [kwaad.net]. Could the current, more rapid increase be a rebound from that event?
What is right? I certainly don't know. The thing is: I don't believe the "warmists" know either. They are taking the obvious explanation on faith, because it is currently PC to blame everything on human civilization, but the evidence is anything but clear. The climate is hugely complex, our understanding is very limited, and essentially all of our current models are far too limited and simplistic.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @02:55PM
They are taking the obvious explanation on faith
Yes, that's what it is. All those climate scientists are just randomly guessing. Luckily, there are random people like yourself that can crush their hopes and dreams without a problem.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:45PM
All those climate scientists are just randomly guessing.
Pretty much. From warming to cooling to warming and now they just say 'screw it, Global Climate Change! Give us more money anyway,' Scientists have been all over the map, and had it been left to Science it would have stayed that way until eventually it was sorted out. Science is full of such stories.
But it was not left to the scientists, extreme 'evolutionary pressure' was put on the climatologists in the form of politics and money until they evolved to a point where almost 100% believe in AGW because the very definition of climatologist was changed to 'someone who studies the global climate and man's destructive influence on it.' So there are still scientists who disagree, they just aren't climatologists. Nice neat circular logic.
Most of us 'deniers' deny that there is even any science left in the AGW movement, that politics has displaced it. So you idiots think putting out a politician who happens to be a congenital liar (second only to the husband of your team's great hope to replace him btw.) to give a rant in the context of a stand up comedy act is going to change a single mind? I know you guys get your 'news' from 'truthy' late night comedy but we are the rational, fact based side. If you want to influence our opinion, try some facts.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:32PM
So you idiots think putting out a politician who happens to be a congenital liar (second only to the husband of your team's great hope to replace him btw.)
What team? I'm a libertarian, you dumb fuck. Do you think that anyone who accepts science is a hardcore communist socialist liberal, or what? You've sure bought into that left-vs-right false dichotomy game, like most suckers do.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:59PM
Most of us 'deniers' deny that there is even any science left in the AGW movement, that politics has displaced it.
How could you possibly know this, since you have made it clear you have no knowledge of science but only a political position? Is this "hammer/nail" or "pot/kettle"?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:38PM
Seriously? The warmists, as you have labeled time as if they are some foreign ethnicity to fear, have measurements, charts, models, and the like to back up their claim. The little ice age claim has what?
Here are some claims that have an equal amount of intellectual integrity:
Pirates were heavy, weighing down sea levels. When piracy went away, the sea expanded.
People that think scientists and faith have anything to do with each other release hot air in ever increasing amounts. That is the source of global warming, not CO2.
The oceans actually aren't rising at all, just like temperatures and CO2 levels aren't rising. Scientists are just trying to game the system for paychecks because they cant synergize value in the marketplace.
Dirt is washing away into the ocean. It looks like the water is rising, but it's the land which is falling.
The demand for seawater and warm weather has increased but the price stayed the same. Therefore, as St. Smith the profit evangelized, supply has obviously increased.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:50PM
I've encountered that sort of claim when talking to climate deniers in meatspace (they think I'm conservative because I frequently look like a clean-cut white guy). I've also encountered claims that global average temperature isn't rising either, even though it demonstrably is. That's mostly from the portion of climate change deniers who firmly believe that "climate change" is a conspiracy hatched by the godless coastal liberal elites who intend to use it to destroy the entire industrial economy and make everyone into secular humanists. (OK, I'm exaggerating slightly, but not that much.)
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:15PM
I still don't see your problem with my proposal. If the deniers are right, they get to live on beautiful tropical islands in the South Pacific. If they're wrong, then they get to drown and everyone else can move on. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:56PM
I'd take that trade, in theory. But I wouldn't want to live on an island for other reasons, not much to do unless you like beaches, surfing and fishing. I base this on the obvious fact that the loudest mouthed AGW promoters haven't stopped bidding up beachfront property anywhere in the world. They say one thing and do the opposite, indicating they themselves do not really believe the sort of scare mongering they push to the mass media.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:39PM
Right, it's win-win, isn't it? I do feel obliged to issue a spoiler alert, though--the Coast Guard won't be rescuing anybody there. Thus the headlines in 2050 will read, "American Boat People Seeking Asylum After Islands Lost Beneath the Waves."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:51PM
Why do you hate Pacific Islanders so much? Are you a racist?!