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: 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?!