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: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:31PM
nice flamebait article.
wtf is a "climate denier" anyway?
sounds like someone who denies that climate exists.
otherwise it could be an illiterate moron who jumps on a bandwagon... oh wait that could be the case for either side of any argument.
i'm assuming its targeting those who deny that humans are causing global climate change.
i dunno if we are or aren't. both sides throw the word "science" like it has any meaning any more. i think the science on both sides has been corrupted in a way that any objective observer would have difficulty filtering out all the political garbage, and obama's rhetoric doesn't help.
there is definitely a case that humans are causing a shitload of pollution that is harmful to the natural environment. i don't think anyone has ever doubted that. is it enough to trigger global climate shift? i'm not sure, and no armchair "scientists" are ever going to have the answer. i've read about events like the obliteration of krakatoa and accept that it would have had widespread effects on climate for years after. if we were to engage in a nuclear world war i'm sure that would have major effects too. i'm sure there are local effects on climate, such as in heavily populated areas like asia. there may even be some sort of gradual cumulative global impact, but its hard to find any sources nowadays without bias. even government agencies and universities have their vested interest one way or another (research funding and publication come to mind). real scientists are silenced or cast aside in the din of political lobbying.
my gut tells me that gradual cumulative global impact makes sense, but i wouldn't bet my life savings on a "day after tomorrow" scenario in the next century or two. does that mean we (as a species) should do nothing? fuck no, but should we go jumping up and down ridiculing anyone who doesn't buy into one side or the other? i would expect that kind of behavior on 4chan, but for the potus to engage in that kind of horseshit is pathetic, and if i were an american i would be ashamed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:38PM
I really don't understand people who pretend to act dumb just to make some obtuse point about an idea they don't like. You really couldn't figure out that the use of 'climate denier' was really 'climate change denier'? You really needed me to tell you this? The science is NOT corrupted on both sides. ON the one side you have climate scientists all saying one thing. Then you have polluting industries trotting out their shit-puppets in white lab coats to say anything they can to muddy the waters, because polluting less would cause them to make less money.
It really is that simple. The only country in the world that has this level of doubt about man-made climate change is the US. It isn't an issue anywhere else in the world. And by coincidence, the Republicans have tied being a conservative to beign a climate change denier, so to be one you also have to be the other.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:47PM
yes it is
no they're not
they're not the only ones
unfortunately the reality is a lot more complex than that
i'm not from the united states, and it is an issue everywhere
at least you make your political bias clear. thankyou for not pretending to be objective
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:41PM
Do you have any facts, or grammar, or shift keys for that matter?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:27PM
I haven't bothered to look for them, but I bet there's a lot of disbelief in Russia and OPEC countries as well. In any case, it's more than one country and more than a handful of people.
You really couldn't figure out that the use of 'climate denier' was really 'climate change denier'?
Or that "climate change denier" really is "anthropogenic global warming denier" which is really in too many cases "someone who doesn't fully agree with me on my climate-based religion denier".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:45PM
That is quite the leap. I expect you are old enough or well educated enough that with semantic arguing any phrase loses all meaning. The clues of meaning are in the intent, context and actual use given any instance. In this case it is clear that the phrase is meant to put language to people that do not believe in the facts of the current science. Muddying the waters further on the meaning of words is not desirable for anyone that cares about truth. Just see what Clinton did to the word "is".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 28 2015, @04:37PM
I expect you are old enough or well educated enough that with semantic arguing any phrase loses all meaning. The clues of meaning are in the intent, context and actual use given any instance.
I believe I have accurately gauged the "intent, context and actual use" here with "climate denier". It's really a propaganda term meant to lump everyone who isn't wholly on board with strongly curtailing humanity's activities due to poorly understood climate dynamics and small observed changes in climate with the vanishingly few people who believe there is no actual climate change of any sort going on. A physics analogy would be to label MOND theory advocates as flat earthers. And then yucking it up about "context" and the other bullshit you mention when someone notes that they don't actually believe in a flat earth.
In this case it is clear that the phrase is meant to put language to people that do not believe in the facts of the current science.
If that were true, and it isn't, then you would have to include a lot of people on the climate change bandwagon as well. For example, hysterical catastrophic climate change advocate, Al Gore would be a climate denier too. But only only climate deniers, in your hypothetical definition of the term, on one side of the argument are actually labeled as climate deniers. That context seems to be missing from your argument.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 28 2015, @04:45PM
At this post [slashdot.org], I note that both China and the US had at the time of the study roughly 60% of their population which believed climate change was not a major problem
When a country like China puts it's money where it's mouth is and invests billions into renewable and nuke power then opinion polls are much less relevant.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:01PM
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:17PM
China’s recent scrapping of small coal plants will avoid the release of as much as 11.4 million metric tons annually of climate-warming carbon dioxide, helping the country cut emissions for the first time in more than a decade.
The impact is a sign of what’s to come as China pushes for a cap on coal and moves to shutter, or refit, its dirtiest coal-burning power plants. China overhauled or scrapped as much as 3.3 gigawatts of the facilities in 2014, according to a March statement from the National Bureau of Statistics. Reference [bloomberg.com]
China's commitment to renewables dwarfs that of the U.S. and other industrialized countries. From 2010 to 2012 alone, China’s renewable electricity growth was double that of the U.S., and it is continuing to grow.Reference [climatecentral.org]
To be fair, capacity is estimated to still be increasing though at a decreasing rate. Actual CO2 emissions are dropping though.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:12PM
Actual CO2 emissions are dropping though.
No, they aren't. It's worth noting here that half of new carbon dioxide emissions per year are due to China.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:18PM
Try reading the very first sentence of my post. Most people do that BEFORE responding, but, whatever floats your boat (except displacement of course, that supports global warming)...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:12AM
Moving on, any slow down in China's CO2 emissions are probably due to their slow down in economic growth. Let us keep in mind that everyone else slowed down as well in CO2 emissions, in part for that same reason. Sure, shutting down their most polluting coal burning plants is nice, I even expected that. But it's more than replaced by more modern coal burning plants which still emit CO2. And when economic growth increases in the near future, it still looks to me like China will do the lion's share of the growing both in economic terms and in CO2 emissions.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:32PM
wtf is a "climate denier" anyway?
I think the accepted term these days is "climatard."
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @02:31PM
Something to do with the density of yarn [wikipedia.org] but climate.
Source: I read the label of yo mama's stockings.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:21PM
wtf is a "climate denier" anyway?
sounds like someone who denies that climate exists.
I think this is an attempt a reducto ad absurdum. Of course, it relies on the assumption that "the climate doesn't exist" is actually more absurd that the posited global scientific conspiracy to invent global warming. Is it?