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, 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.