• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Obama isn’t taking global warming seriously either

Riven326

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,398
1,543
410
United States
Flying in a jet before or after makes no difference, lecturing everyone about how awful they are for not taking climate change seriously when they fly out to rallies in private jets is the height of hypocrisy. Sanders just got nailed in the face with this by a college student at a rally, the kid said, “Why don’t you practice what you preach?” And Sanders said, “I’m not going to walk to California.” That’s pretty cunty when you consider all the lecturing and posturing the Left does about fossil fuels and established methods of travel.

I agree on Middle East policy, I think we should get the fuck out of there period. As for Saudis, well you’re probably right. However, I do know one president that ignored a certain Saudi when the Sudanese government offered him up to us on a platter and that Saudi went on to plan an attack that killed 3300 people or so. Is that the one you mean? ;)
I mean the neocons and those that shield them. They are just as much traitors as the dems who demand open borders. I despise both equally.
 

highrider

Member
Dec 18, 2010
9,430
2,909
900
52
washington d.c.
Didn't say that, so don't try to push childish strawmen arguments. Re-read what I wrote. I stated that most politicians don't give a shit about climate change or science in general - they say what they say to gain voters and power. AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc - none of them understand the the science, hell, the majority of the left and right don't. Scientific literacy is something that simply isn't taught.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of oaghboghi2's statement of "critical analysis" and blind tribalism as any done on the actual scientific literature would show that climate change is real, though highly politicized on the left and exaggerated for reasons I have stated prior. I have literally been shitting on both the right and left's actions this entire time. What blind tribalism am I pushing? Get your head out of your ass.
Well it’s a good thing You understand the science 👍
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Reducing carbon emissions is boring. Improving our capacity for carbon drawdown / carbon sequestration is where it's at. Even if we reduce emissions, the more interesting and useful technology is the kind that can pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and convert them into a more permanent, sequestered state. That's where regenerative agriculture can fill the gap.

Biochar. Nanoclay sprays. Worm compost teas and bioreactor fungal-dominant composts. These can restore sand to arable soil, and can restore blasted croplands into fertile areas again. In turn, these areas are drawing down more carbon and sequestering it into the soil. Human carbon respiration is nothing compared to the natural respiration from soils and plants every year. So when we slash rainforests and blast our croplands, we are reducing the earth's natural ability to draw down carbon.

We have zero-emission natural gas power plants now, which admittedly are still using a fossil fuel but getting on a gas-based energy system would help us pivot to a biogas system (which can be naturally produced through manure / agricultural waste composting). Countries around the world are investing into desalinization plants to convert seawater into freshwater (go ask the Saudis). We have carbon-drawdown factories that can literally suck carbon out of the air and sequester it. That's where the focus should be. If carbon-dioxide and nitrogen are such terrible greenhouse gasses, then let's continue developing tech to wrangle that variable.

"Green" energy like wind and solar rely too heavily on non-renewable materials. Biogas and agricultural carbon sequestration are the way to go.

EDIT: and to be clear, Western nations reducing their carbon emissions is completely useless unless countries like India, China, and Russia agree to play along. Emissions are still emissions. If every country went carbon neutral tomorrow, we'd still have to deal with the existing carbon and nitrogen in the atmosphere. Reducing our yearly emissions just slows the purported runaway greenhouse-gas doomsday. Sequestration is the answer, and if we can sequester at a higher rate than we emit (which is feasible with current technology), emissions pumped out by countries that aren't willing to "go green" suddenly aren't as much of a concern.
 
Last edited:

TheExorzist

Member
Jun 17, 2006
9,539
1,253
1,350
Climate change is goddam hoax. It’s simple a stratagem for socialism/fascism. Absolute government control and regulation of every aspect of our lives. It validates their control, don’t do x or don’t do y because it’s affecting the climate. They should FOH.

The hard evidence is all around us that it is a hoax. No politician or 1 percenter live their lives like they believe in climate change.
For the mere fact that NOT ONE bank in the fuckin world has ever put “climate change” provision/clause in any contract/loan for a business or mortgage, etc. tells it all. Why are they giving out 40 year mortgages if the world will end in 12 years. Because they know climate change is garbage.
I dunno where you live but as someone who lives Austria with a rather moderate climate I can tell you that climate change is no hoax. And I do not need any politician saying me that. The difference in how cold winter are and when they set in and how warm summmers are and how long they last has changed drastically compared to the time when I was growing up - and there is no way to explain this with natural fluctuations or something.

Climate change is real and should be taken seriously by all of us. Don’t think this is a joke just because some of the people advocating for change do not live 100% green. The emissions caused by a single person are negligible, no matter how dirty one lives. It’s the big corporations that need to change.
 

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
307
485
Climate change is goddam hoax. It’s simple a stratagem for socialism/fascism.
Off the damn reservation. Politicians being ignorant to the severity of climate change's long term effects is NOT an argument against global climate change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lamel
Jun 25, 2018
652
324
480
Reducing carbon emissions is boring. Improving our capacity for carbon drawdown / carbon sequestration is where it's at. Even if we reduce emissions, the more interesting and useful technology is the kind that can pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and convert them into a more permanent, sequestered state. That's where regenerative agriculture can fill the gap.

Biochar. Nanoclay sprays. Worm compost teas and bioreactor fungal-dominant composts. These can restore sand to arable soil, and can restore blasted croplands into fertile areas again. In turn, these areas are drawing down more carbon and sequestering it into the soil. Human carbon respiration is nothing compared to the natural respiration from soils and plants every year. So when we slash rainforests and blast our croplands, we are reducing the earth's natural ability to draw down carbon.

We have zero-emission natural gas power plants now, which admittedly are still using a fossil fuel but getting on a gas-based energy system would help us pivot to a biogas system (which can be naturally produced through manure / agricultural waste composting). Countries around the world are investing into desalinization plants to convert seawater into freshwater (go ask the Saudis). We have carbon-drawdown factories that can literally suck carbon out of the air and sequester it. That's where the focus should be. If carbon-dioxide and nitrogen are such terrible greenhouse gasses, then let's continue developing tech to wrangle that variable.

"Green" energy like wind and solar rely too heavily on non-renewable materials. Biogas and agricultural carbon sequestration are the way to go.

EDIT: and to be clear, Western nations reducing their carbon emissions is completely useless unless countries like India, China, and Russia agree to play along. Emissions are still emissions. If every country went carbon neutral tomorrow, we'd still have to deal with the existing carbon and nitrogen in the atmosphere. Reducing our yearly emissions just slows the purported runaway greenhouse-gas doomsday. Sequestration is the answer, and if we can sequester at a higher rate than we emit (which is feasible with current technology), emissions pumped out by countries that aren't willing to "go green" suddenly aren't as much of a concern.
Trees and plants are the best for carbon sequestration, it will take a really long time until we have technology that can do as effective and as cost redusive as plants and trees. We should take better care of our soil and fauna. But we won't do to politics and economy systems not Caring one bit for nature and its riches. Let's look at brazil Amazonas burning 75.000 squares kilometer rainforest up in smoke its a world disaster. Usually its only 25.000 squares kilometers but now With the brazil PM supporting the activity the burning rate has increased.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,350
25,600
1,400
Australia
Oh wow. I was expecting an actual statement or something. Not just some random tweet that's making policy assumptions based on their real estate dealings.
The vast majority of the ACTUAL evidence disagrees with your conspiracy theory. There is science that backs up climate change. Not just uneducated assumptions based on the random things that politicians do.
And the facts and evidence that debunk your conspiracy theory are readily available with a simple Google search. But I am pretty sure you knew that already which means you consider the scientific evidence to be false. And that's not really something someone can argue with. If one side is completely dismissing scientific evidence then there is not much discussion to be had in my opinion. Not a productive one at any rate.


Lucky for the rest of the world though climate change has become a widely accepted fact and has been pushing political agendas and decisions across the world for years already. Decisions that have spurred job creation, innovation, and economic growth. And that's not even mentioning the environmental benefits that have already come about or will come about as a result of such decisions. In fact several countries have already had significant changes come about by switching to greener alternative energy sources.


I suppose only way to convince conspiracy theorist is to provide proper education and information regarding climate change and it's effects going forward as well as allowing the obvious environmental benefits to speak themselves as time goes on.
The idea of trying to use current real estate choices to show someone doesn't believe in climate change is desperate at best and ignorant at worst. We are talking about something that is going to take decades to happen in earnest. Even longer for something like geographical location to be a life or death decision. Where Obama and his family lives for the next few years means less than nothing. To pretend otherwise is just a partisan attempt to go after him and his political beliefs.


Which is nothing new obviously. Right wingers have been doing that to the Obama's for years, but to use something like this to go after something as basic as climate change? That just tells me that the Right is apparently running dangerously low on political ammunition when it comes to Obama at the moment.
So many words, so much grandstanding, so much claimed moral righteousness, yet not a single citation in sight. If you are going to redeem the Good Boy Points of appealing to the authority of science, the least you can do is provide us with some of the science you are appealing to so that we know that you know what you're talking about and not just parroting whatever morally-correct opinion you have inherited from your preferred media sources.

N.B. This is not a refutation of the existence of climate change; rather, a refutation of your posturing.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,750
1,580
885
Climate change is goddam hoax. It’s simple a stratagem for socialism/fascism. Absolute government control and regulation of every aspect of our lives. It validates their control, don’t do x or don’t do y because it’s affecting the climate. They should FOH.

The hard evidence is all around us that it is a hoax. No politician or 1 percenter live their lives like they believe in climate change.
For the mere fact that NOT ONE bank in the fuckin world has ever put “climate change” provision/clause in any contract/loan for a business or mortgage, etc. tells it all. Why are they giving out 40 year mortgages if the world will end in 12 years. Because they know climate change is garbage.
Man, aren't we past the denial stage yet?

Only the most extreme forcasts claim sea level coast cities will be flooded in 20 or so years. Scientists make a wide range of forecasts using a wide range of variables since they aren't psychics, and can't predict what action the world may or may not take to change course.

Also, do you just not understand the basic premise of "Warmer temperature=more melted ice=rising water"? It really is that simple. And every single measure of global surface temperature shows it substantially increasing. That is a fact. Also, your house being possibly destroyed has literally nothing to do with the willingness of someone to sell you a house. See: beach houses in hurricane areas, houses in wildfire prone areas, etc.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Global warming as a real scientific issue was coopted by a political bloc who've pushed bad science and bad conclusions. The scientists are right that human-generated CO2 and Nitrogen are having an impact on global weather, but the politicians are recommending the wrong things and pushing the wrong conclusions. Humans produce about 30 gigatons of CO2 per year. The natural process of the earth cycles 750 gt of carbon per year. This isn't to say that humans aren't having an impact. We are. The problem is that while we are pumping out a (relatively) small amount of CO2, we are also drastically reducing the earth's natural capability to handle greenhouse gases. This happens when we slash rainforests, destroy soil fertility, and retreat from desertified lands. We all learned this as kids: the plants and trees suck up the evil Co2 and give us wonderful oxygen. When the forests are cut down, there aren't as many plants and trees to suck up the evil Co2.

It's not the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by the burning rainforests that we have to worry about. It is the reduced capacity of that acreage to draw down and sequester carbon. Maybe in 100 years, the earth will only be able to cycle 650 gt of carbon a year. Or 500 gt. Or less. Then it won't matter if we reduce our measly 30 gt down to 10 or to 0. Conversely, imagine using natural and mechanical methods to increase the drawdown from 750 gt a year to 1000 gt per year. Suddenly, not only are we negating yearly emissions, but we're also cleaning up the after-effects of the last ~150 years of man-made greenhouse pollution. It is why I keep hammering home the question: reducing emissions is nice, but what is being done to remove the extra greenhouse gases already there?

The following video is six years old:


We have quite a lot of information about how to deal with greenhouse gasses (it's about increasing carbon drawdown and has almost nothing to do with reducing emissions). Politicians want to recommend things like reducing our meat consumption (cowfarts!) when the video above clearly explains how reducing cattle would make our situation much worse.

Global warming debate in politics is a microcosm of our overall political atmosphere. The party that "supports global warming" wants to set the tone and make demands, but they are recommending the wrong things. Corn ethanol? Carbon credits? These ideas didn't work. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs and educators are spreading knowledge on how to do carbon drawdown through farming/ranching. As a side-bonus, global food production goes through the roof, food is healthier, desertification is stopped (and reversed).

Yet, our scammer politicians shake their fists against the "deniers" and demand they step aside. They scream for more solar, more wind, more things that are gigantic financial investments, yet they won't talk about nuclear? They won't talk about revising our agriculture? They want to claim they are on the side of science, but they're not pushing the techniques that our scientists keep recommending. Of course they don't take global warming seriously. If they did, they would recommend proven ideas that actually work, not just expensive ideas that enrich themselves and their donors. They spend more time and money making movies to "raise awareness" and flying all around the globe to attend conferences than they do simply purchasing a few hundred carbon drawdown facilities.

It's all about milking the fame and social standing. Obama is no different.
 
Last edited:

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
307
485
when the video above clearly explains how reducing cattle would make our situation much worse.
No one who knows anything about this stuff cares about free roaming, grazing, cattle. The problem is factory farming, and it's not just because of emissions. Environmentalism isn't just focused on one issue.

Yet, our scammer politicians shake their fists against the "deniers" and demand they step aside. They scream for more solar, more wind, more things that are gigantic financial investments, yet they won't talk about nuclear? They won't talk about revising our agriculture? They want to claim they are on the side of science, but they're not pushing the techniques that our scientists keep recommending. Of course they don't take global warming seriously. If they did, they would recommend proven ideas that actually work, not just expensive ideas that enrich themselves and their donors. They spend more time and money making movies to "raise awareness" and flying all around the globe to attend conferences than they do simply purchasing a few hundred carbon drawdown facilities.
You talk about politicians enriching their donors... but what about the R politicians enriching their oil donors? Yes, politicians are largely going to try to push for changes that they can affect through policy, but really, which donors, exactly, would AOC and her green new deal be enriching? What mega-conglomerate would she be enriching? She refused pack money. And IF she was on the dole WHY would Polosi want in on that? Same with Bernie. And green energy solution aren't just important for reversing climate change. Getting those systems in place will help meet our energy needs in the long term.

Even when some of you people accept climate change you have to make a damn conspiracy out of it.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: matt404au

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
2,452
1,973
545
Global warming as a real scientific issue was coopted by a political bloc who've pushed bad science and bad conclusions. The scientists are right that human-generated CO2 and Nitrogen are having an impact on global weather, but the politicians are recommending the wrong things and pushing the wrong conclusions. Humans produce about 30 gigatons of CO2 per year. The natural process of the earth cycles 750 gt of carbon per year. This isn't to say that humans aren't having an impact. We are. The problem is that while we are pumping out a (relatively) small amount of CO2, we are also drastically reducing the earth's natural capability to handle greenhouse gases. This happens when we slash rainforests, destroy soil fertility, and retreat from desertified lands.

It's not the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by the burning rainforests that we have to worry about. It is the reduced capacity of that acreage to draw down and sequester carbon. Maybe in 100 years, the earth will only be able to cycle 650 gt of carbon a year. Then it won't matter if we reduce our measly 30 gt down to 10 or to 0.

The following video is six years old:


We have quite a lot of information about how to deal with greenhouse gasses (it's about increasing carbon drawdown and has almost nothing to do with reducing emissions). Politicians want to recommend things like reducing our meat consumption (cowfarts!) when the video above clearly explains how reducing cattle would make our situation much worse.

Global warming debate in politics is a microcosm of our overall political atmosphere. The party that "supports global warming" wants to set the tone and make demands, but they are recommending the wrong things. Corn ethanol? Carbon credits? These ideas didn't work. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs and educators are spreading knowledge on how to do carbon drawdown through farming/ranching. As a side-bonus, global food production goes through the roof, food is healthier, desertification is stopped (and reversed).

Yet, our scammer politicians shake their fists against the "deniers" and demand they step aside. They scream for more solar, more wind, more things that are gigantic financial investments, yet they won't talk about nuclear? They won't talk about revising our agriculture? They want to claim they are on the side of science, but they're not pushing the techniques that our scientists keep recommending. Of course they don't take global warming seriously. If they did, they would recommend proven ideas that actually work, not just expensive ideas that enrich themselves and their donors. They spend more time and money making movies to "raise awareness" and flying all around the globe to attend conferences than they do simply purchasing a few hundred carbon drawdown facilities.

It's all about milking the fame and social standing. Obama is no different.
The worst part is with the science is even professors here are bitching about it is that anything that isn't profitable for the green grinding machine will not be funded and there is no research done that tries to disprove it. Which makes the research basically extremely one sided and simple biased.
 

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
307
485
The worst part is with the science is even professors here are bitching about it is that anything that isn't profitable for the green grinding machine will not be funded and there is no research done that tries to disprove it. Which makes the research basically extremely one sided and simple biased.
Welcome to capitalist society. It's amazing how people can see the problem and it's roots and then ultimately continue supporting the thing that is whole cloth ruining our society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lamel

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
No one who knows anything about this stuff cares about free roaming, grazing, cattle. The problem is factory farming, and it's not just because of emissions. Environmentalism isn't just focused on one issue.
>no one cares about grazing cattle
>the problem is factory farming



So replacing factory-farming with grazing wouldn't matter? I guess I need you to explain what exactly you're saying here, because it seems to me like you're contradicting your own point.

You talk about politicians enriching their donors... but what about the R politicians enriching their oil donors?
Hate to break it to you, but most Dems are bought by oil as well. It's not the oil that's the problem anyway. It's the reduction of earth's total carbon drawdown capacity. That's what all the evidence points to. If the world's energy and transportation went carbon-zero tomorrow, there are still surplus amounts of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and we are still doing agriculture and land-mgmt incorrectly.

Also, nothing in what I said was an attempt to absolve Republicans. This is the reactive, cult-like mentality of the political bloc. What? You're blaming us for this? But the Republicans... We are in this mess because of empty rhetoric.


Yes, politicians are largely going to try to push for changes that they can affect through policy, but really, which donors, exactly, would AOC and her green new deal be enriching? What mega-conglomerate would she be enriching? She refused pack money. And IF she was on the dole WHY would Polosi want in on that? Same with Bernie. And green energy solution aren't just important for reversing climate change. Getting those systems in place will help meet our energy needs in the long term.

Even when some of you people accept climate change you have to make a damn conspiracy out of it.
And here's the funniest backfire of your response: I wasn't denying climate change. I was pointing out the current science on the topic of climate change, in fact. But that's a conspiracy?

Again, here is evidence that the actual scientific issue of climate change has been coopted into a political movement. Since I'm not nodding my head at whatever so-called "pro environmentalist" politician is saying, I am accused of being a denier and making a conspiracy of it. This is the defensive behavior of a cultist. I am reminded of Evangelicals who defended Bush Jr "because he said he loves Jesus". Just because a politician or celebrity believes in climate change doesn't make their recommendations correct.

Anyone who pushes "green energy" without nuclear is a jokester. In the same way, anyone who pushes the reduction of carbon emissions without carbon drawdown/sequestration is a jokester. If we've been emitting too much carbon, how will we get rid of that surplus? Switching to solar panels and electric cars is nice, but those don't take a drop of carbon out of the atmosphere. They just prevent us putting up more.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
The worst part is with the science is even professors here are bitching about it is that anything that isn't profitable for the green grinding machine will not be funded and there is no research done that tries to disprove it. Which makes the research basically extremely one sided and simple biased.
Monsanto has just as much to do with global carbon emissions as Exxon Mobile or BP or other fossil fuel companies.

- How much greenhouse gas is generated by nitrogen-rich fertilizer production, transportation, and runoff?
- How much greenhouse gas is generated by the manufacture and transportation of chemicals and GMO seed?
- What is the avg carbon drawdown per acre of Monsanto-grown crops compared to the drawdown on that same acreage 100 years ago (hint: Monsanto crops are inferior at carbon drawdown compared to organic)

Meanwhile, politicians want to cut up even more potential farmland/pasture (meaning, more potential acreage for carbon drawdown) and turn it into solar farms and wind farms :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
307
485
Also, nothing in what I said was an attempt to absolve Republicans. This is the reactive, cult-like mentality of the political bloc. What? You're blaming us for this? But the Republicans... We are in this mess because of empty rhetoric.
You can't blame the Dem's for trying to find a solution, even if you don't like or agree with the solution, and then completely ignore the fact the the Rep are trying to make the problem disappear for the befit of their donors.

And here's the funniest backfire of your response: I wasn't denying climate change. I was pointing out the current science on the topic of climate change, in fact. But that's a conspiracy?
I didn't say you were, I said you were being conspiratorial by claiming the most progressive politicians on this issue are only in it for the dough. You completely ignored my questions about AOC, whom you directly quoted as being ridiculous. Is she just ignorant? or is she on the dole as well? Don't pretend that the only voting blocs are Dem or Rep. The only reason that duopoly exists is being we allow it to, and already fissures are starting to show. Progressives and Democrats are basically at war, and the only thing that stops a full party split off at this point is a shared dislike for Trump.

Anyone who pushes "green energy" without nuclear is a jokester. In the same way, anyone who pushes the reduction of carbon emissions without carbon drawdown/sequestration is a jokester. If we've been emitting too much carbon, how will we get rid of that surplus? Switching to solar panels and electric cars is nice, but those don't take a drop of carbon out of the atmosphere. They just prevent us putting up more.
Anyone who pushes nuclear without understanding the timeables, pit falls, public relations issues, and waste management issues is a jokester. We can talk nuclear later.

>no one cares about grazing cattle
>the problem is factory farming



So replacing factory-farming with grazing wouldn't matter? I guess I need you to explain what exactly you're saying here, because it seems to me like you're contradicting your own point.
How the fuck is that contradictory? Grazing cattle are great for the environment, as long as they have a nature predator, which humans take on the role of. It's the cows they we stuff by the THOUSANDS into tiny boxes, only feeding them corn products (another subsidized agricultural dark hole) and they eat, shit, and piss into a concentrated location causing MASSIVE methane polution, along with other nasty environmental problems.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: matt404au

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
You can't blame the Dem's for trying to find a solution, even if you don't like or agree with the solution, and then completely ignore the fact the the Rep are trying to make the problem disappear for the befit of their donors.
Like I said, coopted by a political movement. I'm pointing out the Democrat's bad behavior, -- specifically, that they're making global warming worse -- yet you want to insist "but but they're trying! But but you can't criticize them without also screaming at the Republicaaaaaans".

It's just not a conversation I'm interested in. Reducing cattle (recommended by Democrats) is a bad idea and will cause more damage. When Republicans resist this, they are correct to resist it. "The problem is this somehow doesn't count because those are the "climate change deniers" and they're just resisting because they don't believe science", right? That's what is going on here. Dems want to push bad ideas without owning up to the failures and consequences. Their excuse is that Republicans are so bad that they should given a break.

That's not a valid excuse for pushing incorrect ideas and pushing unscientific doomsday predictions.

I didn't say you were, I said you were being conspiratorial by claiming the most progressive politicians on this issue are only in it for the dough.
I never specified the most progressive politicians. Their heart might be in the right place, for all I know, but they are still pushing incorrect science.

You completely ignored my questions about AOC, whom you directly quoted as being ridiculous. Is she just ignorant? or is she on the dole as well?
Not sure if AOC is ignorant or on the dole. Maybe both, since she seems to have a specific financial backer with an interesting history. There's no participation ribbon for bad ideas pushed with good intentions. AOC might be doing it out of the goodness of her heart, but she is still being unscientific. Who cares if she "means well" or "starts a conversation"?

Don't pretend that the only voting blocs are Dem or Rep. The only reason that duopoly exists is being we allow it to, and already fissures are starting to show. Progressives and Democrats are basically at war, and the only thing that stops a full party split off at this point is a shared dislike for Trump.

Anyone who pushes nuclear without understanding the timeables, pit falls, public relations issues, and waste management issues is a jokester. We can talk nuclear later.
I'm not pretending they're the only voting bloc, just the biggest. It's mostly immaterial to the conversation anyway.

You're saying the people who push nuclear don't understand what they're pushing? That's a strange claim to make.

How the fuck is that contradictory? Grazing cattle are great for the environment, as long as they have a nature predator, which humans take on the role of. It's the cows they we stuff by the THOUSANDS into tiny boxes, only feeding them corn products (another subsidized agricultural dark hole) and they eat, shit, and piss into a concentrated location causing MASSIVE methane polution, along with other nasty environmental problems.
That's why I asked for clarification, relax. It sounded like you said no one cares about grazing, and that the real solution was to get rid of factory farming. One is actually facilitated by the other.
 

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
307
485
Like I said, coopted by a political movement. I'm pointing out the Democrat's bad behavior, -- specifically, that they're making global warming worse -- yet you want to insist "but but they're trying! But but you can't criticize them without also screaming at the Republicaaaaaans".

It's just not a conversation I'm interested in. Reducing cattle (recommended by Democrats) is a bad idea and will cause more damage. When Republicans resist this, they are correct to resist it. "The problem is this somehow doesn't count because those are the "climate change deniers" and they're just resisting because they don't believe science", right? That's what is going on here. Dems want to push bad ideas without owning up to the failures and consequences. Their excuse is that Republicans are so bad that they should given a break.

That's not a valid excuse for pushing incorrect ideas and pushing unscientific doomsday predictions.
If Reps wanted to actually argue these point on policy and try to make BETTER policy then I'm all fucking for it. I have no tribal allegiances to either party. But when the Dems want to make changes and the Reps only answer is screaming "no, it's a Chinese hoax!" and covering their ears then clearly there's a problem. We can't even have a discussion on what to do because one party's political stance is that climate change either isn't a thing, is totally natural and isn't caused by humans, or is a sign of the end times.

And we're back to the cows. Again. Reducing the number of cows crammed into tiny boxes eating corns and shitting and pissing is different that talking about the cows that graze on wild grasslands. Reduction of factory farming is a the goal, and the cause of factory farming is the demands of the American consumer, not just for meat products but also for other dairy. Americans eat far more dairy and red meat than any other country per capita, and it's not just bad for the climate and the environment, but also for our health. We've created a horrible pipeline of foods based largely around subsidized crops and products rather than their nutritional values. Once again many these changes aren't JUST aimed at changing the climate.

Not sure if AOC is ignorant or on the dole. Maybe both, since she seems to have a specific financial backer with an interesting history. There's no participation ribbon for bad ideas pushed with good intentions. AOC might be doing it out of the goodness of her heart, but she is still being unscientific. Who cares if she "means well" or "starts a conversation"?
Better than being blatantly or intentionally ignorant to the problem as a whole in order to squeeze that cash cow just a little while longer. Better than intentionally lying and misinforming millions of people while the problem gets worse and worse. Greenland just held a funeral for the loss of the Okjokull glacier. Scientists are predicting another year of temperatures within the top 5 ever recorded. We broke the record this year for the hottest day ever.

But we have politicians that will bring pictures of tauntauns or handfuls of snow into congress and act as though that's convincing evidence that nothing at all is wrong in the world.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,623
3,694
425
If Reps wanted to actually argue these point on policy and try to make BETTER policy then I'm all fucking for it. I have no tribal allegiances to either party. But when the Dems want to make changes and the Reps only answer is screaming "no, it's a Chinese hoax!" and covering their ears then clearly there's a problem. We can't even have a discussion on what to do because one party's political stance is that climate change either isn't a thing, is totally natural and isn't caused by humans, or is a sign of the end times.

And we're back to the cows. Again. Reducing the number of cows crammed into tiny boxes eating corns and shitting and pissing is different that talking about the cows that graze on wild grasslands. Reduction of factory farming is a the goal, and the cause of factory farming is the demands of the American consumer, not just for meat products but also for other dairy. Americans eat far more dairy and red meat than any other country per capita, and it's not just bad for the climate and the environment, but also for our health. We've created a horrible pipeline of foods based largely around subsidized crops and products rather than their nutritional values. Once again many these changes aren't JUST aimed at changing the climate.



Better than being blatantly or intentionally ignorant to the problem as a whole in order to squeeze that cash cow just a little while longer. Better than intentionally lying and misinforming millions of people while the problem gets worse and worse. Greenland just held a funeral for the loss of the Okjokull glacier. Scientists are predicting another year of temperatures within the top 5 ever recorded. We broke the record this year for the hottest day ever.

But we have politicians that will bring pictures of tauntauns or handfuls of snow into congress and act as though that's convincing evidence that nothing at all is wrong in the world.
One of the many things that irked me about AOC is when I heard she (and many of her staff) took cars to their office every day, despite being close to a subway terminal. I wouldn't care if she wasn't trying to lecture everyone about what a bunch of fucks we are, but if you're going to lecture people about going green, you better practice that shit, live that shit, eat and shit that shit. Otherwise it's just another case of rules for thee but not me, and I intrinsically wanna tell those people to go fuck themselves with a lampshade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norik and matt404au

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
If Reps wanted to actually argue these point on policy and try to make BETTER policy then I'm all fucking for it. I have no tribal allegiances to either party. But when the Dems want to make changes and the Reps only answer is screaming "no, it's a Chinese hoax!" and covering their ears then clearly there's a problem. We can't even have a discussion on what to do because one party's political stance is that climate change either isn't a thing, is totally natural and isn't caused by humans, or is a sign of the end times.

And we're back to the cows. Again. Reducing the number of cows crammed into tiny boxes eating corns and shitting and pissing is different that talking about the cows that graze on wild grasslands. Reduction of factory farming is a the goal, and the cause of factory farming is the demands of the American consumer, not just for meat products but also for other dairy. Americans eat far more dairy and red meat than any other country per capita, and it's not just bad for the climate and the environment, but also for our health. We've created a horrible pipeline of foods based largely around subsidized crops and products rather than their nutritional values. Once again many these changes aren't JUST aimed at changing the climate.
And this is where you're wrong: reducing meat and dairy products would increase the desertification of lands and would reduce our carbon drawdown. Healthy meat and healthy dairy (grazed on prairie) are very good for people to eat. Our food's nutritional content is directly linked to our land mgmt and specifically our soil mgmt.

We can produce just as much -- more, actually -- of beef and pork and poultry on these more sensible methods.

Better than being blatantly or intentionally ignorant to the problem as a whole in order to squeeze that cash cow just a little while longer. Better than intentionally lying and misinforming millions of people while the problem gets worse and worse. Greenland just held a funeral for the loss of the Okjokull glacier. Scientists are predicting another year of temperatures within the top 5 ever recorded. We broke the record this year for the hottest day ever.

But we have politicians that will bring pictures of tauntauns or handfuls of snow into congress and act as though that's convincing evidence that nothing at all is wrong in the world.
You seem angry with politicians to which I have no allegiance to. That's nice, but it doesn't have much to do with me or what I posted. Democrats are standing in the way of improving our climate and I've pointed out how several times. Rushing to the party's defense is silly. They are to blame, too.
 

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
307
485
One of the many things that irked me about AOC is when I heard she (and many of her staff) took cars to their office every day, despite being close to a subway terminal. I wouldn't care if she wasn't trying to lecture everyone about what a bunch of fucks we are, but if you're going to lecture people about going green, you better practice that shit, live that shit, eat and shit that shit. Otherwise it's just another case of rules for thee but not me, and I intrinsically wanna tell those people to go fuck themselves with a lampshade.
Being a hypocrite doesnt mean she's wrong though, and I thought being right was more important that being "morally" right.
And this is where you're wrong: reducing meat and dairy products would increase the desertification of lands and would reduce our carbon drawdown. Healthy meat and healthy dairy (grazed on prairie) are very good for people to eat. Our food's nutritional content is directly linked to our land mgmt and specifically our soil mgmt.

We can produce just as much -- more, actually -- of beef and pork and poultry on these more sensible methods.


You seem angry with politicians to which I have no allegiance to. That's nice, but it doesn't have much to do with me or what I posted. Democrats are standing in the way of improving our climate and I've pointed out how several times. Rushing to the party's defense is silly. They are to blame, too.
We can have grazing animals without butchering them. Having more natural ecosystems will do more to avoid desertification than creating demand for red meats and dairy. That demand is what made the factory farming industry the monster it is today. To meet demands we industrialized breeding cows, gave them growth hormones that caused havoc when it seeped into their milk supply. We don't have to view every little thing through the lens of how we can make a damn profit off of it.

This is a lame "both sides" argument that I have no time for. Reps aren't even willing to take the first step towards making an improvement by acknowledging the issue. They can't even be the foil to the debate because they refuse to engage and offer solutions (because they refuse to acknowledge a solution is necessary).

Say the Dems are the problem or the Reps are the issue, or they are both problematic, that doesnt solve anything and completely ignored that one side is acting in bad faith.
 
Last edited:
Jun 25, 2018
652
324
480
Being a hypocrite doesnt mean she's wrong though, and I thought being right was more important that being "morally" right.


This is a lame "both sides" argument that I have no time for. Reps aren't even willing to take the first step towards making an improvement by acknowledging the issue. They can't even be the foil to the debate because they refuse to engage and offer solutions (because they refuse to acknowledge a solution is necessary).

Say the Dems are the problem or the Reps are the issue, or they are both problematic, that doesnt solve anything and completely ignored that one side is acting in bad faith.
Your right as far as i gathered No political system is up for the task.
Neither blue nor red. Socialist or capitalist .

People needs to create a revolution its the only way we avoid a disaster.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
This is a lame "both sides" argument that I have no time for. Reps aren't even willing to take the first step towards making an improvement by acknowledging the issue. They can't even be the foil to the debate because they refuse to engage and offer solutions (because they refuse to acknowledge a solution is necessary).

Say the Dems are the problem or the Reps are the issue, or they are both problematic, that doesnt solve anything and completely ignored that one side is acting in bad faith.
Did you forget the thread topic or something? The topic is that Obama isn't taking global warming seriously. I agree. In fact, I think much of the political bloc of global warming advocates are using the topic for political gain and are misrepresenting the actual science behind it. Hence, my posts.
 

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
307
485
Did you forget the thread topic or something? The topic is that Obama isn't taking global warming seriously. I agree. In fact, I think much of the political bloc of global warming advocates are using the topic for political gain and are misrepresenting the actual science behind it. Hence, my posts.
As I said to someone else, AOC or Obama being a hypocrite isn't an argument against change. I'm kind of tired of the "thread topic" defense here. These conversations often snake away from the narrow headline that's being pushed for an obvious narrative (as it should). Pointing out Obama's hypocsry isn't wrong, but doing so while ignoring the fact that the road block
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
As I said to someone else, AOC or Obama being a hypocrite isn't an argument against change. I'm kind of tired of the "thread topic" defense here. These conversations often snake away from the narrow headline that's being pushed for an obvious narrative (as it should). Pointing out Obama's hypocsry isn't wrong, but doing so while ignoring the fact that the road block
And I'm not arguing against change either. You seem to be willfully ignoring my point: the changes being suggested by these same people who don't appear to take it seriously are often incorrect. So it's not a matter of just pointing and laughing because they're being hypocrites. You have yet to take the next logical step by no longer taking their advice at face value without further examination. If their ideas aren't working, it doesn't matter if Republicans are denying climate change or not. It's okay to point out that the politicians who've coopted this idea are damaging the cause. It doesn't mean the underlying science is false. It doesn't make the Republicans correct. There's no logical reason to defend their bad policies.

Upon further examination, their plans like pushing solar, pushing wind, pushing carbon credits, pushing ethanol are not working. These measures seem to make it worse, in some cases.

But but but the Republicans are bad guys too is actually an example of you playing "both sides". The Republican's cooperation isn't necessary to fix the issue. In fact, I don't believe the government has to be all that involved to make it work, because these methods are becoming more economically viable in spite of the government (particularly, the Democrats) pointing people in the wrong direction.
 

Mahadev

Member
Mar 5, 2007
1,731
1,270
1,190
Who the fuck said that in 12 years coastal areas will be underwater? My God, twitter hot takes are so fucking stupid, that platform is pure idiocy.

Btw we've been past the deadline for climate change for many many years now, all we can do now is manage the upcoming disaster
and make sure we can minimize the effects. That's it.
 

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
307
485
But but but the Republicans are bad guys too is actually an example of you playing "both sides". The Republican's cooperation isn't necessary to fix the issue. In fact, I don't believe the government has to be all that involved to make it work, because these methods are becoming more economically viable in spite of the government (particularly, the Democrats) pointing people in the wrong direction.
The alternative is hoping the private citizens and businesses can fix the problem on a global scale, and that's ridiculous. Private business is what got us to this point in the first place. Also I'm not saying the Reps are to bad guys too I'm saying that they ARE the problem, and that if we could get past the inane argument of "climate change is real" vs "climate change is a hoax" then we might be able to actually get somewhere in figuring out what the solutions

Upon further examination, their plans like pushing solar, pushing wind, pushing carbon credits, pushing ethanol are not working. These measures seem to make it worse, in some cases.
YOU keep misunderstanding what I'M saying. Until the other side of the aisle actually have plans and ideas to offer then there's no "both sides". Reps COULD stop this. They could engage in the discussion instead of saying it's a hoax, or a socialist conspiracy, or a religion for fucks sake.

And I'm not arguing against change either. You seem to be willfully ignoring my point: the changes being suggested by these same people who don't appear to take it seriously are often incorrect. So it's not a matter of just pointing and laughing because they're being hypocrites. You have yet to take the next logical step by no longer taking their advice at face value without further examination. If their ideas aren't working, it doesn't matter if Republicans are denying climate change or not. It's okay to point out that the politicians who've coopted this idea are damaging the cause. It doesn't mean the underlying science is false. It doesn't make the Republicans correct. There's no logical reason to defend their bad policies.
I'm NOT taking their advice at face value, but them DOING something, even the wrong thing, is better than lying and saying it's not happening and removing the possiblity of coming to a bipartisan solution. It DOES matter that Reps are denying climate change, as well as actively taking steps that would actively hurt the cause.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
The alternative is hoping the private citizens and businesses can fix the problem on a global scale, and that's ridiculous.
I'm not hoping for private citizens and businesses to fix the problem, I'm merely relaying the fact that they already are in ways that are proving to be effective. Across the spectrum, these issues are already being addressed and governments around the world are adopting holistic / regenerative practices. You're just strawmanning as a deflection from the Democrat's utter failure to address the probelm.

Private business is what got us to this point in the first place. Also I'm not saying the Reps are to bad guys too I'm saying that they ARE the problem, and that if we could get past the inane argument of "climate change is real" vs "climate change is a hoax" then we might be able to actually get somewhere in figuring out what the solutions
Well, you're wrong. Republicans aren't the problem. They're a symptom of powerful industries that are the problem. These same powerful industries fund the Democrats. Why would we keep investing in very expensive methods that barely move the needle (solar, wind, carbon credits, etc) when they don't work? Because that's what businesses want.

Private business is getting us out of this mess. Zero carbon energy plants running on natural gas weren't invented by the Democrats. The fracking that greatly expanded this country's natural gas production -- reducing our overall emissions in the process by switching away from coal -- was definitely not because of Democrats.

I'm all for moving away from limited resources as disposable fuel. Even if we switched off all the lights and stopped producing any extra carbon, the problem remains. Democrats are focusing on issues that have strong corporate backing (ironic) instead of going with proven methods that are gaining traction around the world with plenty of foreign governments.

YOU keep misunderstanding what I'M saying. Until the other side of the aisle actually have plans and ideas to offer then there's no "both sides". Reps COULD stop this. They could engage in the discussion instead of saying it's a hoax, or a socialist conspiracy, or a religion for fucks sake.

I'm NOT taking their advice at face value, but them DOING something, even the wrong thing, is better than lying and saying it's not happening and removing the possiblity of coming to a bipartisan solution. It DOES matter that Reps are denying climate change, as well as actively taking steps that would actively hurt the cause.
It seems you are confusing me for someone else. I'm pointing out the problems caused by the politicization of climate change, and you're screeching at the Republicans. Cult indeed.
 
Last edited:

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,623
3,694
425
Being a hypocrite doesnt mean she's wrong though, and I thought being right was more important that being "morally" right.
Well if she believed the earth only had 12 years as she’s implored in videos of her making chop suey in her kitchen, you’d think she’d take the damn subway. It doesn’t make her wrong, it makes her untrustworthy and disingenuous.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,623
3,694
425
I'm not hoping for private citizens and businesses to fix the problem, I'm merely relaying the fact that they already are in ways that are proving to be effective. Across the spectrum, these issues are already being addressed and governments around the world are adopting holistic / regenerative practices. You're just strawmanning as a deflection from the Democrat's utter failure to address the probelm.


Well, you're wrong. Republicans aren't the problem. They're a symptom of powerful industries that are the problem. These same powerful industries fund the Democrats. Why would we keep investing in very expensive methods that https://www.wsj.com/articles/so-far-hillary-clinton-raises-more-than-donald-trump-from-oil-industry-1473190849barely move the needle (solar, wind, carbon credits, etc) when they don't work? Because that's what businesses want.

Private business is getting us out of this mess. Zero carbon energy plants running on natural gas weren't invented by the Democrats. The fracking that greatly expanded this country's natural gas production -- reducing our overall emissions in the process by switching away from coal -- was definitely not because of Democrats.

I'm all for moving away from limited resources as disposable fuel. Even if we switched off all the lights and stopped producing any extra carbon, the problem remains. Democrats are focusing on issues that have strong corporate backing (ironic) instead of going with proven methods that are gaining traction around the world with plenty of foreign governments.


It seems you are confusing me for someone else. I'm pointing out the problems caused by the politicization of climate change, and you're screeching at the Republicans. Cult indeed.

I hate how Democrats always act like they’re immune from corporate influence:



Let’s not forget the Clinton a foundation too, where there were over 200 conflict of interest rulings and money pouring in to her from China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran:
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
307
485
Well, you're wrong. Republicans aren't the problem. They're a symptom of powerful industries that are the problem. These same powerful industries fund the Democrats. Why would we keep investing in very expensive methods that barely move the needle (solar, wind, carbon credits, etc) when they don't work? Because that's what businesses want.
Again, this flies in the face of reason. If Dems pushing a green corporate agenda was the problem then why is Bernie pushing this? Why aren't Pelosi and her kind pushing it harder? If the Rep are the symptom WHAT are they a symptom OF? The answer is corporate greed, then what do you do about corporate greed? Why would MORE pirvate involvement solve a problem that corporate greed is obviously the symptom of?

Private business is getting us out of this mess. Zero carbon energy plants running on natural gas weren't invented by the Democrats. The fracking that greatly expanded this country's natural gas production -- reducing our overall emissions in the process by switching away from coal -- was definitely not because of Democrats.
Fracking is a mess, and mining the earth for MORE natural resources isn't going to solve the problem that was created by dredging the earth for natural resources. Co2 also isn't the only greenhouse gas. It's just the most prominent of many.

Democrats don't have to be the solution to everything in order for Reps to be the actual problem and blockade towards progress.

I'm all for moving away from limited resources as disposable fuel. Even if we switched off all the lights and stopped producing any extra carbon, the problem remains. Democrats are focusing on issues that have strong corporate backing (ironic) instead of going with proven methods that are gaining traction around the world with plenty of foreign governments.
And yet the main complain towards the Dems plans always seems to be that it'll ruin the economy... which doesn't seem to be very corporate friendly to me.

It seems you are confusing me for someone else. I'm pointing out the problems caused by the politicization of climate change, and you're screeching at the Republicans. Cult indeed.
And I'm saying the problem is that we can't have a two sided debate on the issue because one side is coming up with all the ideas and the other is obfuscating and out right lying to line their pockets. If the Reps came to the table with ideas and argument instead of anti-science bullshit it wouldn't just be the influence of side political party trying to make all the choices. But you keep trying to make this about the dems being as bad as the Reps or something, and that's not the point at all. The point is there's we're not even allowed to start on the path to recovery until the Reps get out of the fucking way.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Your mistake, CeroFrio996 CeroFrio996 , is thinking I want a two-sided debate. I want an open debate. That's what your cult indoctrination is preventing you from seeing. You can only see one side -- yours -- and whatever is being preached from that pulpit. It makes you deaf to other scientific approaches because you believe the politicians. How cute. The Party of Science becomes the Party of Buffet Truth.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: matt404au

CeroFrio996

privileged little shit
Jun 20, 2019
507
307
485
Your mistake, CeroFrio996 CeroFrio996 , is thinking I want a two-sided debate. I want an open debate. That's what your cult indoctrination is preventing you from seeing. You can only see one side -- yours -- and whatever is being preached from that pulpit. It makes you deaf to other scientific approaches because you believe the politicians. How cute. The Party of Science becomes the Party of Buffet Truth.
Oh shut up with this "cult indoctrination" horse shit. I didn't vote for Hillary (didn't vote at all), I think the two party system is actively ruining this country, and I will refuse to vote again if the DNC nominates that creep Biden.

I'm talking about a two sided debt in a POLITICAL sense, because as much as a hate it we have a system that based around two parties and the only time we'll ever get anything accomplished in congress is if BOTH parties come to the table and hash it out.

Your belittling attitude is grating as hell, and it's a common problem here. For a group that berate the ivory tower, you people sure do act a lot like them.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,281
31,795
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Oh shut up with this "cult indoctrination" horse shit. I didn't vote for Hillary (didn't vote at all), I think the two party system is actively ruining this country, and I will refuse to vote again if the DNC nominates that creep Biden.

I'm talking about a two sided debt in a POLITICAL sense, because as much as a hate it we have a system that based around two parties and the only time we'll ever get anything accomplished in congress is if BOTH parties come to the table and hash it out.
I don't accept your premise that the solution lies in congress coming to the table to hash it out, and I've made that perfectly clear in every one of my responses. Therefore, no matter how many times you prop it up as important, I've already explained why I don't think that's relevant.

Your belittling attitude is grating as hell, and it's a common problem here. For a group that berate the ivory tower, you people sure do act a lot like them.
I'm not trying to be belittling. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from and pointing out where you've misunderstood my post. You can keep going around it circles. It isn't going to magically change the available evidence as to what needs to be done for the environment. It ain't green new deals. It ain't solar or wind. And it ain't finding a way to get the Republicans to agree and/or to vote them out.

Rather, the solution is already being carried out by private enterprises, charity organizations, and by a handful of governments. Politicians can keep barking about the ineffective methods that their donors want them to crow about, but I'm more interested in climate change solutions that work.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,350
25,600
1,400
Australia
Who the fuck said that in 12 years coastal areas will be underwater? My God, twitter hot takes are so fucking stupid, that platform is pure idiocy.

Btw we've been past the deadline for climate change for many many years now, all we can do now is manage the upcoming disaster
and make sure we can minimize the effects. That's it.
Both AOC and Beta O’Rourke have pushed the 12 year doomsday theory.
 

Doczu

Member
Aug 17, 2012
2,576
683
690
Poland
If we are (as a species) on the brink of passing a point of no return regarding our climate, which will inevitably kill many, if not all of us (as some of the bigger fearmongers say) - tyen why the fuck aren't we living in a police state that would enforce rules and regulations on us which would save us (as we are to dumb to do it ourself)?

If i was at the top, like 0.1% of the top i would make you filthy peasants count your farts so that you wouldn't kill me by your lifestyle.

If we really were on the brink of killing ourself the higher ups would surely force us all (like literally all) to change our lifestyle, as doing manicide by CO2 is something even should fear, more than a random robbery 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
29,006
4,900
1,250
Climate change is goddam hoax.
The measures we take in combatting climate change are worth debating, given the economic implications. The existence of climate change, however, should not be up for debate at this point.


Read. Or continue to be ignorant. The choice is yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArchaeEnkidu

danielberg

Neophyte
Jun 20, 2018
2,816
3,428
410
the higher ups would surely force us all (like literally all) to change our lifestyle
If anything leftwing politicians do the opposite with the vote import of people into higher carbon footprint countries.
But then again its human nature to keep going until its too late and only after that start to react out of necessity but if thats even the case with the highest places of power, control and elitism than whats the point of these clowns anyway?
 
Last edited:

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,192
1,239
395
The measures we take in combatting climate change are worth debating, given the economic implications. The existence of climate change, however, should not be up for debate at this point.


Read. Or continue to be ignorant. The choice is yours.
Everything is up for debate. Isaac Newton’s gravity was taken as gospel for decades until Einstein proved him wrong and who knows, in future someone might even prove Einstein wrong.

There are loads of other studies that dispute man-made climate change.

The main contention is the proposed solution, which is that in order to change earth’s climate we need to implement socialism, heavy taxes and wealth redistribution is the most asinine thing ever.
 

Mahadev

Member
Mar 5, 2007
1,731
1,270
1,190
Both AOC and Beta O’Rourke have pushed the 12 year doomsday theory.

The theory talks about the point of no return, not that in 12 years all coastal areas will be underwater. The theory is wrong btw, we've already been past that.

That fucking imbecile writing the tweet should have known that. Not to mention that there are so many factors to consider there including the actual location of the house or the fact that Obama is a multimillionaire and doesn't give a shit if in 30 years that house starts flooding or something. He has money from the bankers that bribed him for him and his children to live luxuriously for the rest of their lives.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,350
25,600
1,400
Australia
The theory talks about the point of no return, not that in 12 years all coastal areas will be underwater. The theory is wrong btw, we've already been past that.

That fucking imbecile writing the tweet should have known that. Not to mention that there are so many factors to consider there including the actual location of the house or the fact that Obama is a multimillionaire and doesn't give a shit if in 30 years that house starts flooding or something. He has money from the bankers that bribed him for him and his children to live luxuriously for the rest of their lives.
That’s the point of the thread
 

Mahadev

Member
Mar 5, 2007
1,731
1,270
1,190
Everything is up for debate. Isaac Newton’s gravity was taken as gospel for decades until Einstein proved him wrong and who knows, in future someone might even prove Einstein wrong.

There are loads of other studies that dispute man-made climate change.

The main contention is the proposed solution, which is that in order to change earth’s climate we need to implement socialism, heavy taxes and wealth redistribution is the most asinine thing ever.
Even if you're ignorant enough to not believe the consensus of thousands of scientists you can see the effects of global warming already and they're getting nastier every year. It's not just some wild theory, the proof is tangible. Stop parroting American conservative talking points (since all other conservatives throughout the world have accepted climate change as truth) and open your eyes to what is happening right now. Having said that I won't hold my breath, we're already fucked anyway so it's pointless trying to convince you and people like you.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: ArchaeEnkidu

Mahadev

Member
Mar 5, 2007
1,731
1,270
1,190
That’s the point of the thread


No, the point of the thread was that Obama doesn't believe in climate change so he bought a house near the coast. Obama might be a piece of shit but he's not an idiot, of course he believes in climate change but at the same time he knows he doesn't have to worry about it because he has more than enough money, plus coastal areas flooding are the least of our worries in the not so distant future.
 
Last edited:

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,192
1,239
395
Even if you're ignorant enough to not believe the consensus of thousands of scientists you can see the effects of global warming already and they're getting nastier every year. It's not just some wild theory, the proof is tangible. Stop parroting American conservative talking points (since all other conservatives throughout the world have accepted climate change as truth) and open your eyes to what is happening right now. Having said that I won't hold my breath, we're already fucked anyway so it's pointless trying to convince you and people like you.
Consensus?

I give up.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,350
25,600
1,400
Australia
Even if you're ignorant enough to not believe the consensus of thousands of scientists you can see the effects of global warming already and they're getting nastier every year. It's not just some wild theory, the proof is tangible. Stop parroting American conservative talking points (since all other conservatives throughout the world have accepted climate change as truth) and open your eyes to what is happening right now. Having said that I won't hold my breath, we're already fucked anyway so it's pointless trying to convince you and people like you.
Well, we’re not fucked. What would help is developing sequestration tech as discussed by Dodunpanky above. What’s actually fucking us is ideological politicians pushing non-solutions like banning farting cows and airplanes. That and the constant doomsdaying just turns moderates and skeptics away. Climate change is a consequence of a growth-based economy, but the catch-22 is that the growth-based economy is the only way we enjoy the quality of life we have today. All of the green new deal type of “solutions” I’ve seen are fundamentally about reverting to a more primitive state of life and handing the power to implement it over to socialists and communists.

I’m a technological optimist. I think technology got us into this situation but I also believe that it will get us out of it. Focusing on the development of sequestration tech in the interim while we make renewable energy tech more efficient and affordable is how we will solve the problem. Running around chicken littling and trying to hold morality points over my head just turns me away. Moreover, this thread has somehow devolved into the usual finger pointing and accusations of science denial, but the thread was originally about the hypocrisy of the elites who want us to give up our lifestyle without giving up theirs. That’s not what leadership is about.

To get us back on track, I will pose a few questions:

1. What do you think about nuclear energy? Why do you think the Obamas of the world are not advocating for nuclear energy as a solution to climate change?

2. What is your opinion on sequestration? Do you think it’s ok to continue burning fossil fuels if we can capture or offset the emissions? Why/why not?

3. Given that we agree on the existence of climate change and that it is indeed an existential threat, let’s park that argument and instead focus on solutions. What do you think would be the best solution to mitigate the consequences of climate change? Do you think there could be any unintended consequences? If so, what?
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,350
25,600
1,400
Australia
No, the point of the thread was that Obama doesn't believe in climate change so he bought a house near the coast. Obama might be a piece of shit but he's not an idiot, of course he believes in climate change but at the same time he knows he doesn't have to worry about it because he has more than enough money, plus coastal areas flooding are the least of our worries in the not so distant future.
Right, I agree that Obama buying a luxury house in a climate change impact zone doesn’t prove he’s an idiot. I don’t think anyone has called him an idiot. Rather, it shows that he either:

a) Doesn’t believe what he’s preaching; or
b) Doesn’t hold himself to the standards he expects of others.

He’s either a liar or a hypocrite. This is poor leadership: “Do as I say, not as I do”. It’s like the priest who preaches abstinence at mass every week then turns around and diddles altar boys. Or the pastor who expects tithing from his sheep then turns around and spends it on luxury sports cars for himself (this one I’ve actually seen in practice).

I remember criticising these behaviours on the religious right when I was younger. I was aligned with the rational left by default because I despised liars and hypocrites who reminded me of the pigs from Animal Farm. Well, those pigs are now on the left, except it’s not just luxury goods they enjoy; it’s luxury morals. The sheer audacity of telling others to have less children and eat less meat while flying on private jets to fraternise with celebrity artists and living in luxury coastal mansions paid for by the tax dollars of the people you deign to lecture. I despise the modern incarnation of the word but this is privilege in the truest sense of the word. It is the privilege of class.

The climate change problem requires leadership, which in turn requires self-sacrifice. If the elites truly want to solve the problem and not just use it as a political football, they need to lead by example. This means giving up the luxury goods that have a greater carbon footprint than any pleb has in an entire year. Most of all, it means giving up the luxury morals and shutting the fuck up if you don’t want to live as you expect the rest of us to.