Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-03-2019, 01:35 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Mostly because of the "zero taxes" thing. I also don't think the federal government's responsibilities include welfare programs, and generally think the welfare programs, as they exist today, do a good job of incentivising the wrong things, so a bit of "superior results" too I guess. "Punishment" is not a factor or consideration.
Ah, but the federal government's responsibilities Do include welfare programs, and always have. Ladies and gentlemen, the preamble to the US Constitution:
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
See? Promote the general welfare. It is one of the foundational purposes for which the US government was established. While we're here, let me point out that "preventing socialism" and "promoting capitalism" are not included.

Hard to imagine what would be more disruptive to domestic tranquility than an ongoing climate disaster. So, yup, it is the federal government's responsibility, all straw men and conspiracy theories about "liberals" and "I have a blind, baseless faith that the government can never do anything right" notwithstanding.

But conservatives don't really care about the Constitution, do they? They talk about it when convenient, but really intend to eschew the foundational principles of the government in favor of cutting taxes for the wealthy. I can see why religious people are attracted to the GOP (note: not really.)
  #152  
Old 04-03-2019, 01:52 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Ah, but the federal government's responsibilities Do include welfare programs, and always have. Ladies and gentlemen, the preamble to the US Constitution:

See? Promote the general welfare. It is one of the foundational purposes for which the US government was established. ...
It feels tedious explaining this yet again, but I don't subscribe to the view that "promote the general welfare" in the preamble means that the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants, so long as it labels it with "this will promote the general welfare". You probably don't either, if you think about it a bit.
  #153  
Old 04-03-2019, 02:02 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Mostly because of the "zero taxes" thing. I also don't think the federal government's responsibilities include welfare programs, and generally think the welfare programs, as they exist today, do a good job of incentivising the wrong things, so a bit of "superior results" too I guess. "Punishment" is not a factor or consideration.
So let's take it as given that it's okay to brutally slaughter the poor and use them as fertilizer if that results in lower taxes, or whatever. The details of which particular parts of this nimrod's platform that you like are ultimately unimportant.

If a politician has a platform that you like, does that make him incapable of saying stupid things? Does that make him incapable of being wrong? Does that make ignoring problems until they magically go away on their own a good general-purpose solution to problems?
  #154  
Old 04-03-2019, 02:03 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,386
Ah, but feeding people? Preventing a preventable disaster? Seems pretty "common defense" to me too, now that I think about it.

Not sure what part of my post you derived "unlimited power" from. Sure looks like a strawman. Are you going to bring up Sharknado next?
  #155  
Old 04-03-2019, 02:12 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... If a politician has a platform that you like, does that make him incapable of saying stupid things? Does that make him incapable of being wrong? ...
Of course not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... Does that make ignoring problems until they magically go away on their own a good general-purpose solution to problems?
I don't believe Senator Lee was advocating a "general-purpose solution to problems" in this speech.
  #156  
Old 04-03-2019, 03:19 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Keeping in mind that climate change is a problem that is manifestly going to get worse over time if left unchecked, AND that Lee explicitly said "Climate change is no joke" and thus his 'arguments' can't be written off as sarcastically mocking the idea that the problem exists:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Of course not.
Is proposing "In response to this progressively worsening situation that I admit exists and is a serious and pressing problem, we should just fuck around (literally) for thirty years doing nothing and hoping that at the end of that time some kid becomes like the scientists we ignore," a smart statement, or a stupid statement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't believe Senator Lee was advocating a "general-purpose solution to problems" in this speech.
Do you believe that he was advocating ANY kind of solution?
  #157  
Old 04-03-2019, 03:33 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It feels tedious explaining this yet again, but I don't subscribe to the view that "promote the general welfare" in the preamble means that the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants, so long as it labels it with "this will promote the general welfare". You probably don't either, if you think about it a bit.
Of course, regarding the subject of the thread, it is clear that people like your senator think that the welfare of the nation is not important. Virtually nothing then should be done with this issue to prevent ocean rise, prevent ocean acidification, increase in droughts, increase of seasonal floods, in some regions an increase in the intensity of snow storms, also seasonal. And that is very likely to cause more migration and other issues.

https://theweek.com/articles/809317/...oing-fry-state
Quote:
Hey, Mike Lee: Climate change is going to fry your state

..

Of course, the Colorado River is not just a place for recreation, it's also a key water source for tens of millions of people across the entire Southwest, including Utah — which is already the second-driest state in the country. And that's the sort of possibility where the damage of climate change could go from severe to apocalyptic. Wiping out most or all of Utah's recreation economy would be a huge blow to the state, but it would be possible to recover. But a collapse in water supply — exacerbated by chronic extreme heat and other climate disasters — might push it beyond its ability to adapt. Instead of growing, it might hemorrhage citizens and become a sort of internal American Sahara Desert, largely bereft of people.
It may not be likely, but it's certainly possible — and even scenarios well short of a Max Max dystopia would be worth a Herculean effort to avoid. Instead, Utah has Mike Lee, twiddling his thumbs. It's a vile betrayal of his fellow citizens.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-03-2019 at 03:34 PM.
  #158  
Old 04-03-2019, 03:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Of course, regarding the subject of the thread, it is clear that people like your senator think that the welfare of the nation is not important. ...
I know Senator Lee well enough to say that I am confident this is false. He thinks "the welfare of the nation" is very important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
... Virtually nothing then should be done with this issue to prevent ocean rise, prevent ocean acidification, increase in droughts, increase of seasonal floods, in some regions an increase in the intensity of snow storms, also seasonal. And that is very likely to cause more migration and other issues. ...
There's probably an excluded middle somewhere in there between the Green New Deal and "virtually nothing".
  #159  
Old 04-03-2019, 03:59 PM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's probably an excluded middle somewhere in there between the Green New Deal and "virtually nothing".
Where does having babies fall on that scale?
  #160  
Old 04-03-2019, 04:39 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I know Senator Lee well enough to say that I am confident this is false. He thinks "the welfare of the nation" is very important.
Regarding this very important issue the evidence is clear: he does not care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's probably an excluded middle somewhere in there between the Green New Deal and "virtually nothing".
He actually gave nothing for that middle, and no, having more babies is not helpful.
  #161  
Old 04-03-2019, 04:47 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I know Senator Lee well enough to say that I am confident this is false. He thinks "the welfare of the nation" is very important.
For some definitions of "the welfare of the nation" and not others - as I'm sure you would readily agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's probably an excluded middle somewhere in there between the Green New Deal and "virtually nothing".
I feel this should be hammered again and again - he's stated what he considers the ideal middle to be: Fucking around (literally) and doing literally nothing to directly address the problem.

Because clearly, while he says himself "Climate change is no joke", he believes that we should do exactly fuck-all about it.
  #162  
Old 04-03-2019, 05:22 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,386
He probably wants to address climate change the way Trump brings back coal jobs- say a few words and let tax cuts for the wealthy do the rest. He may even have a secret plan, only to be revealed after the 2020 elections!
  #163  
Old 04-03-2019, 11:53 PM
NiceGuyJack is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yeah, it's not difficult. I want lower taxes and a generally-less-meddlesome federal government. So does Senator Lee.
I can understand that. I kind of agree. Who wants to pay taxes? Or have the government meddle in your own private affairs.

But I have to wonder, Mike Lee supports the massive spending on the military. Something wrong with the math there. And let's face it, private industry is not going to pay for environmental clean up or disaster relief, but then he opposes spending anything on disaster relief, so that tallies.

As for not meddling, you mean let the forests burn and the rivers dry up? In which case, check.
Or does it mean keeping out of people's personal affairs? I'll give Sen. Lee props for supporting the legalization of cannabis, but why is it ok for the government to poke their nose in if you happen to be gay or transexual? Sounds meddlesome to me. Oh and he thinks Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional. And he seems to want to meddle into women's right on birth control as women apparently take contraceptives for recreational use. God forbid women should be enjoying sex. So, why is it ok to meddle into people's business if it's about women? That sounds really meddlesome to me.

Oh wait I get it. Having babies solves climate change! Hey I've connected the dots!
It's hypocritical, but I can see it now.
  #164  
Old 04-04-2019, 07:35 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's probably an excluded middle somewhere in there between the Green New Deal and "virtually nothing".
Well, the Senator clearly said "fall in love, get married, and have some kids" was the solution to climate change.

Perhaps you can explain how having kids solves climate change?
  #165  
Old 04-04-2019, 07:40 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's probably an excluded middle somewhere in there between the Green New Deal and "virtually nothing".
I'm sure this has been pointed out before, but how many of the people deriding the Green New Deal have actually proposed a plausible solution that's anywhere close to on the scale of the problem?

(The answer is "fucking nobody".)

There's certainly an excluded middle. It's just that Mike Lee (and, indeed, the Republican party as a whole) has opted not just for "virtually nothing" but rather "less than nothing", encouraging coal, oil, and gas, actively discouraging green energy, and doing everything they can to stop actual progress towards fixing the problem. Hell, most of them deny that there is a problem (and/or have found some other excuse for why "do nothing" is the correct response to a civilization-shaking problem).

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 04-04-2019 at 07:40 AM.
  #166  
Old 04-04-2019, 11:20 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,643
Hey, I just thought of a great way to solve our national debt crisis. If we quadruple the size of government, we dramatically increase our chances that one of those people will have a solution to the debt crisis.
  #167  
Old 04-04-2019, 07:01 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,423
He was completely right except for the part where he was talking.

The absolute best thing to combat climate change would be the immediate disappearance of the human race. If even that would work.
  #168  
Old 04-05-2019, 06:37 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,386
Stop breeding, everybody. "Our country is full."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...tem/ar-BBVEkVF
  #169  
Old 04-05-2019, 11:31 PM
outlierrn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: republic of california
Posts: 5,634
Give the devil his due, giving that speech with a straight face is impressive. Either that, or he's shit nuts.
__________________
Just another outlying data point on the bell curve of life
  #170  
Old 04-06-2019, 06:19 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,150
It's probably too late to use emissions controls to stop global warming. There's no realistic scenario by which we reduce emissions enough in the next 25 years to slow global warming to anything under catastrophic levels. We're already well into a massive decline of species, including plants and insects. Our only real chance to reverse global warming is geoengineering, and we have no real ability to assess what the hazards of that step are at this point. Unfortunately, it's probably the only real option.

Even so there are real reasons to cut emissions, if for no other reason than to clean up the air so that it's safe to breathe in major metropolises like Beijing and Mexico City. I've felt that the real action on climate change and environmental protection will come organically from the local level. Once local communities find ways to run themselves not only ecologically but economically, other communities will want in on that action. Let's say Minneapolis figures out a way to save resources and really clean up the environment with new technologies, and once people are employed in significant numbers in green industries, people in other cities like Columbus and Detroit will want to join them. As an example, wind farms seem like kooky California thinking at one point, but it employs a lot of people now.

Last edited by asahi; 04-06-2019 at 06:21 AM.
  #171  
Old 04-06-2019, 06:28 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It feels tedious explaining this yet again, but I don't subscribe to the view that "promote the general welfare" in the preamble means that the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants, so long as it labels it with "this will promote the general welfare". You probably don't either, if you think about it a bit.
The preamble states the objectives and aims of the constitution. One of those objectives is to promote the general welfare of all people who live in the United States, at least in the collective sense. I don't think anyone suggests that government's power should be unlimited, but let's remember that the government is democratic, and that by virtue of that fact, it should represent the public's interest. By definition, using legislative and regulatory power to protect our environment seems very much within the boundaries of what's reasonable in terms of promoting the well-being of Senator Lee's and every other Senator's constituents. Preserving the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the places in which we live, work, and play - all of these things are very much a part of promoting the general welfare.
  #172  
Old 04-06-2019, 01:26 PM
pmwgreen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 329
I just keep seeing this thread and adding " cause them to urinate on their parents graves" at the end. Strange how the mind works.
  #173  
Old 04-06-2019, 02:05 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It's probably too late to use emissions controls to stop global warming. There's no realistic scenario by which we reduce emissions enough in the next 25 years to slow global warming to anything under catastrophic levels. We're already well into a massive decline of species, including plants and insects. Our only real chance to reverse global warming is geoengineering, and we have no real ability to assess what the hazards of that step are at this point. Unfortunately, it's probably the only real option.
Uh, no, that is actually the last argument from deniers, do not fall for it. The main reason is that there are even worse scenarios that become possible if we do not control emissions and eventually when desperation sets and geoengineering is seen as an option, the use of such a solution will be still less expensive (and easier and more effective also) if we do control emissions soon.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-06-2019 at 02:09 PM.
  #174  
Old 04-06-2019, 05:27 PM
Bruce Wayne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, tell that to HurricaneDitka, who seems to mistakenly believe that Senator Lee's cray-cray ideas about ignorantly mocking discussion of climate change mitigation policies with silly dinosaur graphics constitute some kind of meaningful "argument".
What climate change “mitigation policies” was he mocking exactly? Be specific please because I’ve heard some strange ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
The absolute best thing to combat climate change would be the immediate disappearance of the human race. If even that would work.
  #175  
Old 04-06-2019, 05:31 PM
outlierrn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: republic of california
Posts: 5,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's probably an excluded middle somewhere in there between the Green New Deal and "virtually nothing".
Which is probably a smaller gap than between AOC and Aquaman.
__________________
Just another outlying data point on the bell curve of life
  #176  
Old 04-06-2019, 05:50 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne View Post
What climate change “mitigation policies” was he mocking exactly? Be specific please because I’ve heard some strange ones.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...-ocasio-cortez
Quote:
As we will see, the exact details of the GND remain to be worked out, but the broad thrust is fairly simple. It refers, in the loosest sense, to a massive program of investments in clean-energy jobs and infrastructure, meant to transform not just the energy sector, but the entire economy. It is meant both to decarbonize the economy and to make it fairer and more just.

But the policy is only part of the picture. Just as striking are the politics, which seem to have tapped into an enormous, untapped demand for climate ambition.
https://thinkprogress.org/republican...-6cc84aae7e7d/
Quote:
At one point, Lee appeared to turn serious, saying, “Critics will no doubt chastise me for not taking climate change seriously, but, please, Mr. President, nothing could be further from the truth. No Utahn needs to hear lectures about the gravity of climate change from politicians from other states….”

But instead of talking about the very real threat posed to Utah by warming-worsened droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires, Lee then joked, “… For it was only in 2016, as viewers of the Syfy network will remember, when climate change hit Utah, when our own state was struck not simply by a tornado, but by a tornado with sharks in it.”

Lee then described at length a scene from the movie Sharknado, for no apparent reason.

Lee closed his remarks by arguing that the solution to climate change won’t be found in the kind of rapid transition to clean energy the Green New Deal resolution calls for, but would rather be found in “maternity wards across the country.”
As for the ones talking about strange proposals, I can only say that you are a stranger to Jonathan Swift.
  #177  
Old 04-07-2019, 01:57 PM
ZonexandScout's Avatar
ZonexandScout is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Southeast US
Posts: 1,452
I'm going to be generous and assume that Senator Lee is awaiting the birth of the Kwisatz Haderach. Until then, we need to be accumulating the Water of Life.
  #178  
Old 04-07-2019, 05:02 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,078
Anyone remember the 60's and 70's? I do.

Nixon did one good thing for sure
Quote:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government for environmental protection.[3] President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970[4] and it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order.
The current crop of republicans want to tear that all down. Apparently, along with every thing this country stands for.

I long for the days of a bastard like Nixon, or a simpleton like GWB.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #179  
Old 04-07-2019, 05:33 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
... I long for the days of a bastard like Nixon, or a simpleton like GWB.
I'd encourage you to keep this in mind the next time the Republicans nominate someone you think is a bastard or a simpleton.
  #180  
Old 04-07-2019, 06:15 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
And they will, bet on it.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #181  
Old 04-07-2019, 06:20 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'd encourage you to keep this in mind the next time the Republicans nominate someone you think is a bastard or a simpleton.
Too young to vote Nixon era. Any thinking person has known that Trump is an asshole, criminal and fraud. And yes, I did not vote for him.

So, you still think that having more babies will fix climate change?
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #182  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:49 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I don’t think direct advocation of violence is the proper response to an aqua man drawing.
No, it's not. Aquaman is an environmentalist. Aquaman is a cool guy.

However, the correct response to this misuse of an Aquaman drawing, is for Aquaman to show up and throw a polar bear at the insipid Mr Lee. Or, for the sake of not starting an incident involving the Justice League, for someone else to destroy Mr Lee's career in such a way as to make him a warning to others.

Aquaman is not the problem. Dismissing an existential crisis with a laughed speech of nonsense is the problem.
  #183  
Old 04-07-2019, 11:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
... an existential crisis ...
You think global warming represents "an existential crisis"? To what? The USA? The human race? The planet Earth?
  #184  
Old 04-07-2019, 11:11 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,708
Yes, all of the above. Well, the biosphere of the planet, anyway.

Have you really not learned this yet? Look up "clathrate gun."
  #185  
Old 04-07-2019, 11:38 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Yes, all of the above. Well, the biosphere of the planet, anyway.

Have you really not learned this yet? Look up "clathrate gun."
Which IPCC report can I read about it in?
  #186  
Old 04-08-2019, 12:47 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think global warming represents "an existential crisis"? To what? The USA? The human race? The planet Earth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Yes, all of the above. Well, the biosphere of the planet, anyway.

Have you really not learned this yet? Look up "clathrate gun."
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which IPCC report can I read about it in?
Well foolsguinea, what you point out is not likely, but Hurricaneditka is also wrong because once one thinks about the most likely things to happen, the existential crisis comes by just realizing that war is more likely. Just by thinking a bit about the most likely results of going over the 2 degrees Celsius limit that the IPCC is trying all to not pass. But, so far humans seem to be running towards the worse case scenarios.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Jxs7lR8ZI
SciShow
In which Hank details the five scariest things that will likely happen because of climate change.

Quote:
03:57
The worldwide redistribution of growing conditions and freshwater

Cuz you know, you have air conditioning and so it's not too big a deal if the world gets super hot, but you know who doesn't have air conditioning? Cucumbers and cows and other stuff that we like to eat.

Those things have to be outside, that's how they work, and so they care if suddenly everything gets super hot and dry and right now a lot of the wealth and a lot of the people in the world are distributed in the places where there's really good growing conditions; and as the Earth continues to warm places with historically really amazing growing conditions like central California could become lifeless health escapes and that would be a perfect habitat for zombies but not so good for cabbages and strawberries and by the time we reach something as subtle as a three degree increase in global temperatures, which scientists say could happen as soon as 2100, Saskatchewan could be the next Central California and all of the Fertile Crescents of the world may stop bringing forth their marvellous bounty and what always comes along with poor growing conditions and drought? Well, you get famine and you also get his brother horseman, War.
BTW, I'm aware that his number 5 is not as likely as the other scary things like warming affecting growing regions or ocean rise and ocean acidification, but it can become possible much later if we do not control our emissions soon.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-08-2019 at 12:51 AM.
  #187  
Old 04-08-2019, 03:53 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think global warming represents "an existential crisis"? To what? The USA? The human race? The planet Earth?
Look not meaning to sound like a jerk here but if you're this far behind have you considered reading the most recent IPCC report?
__________________
"I think if Mrs May actually went and said that there will be a no deal Brexit, there will be a hard border in Ireland, troops are already on the way, we will be dynamiting and flooding the Chunnel this evening and the Royal Navy is patrolling the channel that would be 110 times better than what is happening now." -AK84
  #188  
Old 04-08-2019, 05:02 AM
NiceGuyJack is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Anyone remember the 60's and 70's? I do.

Nixon did one good thing for sure The current crop of republicans want to tear that all down. Apparently, along with every thing this country stands for.

I long for the days of a bastard like Nixon, or a simpleton like GWB.
I might agree about Nixon, but not GWB.
Remember the Kyoto treaty?

No?

You can thank GWB for that. He was no friend of the environment as he killed the Kyoto treaty.
The guy that was actually elected back in 2000 should have been president, Al Gore was already on board on the need to do something about climate change, 20 years ago. Maybe we wouldn't be in such dire straights today. But hey, that's just speculation.
  #189  
Old 04-08-2019, 09:13 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Look not meaning to sound like a jerk here but if you're this far behind have you considered reading the most recent IPCC report?
Does it discuss the clathrate gun?
  #190  
Old 04-08-2019, 09:19 AM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Does it discuss the clathrate gun?
Not sure about that, but I know it doesn't suggest having more babies to solve the climate change crisis. Having more babies was listed under the heading of "most idiotic suggestions to solve climate change crisis."
  #191  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:00 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Does it discuss the clathrate gun?


Doubtful, but it may get you up to speed on why people who actually are up to date on the science are treating it like an existential threat. Because it is.
  #192  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:26 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post


Doubtful...
Why do you doubt that the clathrate gun is not discussed in the latest IPCC report?
  #193  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:02 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Tell you what - if you want to actually have a discussion, let me know.
  #194  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:05 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Tell you what - if you want to actually have a discussion, let me know.
I'd love to have a discussion. Right now I'm interested in the "clathrate gun". foolsguinea suggested it represented "an existential crisis" to the human race. That sounds interesting. GIGObuster indicated it "is not likely". Where does your opinion on the matter fall? Is the clathrate gun going to kill us all?
  #195  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:10 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Why do you doubt that the clathrate gun is not discussed in the latest IPCC report?
Uh, as mentioned already, the other poster was wrong, deal with the items that are mentioned, or show all that you are like many contrarians out there that just want to concentrate on fringe opinions so as to make it look as if all that look at the science follow that fringe; the IPCC report mentions droughts, ocean rise, ocean acidification that will very likely hurt us a lot, no clathrate gun needed.

As to point out how conservative the IPCC is, one thing they do not talk much about one very likely outcome: climate-driven refugees. But that is because, the IPCC deals with the physical evidence and likely physical outcomes, not much about the sociological ones, for that one then has to look at what experts on that tell us when they look at what the IPCC is estimating:

https://www.refugeesinternational.or...climate-change
Quote:
More forced migration, conflict, and poverty

The report makes clear that climate change projections will contribute to human displacement, migration, and conflict. Extreme weather events already displace upwards of 20 million people per year on average. The report forecasts more extreme precipitation and higher levels of sea level rise and finds with “high confidence” that increased drought will drive forced migration and sustained conflict in certain regions. Least developed countries and indigenous peoples, the report finds, will be particularly impacted.


Loud and clear warning on need to reverse course

Avoiding this fate is within the power of the global leaders. But doing so will require immediate and urgent action to mitigate the causes of climate change especially here in the United States, and to support the least developed countries to adapt to climate change that has occurred and will continue. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has frustrated global efforts to combat climate change. Not only has President Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but his administration has also dismantled laws and policies designed to curb U.S. emissions.
This must change. The findings of the report are loud and clear. It’s time to put politics aside and to focus instead on finding solutions. Not doing so is to condemn future generations to greater levels of poverty, conflict, displacement, and forced migration.
And what Trump is doing has been, as far as I can see, approved by the likes of senator Lee.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-08-2019 at 11:14 AM.
  #196  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:27 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
UH, as mentioned already, the other poster was wrong...
When you say that foolsguinea was wrong, do you mean just about the "clathrate gun" or about the whole "existential crisis" thing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
... deal with the items that are mentioned, or show all that you are like many contrarians out there that just want to concentrate on fringe opinions so as to make it look as if all that look at the science follow that fringe; the IPCC report mentions droughts, ocean rise, ocean acidification that will very likely hurt us a lot, no clathrate gun needed. ...
I think it unlikely that "droughts, ocean rise, ocean acidification" represent an existential crisis for the human race. I think the sort of stupid bullshit fear-mongering that foolsguinea's post is a fine representation of do not serve your side of the discussion well. You do seem more level-headed though, so I'd be delighted to hear your opinion about your perception of the scale of the problems you listed above (or the climate-driven refugee issue). For example, I recently saw this clip which said in part:

Quote:
... we actually have pretty good data for how many people die from weather-related disasters, so climate-related disasters, and the truth is over the last 100 years it's dropped dramatically. Every year in the 1920s, we estimate about half a million people died around the world. Now, we quadrupled the population and, yet, the number has dropped like a stone. It's 95% reduced. We are now down to about 20,000 people that die every year. ...
First off, is he wrong? Secondly, do you expect this trend to reverse itself in the next 80 years or so? Are weather-related deaths expected to soar?
  #197  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:43 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
When you say that foolsguinea was wrong, do you mean just about the "clathrate gun" or about the whole "existential crisis" thing?
Read it again please. As mentioned one does not need that gun for us to continue to play Russian roulette.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think it unlikely that "droughts, ocean rise, ocean acidification" represent an existential crisis for the human race. I think the sort of stupid bullshit fear-mongering that foolsguinea's post is a fine representation of do not serve your side of the discussion well. You do seem more level-headed though, so I'd be delighted to hear your opinion about your perception of the scale of the problems you listed above (or the climate-driven refugee issue). For example, I recently saw this clip which said in part:



First off, is he wrong?
Lomborg is always wrong. You fell hook line and sinker for a well known denier with an interest on minimizing the dangers.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...e-and-poverty/

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Secondly, do you expect this trend to reverse itself in the next 80 years or so? Are weather-related deaths expected to soar?
Again, if you put some thought to it, it is clear that what Lomborg and other deniers out there are going for is misleading in the extreme, they are willing to ignore deaths caused by displacement and civil unrest that are happening now in part due to climate change already observed, so what Lomborg and others do is misleading.
  #198  
Old 04-08-2019, 12:01 PM
BeagleJesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
The absolute best thing to combat climate change would be the immediate disappearance of the human race. If even that would work.
I starting to suspect the planet agrees with this sentiment.
  #199  
Old 04-08-2019, 12:04 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiceGuyJack View Post
You can thank GWB for that. He was no friend of the environment as he killed the Kyoto treaty.
Of course I supported Gore in 2000, but I hoped GWB wouldn't be too bad. He had promised to counter climate change.

Shortly after his inauguration, he announced that his science advisors had just informed him that CO2 was the natural product of all carbon fuel usage and that his CO2 promise was therefore off the table!

I was rather astounded to learn that something every 8th-grader knows was invisible to GWB — a petroleum industry man, no less — until he had the Federal governments scientists at his beck and call.

The Bush Administration just went downhill from there, obviously.
  #200  
Old 04-08-2019, 12:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,476
I don't think there's any "solving" of climate change -- just mitigation or adaptation. In the long run, the Earth will be fine, and so will life, broadly speaking. In the short term (geologically speaking), climate change could result (and probably has already started to result) in severe upheaval for humanity, and mass extinctions for other species. Senator Mike Lee's response strikes me as an entirely unserious one for a serious issue that could harm millions of Americans.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017