Quantcast
Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

Shadow1980 said:
Slimebeast said:

lol "scientists warn that downtown Miami, Manhattan, New Orleans, the Maldives, and half of Bangladesh permanently under water". There's zero chance for that to happen with a sea level rise of one or two meter.

It's those kinds of ridiculous claims that in turn make the sceptic side reject everything.

Don't be obtuse. I was making a rhetorical point. Even if the evidence pointed towards certain disaster, conservatives would still reject it out of hand. Their approach to relative risks is all over the place. They worry about terrorists embedded in refugees fleeing a warzone, yet turn a blind eye towards scientists that warn that, should a worst-case scenario arise, it will be very costly in terms of infrastructure damage and millions of displaced people, among other potential impacts. There are a wide variety of projected scenarios, and the actual long-term consequences of global warming are where we have the least certainty. But rejecting not only the possibility of a worst-case scenario, but even the science itself, is not acceptable, I don't care what your opinion on taxation or regulation is. Apparently, we only prepare for the worst when dealing with brown people that have a different religion.

And a rise of two meters to sea levels is not inconsequential. Millions of people live in areas that would be threatened. Low-lying island nations like the Maldives and Tuvalu would be almost entirely submerged. Millions of people in Bangladesh live in areas low enough to be submerged or threatened. Many neighborhoods in coastal areas in the U.S. are less than two meters above sea level or close enough to be threatened by storm surges made worse by increasing sea levels. New Orleans is already below sea level, and incresing sea levels could put it at greater risk than it already is at.

And sea levels won't just stop growing after the end of this century, either. But it's easy to ignore problems that might not ever effect us, but will effect people that live long after we're dead. I guess you could take the apathetic "Not my problem. I'll be dead anyway." approach, despoil the environment for short-term gains in profit, and turn a blind eye towards the warnings of scientists, but such a position is morally indefensible and deserving of neither respect nor consideration. Every bit of evidence suggests that the world is warming and that we're the cause, and there's good reason to be concerned that rapid changes in climate could have many negative effects. It would be prudent to do something instead of sitting on our duffs and accusing climate scientists of being part of some global socialist conspiracy to destroy the economy.

Again, it's those ridiculous claims that are making sceptics reject everything.

You seriously talk about the risk of Southern Bangladesh or the pacific island of Tuvalu getting flooded in 50 to 80 years from now (I suppose you've never heard about flood control), while you are ridiculing people who are upset about the millions of victims to crime commited right now by foreigners from the third world. That's absurd.

That's complete moral corruption.



Around the Network
Slimebeast said:

Again, it's those ridiculous claims that are making sceptics reject everything.

You seriously talk about the risk of Southern Bangladesh or the pacific island of Tuvalu getting flooded in 50 to 80 years from now (I suppose you've never heard about flood control), while you are ridiculing people who are upset about the millions of victims to crime commited right now by foreigners from the third world. That's absurd.

That's complete moral corruption.

I'm not ridiculing concerns about terrorism. They are legitimate concerns. I don't agree with the overblown "ban all Muslims/Islam is evil/blah-blah poison M&Ms blah-blah" reactions from Trump and the New Know-nothings, but neither do I think there shouldn't be any vetting or background checks of any kind. I'm highlighting the hypocrisy here. Terrorism and global warming are both serious threats, but conservatives ignore the latter because it poses an existential threat to their worldview even though the cost could be staggering in terms of both money lost and general human misery. Meanwhile, they take the former as such a massively dire threat to the point where they just think that even though it's statistically unlikely that any given Muslim is a dangerous radical, it's prudent to assume every single one of them is potentially that dangerous and therefore they must be denied entry into the country if they are an immigrant or refugee, or kept under tight surveillance if they are citizens or legal residents. The fundamental asymmetry in their reactions is amazing. An entire religion of over a billion people is assumed to be an enemy even though violent radicals are only a tiny percentage of them, while the clear potential of catastrophic warming is ignored or even dismissed as a fabrication from fear-mongering leftists.

I'm guessing people react differently towards terrorism because it's a more immediate threat from an external source we can put a face on. Global warming is to most people this more nebulous, far-off threat, and we don't like the implication that it's our fault and that we might have to change our ways to fix it. A crazy gunman shooting up a nightclub is scary, and because humans tend to "other" people not like us, especially if they subscribe to xenophobic or nativist viewpoints, that scariness is amplified if the killer happens to be "not like us" (the Dylan Roofs, Anders Breiviks, and Timothy McVeighs of the world are considered just "lone wolves" because they're nominally part of the in-group, but if a member of an out-group commits a heinous crime...). Meanwhile, low-lying coastal areas and islands getting slowly swallowed by the sea just doesn't elicit that same immediate, visceral fear. But a threat is a threat. You still buckle your seatbelt when you get in a car, because even though it's statistically unlikely that any given trip will result in a crash. You still buy insurance for your house even though it's statistically unlikely that you'll ever get burglarized or have a fire or other catastrophe destroy your home. But some of us don't apply "take precautions in case shit happens" to things that just don't feel immediate, primal, and in-your-face like getting turned into chunky salsa in a car crash or losing your home to a fire or getting shot by some lunatic. Those longer-term background threats we just gloss over or even dismiss as hoaxes perpetrated by our political opponents.

And if you want to talk moral corruption, it is morally bankrupt to ignore warnings from scientists because we don't want to do anything that might inconvenience us or make us change our lives in the slightest, then turn around and tell millions of people to "just adapt" in the face of potentially losing their homes or even their entire country. But I guess I shouldn't expect anything less from the "I got mine, Jack, and the devil take the hindmost!" social Darwinists on the right. It wouldn't be the first time people recklessly despoiled the environment for short-term gain without thinking of the longer-term social costs. The political debate (and the debate is purely political; there is no more debate among scientists as to the existence and primary cause of global warming) is just a repeat of the "battles" over tobacco, leaded gasoline, and ozone-depleting chemicals, just far larger in scale than those.

Also, Protip: You don't get to outright reject science just because you don't like what you hear some people say. Richard Dawkins may be an obnoxious, militant, misanthropic, condescending, insensitive, intolerant asshole who deserves to be treated like a social outcast for acting the way he does, but that doesn't mean the theory of evolution is false. Likewise, global warming is real regardless of what you think of Al Gore or whoever.



thranx said:
Where are the ice caps? Shouldn't our coastal areas already be flooded. The world was doomed by global warming in the 90's and shouldn't be able to survive now. We must change before the caps are gone, before the sea levels rise and our coastal cities are gone. The end is near! I think the solution is to hurt our economy as much as possible so that way the Chinese and India can do the polluting for us! That will fix it all. Best of all the scientist agree with me so lets throw rational thought out the window and get to killing our economy a little faster.

You might want to do some research on China and their actions on climate change.  They know that nearly 700 million people live on their coast. Guess who leads the world in renewable technology investments?  They will also soon have the largest decarbonizing plan in the wrold.  You thnk it's just the west that is concerend with global climate change?

 

Want a few numbers on sea level rising?  In the past 100 years, the oceans have risen about 4-8 inches.  But in just the past 25 years, the rate of rise has doubled.  If this doesn't concern you, may you be fortunate enough to remain blissfully unaware of the impact it will have upon you and your family.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
thranx said:
Where are the ice caps? Shouldn't our coastal areas already be flooded. The world was doomed by global warming in the 90's and shouldn't be able to survive now. We must change before the caps are gone, before the sea levels rise and our coastal cities are gone. The end is near! I think the solution is to hurt our economy as much as possible so that way the Chinese and India can do the polluting for us! That will fix it all. Best of all the scientist agree with me so lets throw rational thought out the window and get to killing our economy a little faster.

You might want to do some research on China and their actions on climate change.  They know that nearly 700 million people live on their coast. Guess who leads the world in renewable technology investments?  They will also soon have the largest decarbonizing plan in the wrold.  You thnk it's just the west that is concerend with global climate change?

 

Want a few numbers on sea level rising?  In the past 100 years, the oceans have risen about 4-8 inches.  But in just the past 25 years, the rate of rise has doubled.  If this doesn't concern you, may you be fortunate enough to remain blissfully unaware of the impact it will have upon you and your family.

The only impact my family and i will feel is the econmic hardship we will be put under by uneeded regulation. China isnt worried about climate change, they are worried about actual pollution that is probably killing their citiezens. Bad water, bad air. How fast have deficit spending been rising? a lot faster than sea levels have been rising. I am not saying that the climate doesn't change, and that the world doesnt go through cycles. I am saying we arent the cause, we aren't the solution, and we simply do not know enough. If we did we would actually be able to predict something to happen. We have been wrong so far so I place little "faith" in it since there is no tangeible proof



Climate change is a factual matter, of course it exists (all climates change constantly). Man-made climate change is also a fact since we as a species effect the climate just like every other species. However, the question is in regards to how bit our impact is compared to other factors and if we are altering the climate at a pace that makes it hard for our society to adapt and for the environment to cope with. But it's very plausible that we are a major cause for a lot of the changes in global temperatures that we see, much more plausible than any other hypothesis we have so far (as I've heard of atleast), so it's only ignorant of a president to not take that into heavy consideration when it comes to policy making.



Around the Network

What we need is a more concrete plan that takes into account the developing countries that got the chance to industrialize thanks to petroleum and fossil fuels seriously. I'm all for lowering emissions but not at the cost at sending developing nations back into the 3rd world category once more.

Instead of the current stance killing the use of fossil fuels, the plan should be to reduce dependency gradually rather than replacing it entirely. Is it so far-fetched to make a plan where both fossil fuels and green energy coexist in the near future?



Currently Playing: SSB: Ultimate Splatoon 2, LoZ: Breath of the Wild, & Fortnite

fuck this guy, his ass will be long dead by the time we have to suffer the consequences of climate change, so what does he care?

still can't believe this joke got himself elected into the WH...



I'm skeptical on man made global warming purely because I feel that no true scientific debate has occurred. Anybody who questions the topic of man-made global warming gets lambasted publicly and called a "denier." This is so incredibly anti-scientific. Why does Al Gore actively dodge questions from skeptics? A true scientist would invite dissent because it's through detached debate that the truth can be found. The problem is that detached debate on this topic isn't possible because this is a political issue with the left using it as a crutch to justify government taxation and control while the right lashes back. Scientists are being used as political fodder and politicians never see their view as being one of a multiple possible answers, it's always their way or the highway.

It will only be when this issue dies politically and nobody has anything to lose one way or the other that the truth will finally come out. I personally believe that man-made global warming is likely a partial truth with humans having some effect but not enough to cause a global catastrophe but not so little as to not be worth studying objectively to understand.



Illusion said:
I'm skeptical on man made global warming purely because I feel that no true scientific debate has occurred. Anybody who questions the topic of man-made global warming gets lambasted publicly and called a "denier." This is so incredibly anti-scientific. Why does Al Gore actively dodge questions from skeptics? A true scientist would invite dissent because it's through detached debate that the truth can be found. The problem is that detached debate on this topic isn't possible because this is a political issue with the left using it as a crutch to justify government taxation and control while the right lashes back. Scientists are being used as political fodder and politicians never see their view as being one of a multiple possible answers, it's always their way or the highway.

It will only be when this issue dies politically and nobody has anything to lose one way or the other that the truth will finally come out. I personally believe that man-made global warming is likely a partial truth with humans having some effect but not enough to cause a global catastrophe but not so little as to not be worth studying objectively to understand.

It was scientific long before it was political.   The reason you don't see a debate now is because that happened already.  It's done.  The concensus from the scientific community has been made.  And it was made long before politics came into play.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:

It was scientific long before it was political.   The reason you don't see a debate now is because that happened already.  It's done.  The concensus from the scientific community has been made.  And it was made long before politics came into play.

That's the wrong attitude to have right out of the starting gate.  Science is never settled just like every year we learn new things about our universe that completely blow away theories from even just 20 years ago.  The science is only "settled" because it has become politically incorrect to question it.  The left-wing elites have grown in political power over recent decades and now it is academic suicide to speak out against climate change in any university.  Heck, they are even talking about making it illegal to question man-made global warming in the public forum:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill-prosecutes-climate-change-skeptics/

In my opinion, Anthropogenic Global Warming has more in common with a man-made religious inquisition then it does with real science.  Men like Dr. Roy Spencer are modern day Galileo's for questioning AGW and he (and people like him) have been severely persecuted as a result.  If the science behind AGW was sound, then there would be no need for this kind of barbarism and opression of free thought.  Climate Change justifies carbon taxes and government control over people's lives and that is why it is being forced on people.  It is a vehicle to take away personal freedom and empower elites such as Goldman Sachs who control the government and most big corporations.  I believe that the real motivation behind AGW has nothing to due to with true science.