54 replies to this topic

[ccabal86]

The forums were down when I listened to it, but this is obviously a great addendum to what we were discussing over several topics: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change

 

Puts a lot of things into perspective, I highly suggest listening to it if you have some time

[Lysistrata]

This is 2 hours of two paid hacks. Progressive, Trump hating, Scott Pruitt hating, Rick Perry hating... let's just say all around Republican hating individuals, that shine a light on topics they want to bloviate about, and glaze over, or completely avoid, the uncomfortable parts of everything wrong with the shit they are shoveling.

 

Example: Climategate should be ignored because those "scientists" are doing the best they can, and doing what they have to do, to warn people about the devastating effects of living their lives. It's still not clear who hacked those emails and exposed their fine work... it must have been the Russians!

 

Seriously? I wish I could ask the questions myself, and hit him with the uncomfortable follow up to his horseshit.

 

I've wasted enough of my time on this today, and I have not learned a single thing that I didn't already know... I just wanted to show a little respect by actually listening to the drivel before commenting.

 

Just out of curiosity... if the weather is gonna kill us all if we don't do something about carbon emissions... what is your solution?

[ccabal86]

I knew you would hate the podcast from start to finish, and I wasn't wrong

 

While Joseph Romm is indeed a "Progressive", Sam Harris is definitely NOT one. In fact, he is widely despised on that side, and he is very critical in return, but that doesn't automatically mean that he should be a Trump supporter. The reason why they "hate on Trump, Pruitt and Perry" is that these guys are completely unfit for the positions they hold by any objective standards (also detailed in the podcast).

 

As for the part where they say "Climategate should be ignored" can you give me an approximation at what time are they discussing it? It's been a while since I listened, so I'd go back to it to hear what exactly they said, because I'm pretty sure what you mentioned there wasn't the point.

 

 Just out of curiosity... if the weather is gonna kill us all if we don't do something about carbon emissions... what is your solution?

 

If you concluded that the "weather is gonna kill us all" then I would say you completely missed the message. The weather is NOT going to kill us all. What's at risk here is not our extinction, but rather the collapse of a relatively stable and peaceful social order that we have painstakingly built. As for the solution, there may not yet be a definitive one yet, but a good start would be to acknowlegle that climate change exists, and that it's largely driven by human activity.

 

If we can't even agree on that, there can be no effective solution either. An then we can place the safest bet in history: in some shape or form, we will ALL lose.

[Lysistrata]

While Joseph Romm is indeed a "Progressive", Sam Harris is definitely NOT one. In fact, he is widely despised on that side, and he is very critical in return, but that doesn't automatically mean that he should be a Trump supporter. The reason why they "hate on Trump, Pruitt and Perry" is that these guys are completely unfit for the positions they hold by any objective standards (also detailed in the podcast).

Sam Harris describes himself as a liberal and supports Progressive taxes, which is Socialism. Progressive taxes create an enormous government, and really destroy a productive society. I will never support them, and I doubt I will ever see them obliterated during my lifetime. He has spent most of his time railing against organized religion... just like Bill Maher. He is a Progressive... no doubt about it.

 

Every 4 years we have an election for President, and every 4 years the President decides the energy policy for the USA. Barack Obama is a Progressive, and his energy policy was determined completely on climate change science. He appointed Gina McCarthy to Administrator of the EPA, because she's a zealot... therefore perfectly fit to implement Obama's energy policy.

 

Donald Trump is then elected, and has a totally opposite energy policy for the USA. He views the EPA and the Department of Energy as destructive to the US economy and appoints Pruitt and Perry to reign them in... enforcing the Trump energy policy. They are completely fit for those positions to enforce his policy. They are "completely unfit" if Barack Obama was still President... but he's not.

If you concluded that the "weather is gonna kill us all" then I would say you completely missed the message. The weather is NOT going to kill us all. What's at risk here is not our extinction, but rather the collapse of a relatively stable and peaceful social order that we have painstakingly built. As for the solution, there may not yet be a definitive one yet, but a good start would be to acknowlegle that climate change exists, and that it's largely driven by human activity. If we can't even agree on that, there can be no effective solution either. An then we can place the safest bet in history: in some shape or form, we will ALL lose.

So, all you want is for people to "acknowledge climate change exists and driven largely by human activity". Forgive me, but it sounds like you want people to acknowledge that God exists and largely determines the fate of mankind.

 

I've been around the block a few times, and whenever someone wants to sell me on an idea, my common sense tends to kick into high gear and I ask that ominous question... "Who will be destroyed by this idea... and who will benefit from this idea?" The USA is powered by energy, and energy is worth trillions of dollars. There are many people that want to dismantle our energy structure, and create a new one where they make the trillions. It will happen eventually on it's own, but they want it to happen now, and by force. What better way to force this change than by making it illegal to continue to supply energy that is not their way?

[Lysistrata]

Oh so sorry, I forgot to throw in the timeline on the podcast talking about Climategate... it's between 1:20:35 and 1:23:47 exactly... but there are many weird topics he's glazing over in that area... Al Gore and his movie comes to mind... he's a whore.

[ccabal86]

Sam Harris describes himself as a liberal and supports Progressive taxes, which is Socialism. Progressive taxes create an enormous government, and really destroy a productive society. I will never support them, and I doubt I will ever see them obliterated during my lifetime. He has spent most of his time railing against organized religion... just like Bill Maher. He is a Progressive... no doubt about it.

Socialism is a little more than supporting progressive taxation...This is like saying that if you prefer low taxes, you must be a Libertarian! And the devil is always in the details, as it's not the same if someone wants to tax the rich +3% or +80%. Either way, a belief system doesn't hinge on a single position. Sam Harris, Mill Maher (much like myself) identify as Classical Liberals for the most part, and ironically get the most shit...from progressives. This is true to a point where at this time some argue that Classical Liberalism is a right-wing, or even conservative position. I know I would NEVER identify as a leftie. I also don't support progressive taxation for what it's worth.

Every 4 years we have an election for President, and every 4 years the President decides the energy policy for the USA. Barack Obama is a Progressive, and his energy policy was determined completely on climate change science. He appointed Gina McCarthy to Administrator of the EPA, because she's a zealot... therefore perfectly fit to implement Obama's energy policy.
 
Donald Trump is then elected, and has a totally opposite energy policy for the USA. He views the EPA and the Department of Energy as destructive to the US economy and appoints Pruitt and Perry to reign them in... enforcing the Trump energy policy. They are completely fit for those positions to enforce his policy. They are "completely unfit" if Barack Obama was still President... but he's not.

 
Nobody is debating that Trump's election was lawful, that's how Democracy works. But winning the popular vote doesn't mean the person is ACTUALLY good for the job. Exhibit A: The Trump presidency. Lot of dick waving and bravado, but actually very little getting done.

So, all you want is for people to "acknowledge climate change exists and driven largely by human activity". Forgive me, but it sounds like you want people to acknowledge that God exists and largely determines the fate of mankind.

Not really, because while there is not a iota of evidence for the existence of God, there is plenty of evidence (of the actual empirical kind) that climate change is happening and it's largely man-driven. If you're waiting for an absolute, conclusive, all-deciding piece of evidence, you will not get it, simply because science DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Scientific facts for the most part are very high probabilities, because there is always a small chance that due to some unforseen circumstance or factor, you will not get the predicted result. Nevertheless science by-and-large works and it's a bad gamble to go against it.

I've been around the block a few times, and whenever someone wants to sell me on an idea, my common sense tends to kick into high gear and I ask that ominous question... "Who will be destroyed by this idea... and who will benefit from this idea?" The USA is powered by energy, and energy is worth trillions of dollars. There are many people that want to dismantle our energy structure, and create a new one where they make the trillions. It will happen eventually on it's own, but they want it to happen now, and by force. What better way to force this change than by making it illegal to continue to supply energy that is not their way?

So what is preventing the US from switching gears turning into a green economy powerhouse? You have the brainpower, you have the money. What you lack is the will and foresight to do it. Besides, it's not like you would cut off "old energy" from one day to the next. Besides, it doeasn't matter if you save some money now if in a few decades you will have to spend it all (and then some) on continuous crisis mitigation

Oh so sorry, I forgot to throw in the timeline on the podcast talking about Climategate... it's between 1:20:35 and 1:23:47 exactly... but there are many weird topics he's glazing over in that area... Al Gore and his movie comes to mind... he's a whore.

So what exactly was the most discrediting piece of info that came from Climategate? That a few scientists exaggerated their conclusions a bit? Yes, that was stupid, and they shouldn't have done that, they staked their credibility and damages it. And yeah, Al Gore is an alarmist. But just because there is some dishonesty here and there (give me an example where there isn't), it doesn't automatically discredit every piece of climate science research findings out there.

[Lysistrata]

I also don't support progressive taxation for what it's worth.

That's nice to hear. The Progressive tax structure is Socialism. If the Federal Government imposes a tax on the people, it should be a tax on all the people. It should be a shared responsibility on everyone, and be an equal benefit to all that pay the tax. If this is not the case, the Federal Government should not impose the tax. State Governments also have the power to tax, targeting their taxation on their own individual needs, and under the oversight and consent of their own elected officials. This is not the way things are done.

 

State Governments bend over backwards to avoid responsibility for anything, and push their Senators to get the Federal Government to pay for as much as they can. The Federal Government spends money that they don't have, is not their own to spend, and then attempts to make up the deficit by taxing anyone they can get it from. This results in spending far too much, on things that are none of their business to spend money on, and an eventual road to ruin. This is where the Progressive tax structure comes from, and is my sole litmus test on what people are. To me, if you support the Progressive tax structure, you are a Progressive.

 

 

Nobody is debating that Trump's election was lawful, that's how Democracy works. But winning the popular vote doesn't mean the person is ACTUALLY good for the job. Exhibit A: The Trump presidency. Lot of dick waving and bravado, but actually very little getting done.

First of all... lots of people are debating the lawful election of Donald Trump. We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. There is no such thing as a national popular vote to win. We do not elect the President by popular vote, and Donald Trump was not elected by a popular vote.

 

If President Trump was not getting anything done, that would mean the Obama policies would still be intact, and the left would not be losing their minds 24 hours per day. You know he's getting things done when you hear nothing but their cries. Just this morning he effectively neutered Obamacare. Since Congress can't pass the legislation... he has revoked the regulations by executive order. It's not permanent, but it kills it for now.

 

My investments have tripled since he has been President. Unemployment claims are at a 43 year low... that's not a typo. Climate change hogwash is an afterthought. Neil Gorsuch is on the court, and on the job, defending our country from Progressive encroachment of our Constitution. I really couldn't be happier with his Presidency, and he receives no credit from anyone that hates him... it's Congress that is screwing things up. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/unemployment-claims-fall-to-lowest-level-in-43-years-despite-hurricanes/article/2637266

 

 

Not really, because while there is not a iota of evidence for the existence of God, there is plenty of evidence (of the actual empirical kind) that climate change is happening and it's largely man-driven. If you're waiting for an absolute, conclusive, all-deciding piece of evidence, you will not get it, simply because science DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

There is a reason I always ask "What is your solution?". No matter who it is, the response is always... "Well... I don't have a solution... I only want you to admit I'm right!" Well... I don't care if your right, or not. There is nothing that will ever concern me over things I can't do anything about. This is nothing new... I've heard this same crap for decades, and nothing ever happens. We could have islands under water, barren fields of agriculture, and millions in body count... and I still would not care about anything except protecting my own... because there is nothing that can be done about it.

 

What can kill this planet... and it will die someway, someday, no doubt about it... is population. It will never get better. It will get worse, because I don't know if anyone is taking in consideration in their calculations that the global population will continue to grow. Add several billion more into those projections. If the problem is "largely man-driven", then the solution is to cut the world population. Does anyone want to entertain the solution? Didn't think so. So nothing can be done about it, and I have more pressing things in my life. I just wish people would just shut up about it when they have no actionable solution. We're the only one's here even posting about this. Nobody wants to care about it, except zealots and Progressives that want other people's money.

[Lysistrata]

New developments on things Trump is getting done. He's not recertifying the Iran deal, and has now cut off government subsidies to insurance companies. That's the death knell to Obamacare, and will force Congress to do something. Hail to the Chief. I also forgot to mention that he won the fight with the NFL by turning their racist hatred into a disgusting case of disrespecting our country... he's brilliant. Also, illegal immigration is down 70% since he took office, and that's without building the wall. Donald Trump is the wall.

[onbekende]

economy > society

 

and no, trickle down is as much as a hoax as is a socialist society done by the theory itself.

[Lysistrata]

economy > society

Absolutely. If given the choice of either living in a country that can boast about having the strongest economy and the most millionaires, or boast about having the weakest economy and the most people on welfare... I'll take the first choice hands down.

and no, trickle down is as much as a hoax as is a socialist society done by the theory itself.

Once again you say something that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Us stupid Americans... I guess you have to be a European to understand it, but thanks for chiming in on the thread, even if it was only because of Trump and everything he is getting done. We were lonely in here, just me and ccabal86.

[onbekende]

Society =/= welfare. Get a new soundbite will ya.

 

Know which also have a brilliant economy? Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., China, Nigeria.

 

I in no way even tried mentioning Trump, just US economic idea's in general (your Democrats are as stupid)

[Lysistrata]

Here's a movie for you. This is what is happening to this desperate global climate change crisis. It's turning into scripts from our glorious professional liars in Hollywood. This is the extent of public attention... extreme special effects, a high ticket price, riveting entertainment, and a grand awards ceremony. When an issue is reduced to science fiction and a big payday, there's no room left to take any of it seriously. Get your popcorn and a cold drink... which costs way too much BTW... and enjoy what your disaster has become.

[ccabal86]

Unfortunately, I won’t have time to respond adequately until after tomorrow, and apparently there will be a server downtime, so...weekend, likely.

[onbekende]

The day after tomorrow did it even worse science wise. But if your idea is "lets ignore this" cause Hollywood did a movie about it, I will up my "get a new soundbite" to "get a new thoughtwave".

 

And if you wanna talk about the idioticy of that movie, fine by me, I will start with the notion that said "weather"-station dwarfs the combined energy output of present day mankind.

[Lysistrata]

Yeah, That's what I'm talkin' about. When the TV and Movies section gets merged with the Real Life Current Events section... you know the world has gone completely off the rails. I like to keep my world crisis and entertainment separate... so climate change has been permanently shifted into my entertainment category. There it benefits from the protection of the 1st Amendment, but suffers banishment from serious consideration, government intervention, or legislation of any kind. I love my life.

[onbekende]

So wait, you are saying you have difficulty seperating reality from fiction? Scripted entertainment from random real life events? If I wasn't such a black&white guy that doesn't take his daily dose of salt I would recommend you for a psych evaluation mate .

 

Alteast be proud the USA made that such an "issue" in the first place, last I check Hollywood is still in the USA (sure, the part of your nation you dislike, but still). And not forget you folks gave us the utter mindnumbing crap that is "reality TV".

[Lysistrata]

So wait, you are saying you have difficulty seperating reality from fiction?

No, I didn't say that at all.

last I check Hollywood is still in the USA

I spent my first 38 years in Los Angeles. I never knew how bad it was until I left.

[onbekende]

And you will notice I didn't take it like that

 

Probably the humidity no? Less flammables in Nevada helps aswell I guess.

[ccabal86]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/03/trump-administration-releases-report-finds-no-convincing-alternative-explanation-for-climate-change/?utm_term=.87384da6297f

[Lysistrata]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/03/trump-administration-releases-report-finds-no-convincing-alternative-explanation-for-climate-change/?utm_term=.87384da6297f

It appears that the meat of this article is more about how shocked everyone is that the Trump administration did not try to prevent the report from publication, or attempt to alter it in any way. It says that the average global temperature has risen 1.8 degrees F since 1900. I think that's pretty damn stable myself. It also says that it's "physically possible" for seas to rise over 8 feet by 2100... but there is no way right now to predict how likely it is to happen.

 

If they tried to stop it from publication there would have been a crescendo of noise about how they are "trying to shut people up about the devastating truth of climate change". Instead they let it come out unmolested, and with little fanfare, because they know no one cares. We care about our lives, our family, our jobs, and how we will make it through to the end of it.

 

What is missing in this report is a solution. Do they try to predict the global population in 2100? Do they take in consideration normal occurrence of weather, fire, or volcanic activity? How about nuclear war? Anything at all? Nope. It's just like a bunch of idiots got together that believe the sky is turning more blue, and are having trouble getting everyone else to see it... so they resort to calling us knuckle-draggers and flat-earthers... like that's gonna change minds in their favor. Nobody cares!