The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[ATM]

...People gonna argue, globe gonna get warmer.

Will warm globe for sammiches.

 

[jamil]

My take is a little different than most INGOers. I'm more of a Climate (Change) Apathist. I believe that the global climate is changing, and I also believe that man's activities may be playing a significant role in that change.

I also believe that the biggest folly in the entire "debate" is to think that people could somehow change the mind-set and activities that we've had programmed into our brains for the past couple of hundred thousand years. God himself could descend from the heavens and personally tell us what the problems are and how we could change them, and we'd still be almost-but-not-quite entirely unable to change. If you don't see that, then you're a Social Science Denier.

People gonna argue, globe gonna get warmer.

I think this is fairly close to my thinking. Human nature can be overcome through knowledge and will--okay, and brainwashing. We learn to control our nature as children, if we have descent parents who've learned to control their natures. But as far as fundamentally changing our nature, that process takes millions of years.

I'm not a climate change denier, but I'm not a climate change believer either. I'm more of a climate change skeptic. I'm not saying the climate isn't changing, and I'm not saying whatever climate change there is isn't due to human activity. I have many reasons to strongly suspect that the alarmists are full of ****. We're asked to believe what a few people tell us the experts are telling us. And they do it in a way which seems like it is very dogmatic, pretty much like a religion. And, they're behaving like they're trying to hide something. So it is very natural for skeptical people to wonder if they're hiding something to protect the gods of climate.

I see the public global warming argument as a bunch of ideologically minded people arguing about a topic that really, very VERY few people participating are actual climate scientists. The people calling people "climate change deniers" have no more clue about "science" than the people they're mocking. They just want to feel like they're on the morally correct side, their tribe, and so when these people throw about terms like "science deniers", I think they're just virtue signaling for their tribe.

So about the climate, people should calm the **** down. The truth is most certainly in the middle somewhere and if we could decide the truth is a more important virtue than our tribe's virtue, we'd stand a better chance of finding it, and it would be much easier for people to believe it.

 

[jamil]

You're correct, I sometimes get those screwed up.

I had an English teacher in the 8th grade--I wish I could remember his name--who said it in a way that boys will just understand. "Imply" is the pitcher. "Infer" is the catcher. Boom. Got it. Forever.

 

[Birds Away]

This is what bothers me about the climate change debate, right here.

There is overwhelming data that supports global climate change. That much should be obvious, since our climate has been historically quite dynamic. The climate changes. There is also a wealth of data that supports the hypothesis that human activity is having a measurable effect on the global climate, notably by adding gasses to the atmosphere that change cumulative effect of heat.

So, there is a literal plethora of good, peer-reviewed data analysis that supports the hypothesis that the Earth is currently warming, and that human activity is increasing the rate of that warming.

The science supports human-aggravated warming of the climate, it does not lay the fault at the feet of capitalism, and it certainly doesn't advocate socialism as the most effective remedy...

...it is politicians and "entrepreneurs" trying to force a false equivalency for their own financial and political gains. Climate politics is not the same as climate science.

Climate scientists don't want global socialism, they want people to take their actaual results seriously in the hope some of it may be useful in crafting a practical, actionable solution to a global problem.

The "Global Warming" and then the "Climate Change" phenomena has been a huge cash cow for the scientific community. There have been many instances where temperature data has been doctored to achieve a desired result. There are even some noted climatologists who have spoken out against the groupthink of the scientific community on this topic. As usual the public is left searching for the actual truth.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The "Global Warming" and then the "Climate Change" phenomena has been a huge cash cow for the scientific community. There have been many instances where temperature data has been doctored to achieve a desired result. There are even some noted climatologists who have spoken out against the groupthink of the scientific community on this topic. As usual the public is left searching for the actual truth.

This may be true, I don't know, but what is the logic for govt employed climatologists to do so?

 

[Birds Away]

I had an English teacher in the 8th grade--I wish I could remember his name--who said it in a way that boys will just understand. "Imply" is the pitcher. "Infer" is the catcher. Boom. Got it. Forever.

Referring to your last post: Sounds like a "decent" teacher.

 

[Birds Away]

This may be true, I don't know, but what is the logic for govt employed climatologists to do so?

Honestly, that's more troubling. But given the ridicule faced by any that dare to speak out against the "proven science" it probably shouldn't be.

 

[jamil]

This is what bothers me about the climate change debate, right here.

There is overwhelming data that supports global climate change. That much should be obvious, since our climate has been historically quite dynamic. The climate changes. There is also a wealth of data that supports the hypothesis that human activity is having a measurable effect on the global climate, notably by adding gasses to the atmosphere that change cumulative effect of heat.

So, there is a literal plethora of good, peer-reviewed data analysis that supports the hypothesis that the Earth is currently warming, and that human activity is increasing the rate of that warming.

The science supports human-aggravated warming of the climate, it does not lay the fault at the feet of capitalism, and it certainly doesn't advocate socialism as the most effective remedy...

...it is politicians and "entrepreneurs" trying to force a false equivalency for their own financial and political gains. Climate politics is not the same as climate science.

Climate scientists don't want global socialism, they want people to take their actaual results seriously in the hope some of it may be useful in crafting a practical, actionable solution to a global problem.

The climate scientists participate in the tactics that make skeptics like me suspect they're saying the facts are saying more than they're saying. There's the whole climate-gate a few years ago. It's difficult to tell who is telling the truth in that one. And since I'm not a climate scientist and I don't care to put in the work to become one, I can only infer reality from people's words versus actions. If they act like they're trying to hide something, they probably are.

They use Saul Alinsky tactics to help further the believe that the sky is falling. THAT's a red flag. If they act like they don't believe what they're saying, they probable don't. A host of climate change alarmists preach one thing and do another. Their behavior betrays their beliefs. If Al Gore really, truly believed all of this, to the magnitudes of harm that could be done, he would certainly live his own life as if he believed it. And so would all the other climate change hypocrites.

 

[jamil]

This may be true, I don't know, but what is the logic for govt employed climatologists to do so?

In a Trump administration, they may be afraid for their jobs.

 

[Dddrees]

Honestly, that's more troubling. But given the ridicule faced by any that dare to speak out against the "proven science" it probably shouldn't be.

'What was that number? Wasn't it something like 97% or even as high as 98% or 99% of scientist believe green house gasses which were emitted by human beings heavily influenced this climate change? Besides those overwhelming numbers Bill Nye the science guy agrees. So if you have a problem believing the overwhelming numbers and numerous studies then you really can't deny because after all Bill Nye the science guy super nerd knows what he's talking about.

 

[Dddrees]

Trump Re-Tweets story with anonymous sources and classified info.

Trump retweets story with classified information | MSNBC

 

[indiucky]

Will warm globe for sammiches.

 

[OakRiver]

So somehow Obamas' actions exonerate Trump. You guys really should learn how to make better arguements to support your case. Wait, why don't you just try and be honest with yourself? What a novel idea. Try this, when Trump is wrong he is wrong. Oh, and by the way when Obama was wrong Obama was wrong. Now don't you feel better that you can recognize when something is wrong it is wrong?

That's a beautifully constructed strawman you have there. It would be a shame if someone asked you to substantiate your claim.

So why don't you substantiate your claim.

 

[KJQ6945]

'What was that number? Wasn't it something like 97% or even as high as 98% or 99% of scientist believe green house gasses which were emitted by human beings heavily influenced this climate change? Besides those overwhelming numbers Bill Nye the science guy agrees. So if you have a problem believing the overwhelming numbers and numerous studies then you really can't deny because after all Bill Nye the science guy super nerd knows what he's talking about.

Bill Nye, the gender denying guy, can't drop his own pants and figure out what his own gender is. Yeah, and we are a bunch of science deniers.

 

[Birds Away]

'What was that number? Wasn't it something like 97% or even as high as 98% or 99% of scientist believe green house gasses which were emitted by human beings heavily influenced this climate change? Besides those overwhelming numbers Bill Nye the science guy agrees. So if you have a problem believing the overwhelming numbers and numerous studies then you really can't deny because after all Bill Nye the science guy super nerd knows what he's talking about.

Ah, yes, Bill Nye the charlatan guy.

 

[PaulF]

The climate scientists participate in the tactics that make skeptics like me suspect they're saying the facts are saying more than they're saying. There's the whole climate-gate a few years ago. It's difficult to tell who is telling the truth in that one. And since I'm not a climate scientist and I don't care to put in the work to become one, I can only infer reality from people's words versus actions. If they act like they're trying to hide something, they probably are.

They use Saul Alinsky tactics to help further the believe that the sky is falling. THAT's a red flag. If they act like they don't believe what they're saying, they probable don't. A host of climate change alarmists preach one thing and do another. Their behavior betrays their beliefs. If Al Gore really, truly believed all of this, to the magnitudes of harm that could be done, he would certainly live his own life as if he believed it. And so would all the other climate change hypocrites.

I take issue with your use of "Climate Scienists". Scientists perform research and report the results. A person that manipulates the process or the results deliberately is not a scientist, they are an advocate...a lobbyist.

I have a thorough distrust of lobbyists, and it bothers me that they operate under the "legitimacy" of actual scientists. Too many bureaucrats, pop-sci "personalities", and lobbyists shelter themselves under the umbrella of "climate science", and the public does not have the information or inclination to see through the subterfuge.

 

[Dddrees]

That's a beautifully constructed strawman you have there. It would be a shame if someone asked you to substantiate your claim.

So why don't you substantiate your claim.

You already did. LOL

 

[Dddrees]

Bill Nye, the gender denying guy, can't drop his own pants and figure out what his own gender is. Yeah, and we are a bunch of science deniers.

Well you got me there. He's gay, transgender or whatever so whatever he says is wrong. Wow, you must have been the head of your debating class in high school.

 

[OakRiver]

You already did. LOL

So you're going to demonstrate my support of Trump, and my inability to say when he is wrong?

I'm all for reasoned debate and discussion, so I'm willing to give you the courtesy of assuming you are acting in good faith and not kneejerk reactions.

 

[Dddrees]

So you're going to demonstrate my support of Trump, and my inability to say when he is wrong?

I think you need to re-read what I said. I never once said you supported Trump.