Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

It should be said that the whole frog thing... is a myth.

[wierd]

See my first reply, then interpret it in the fashion of

Dr strange love, or, how I learned to love the bomb.

Eg, I am pointing out that is not how you make frog legs, but it is how you kill somebody in the hottub.

[Loud Whispers]

everyone knows 100 degrees is only, like, half the boiling point of water, man, but it's not far from body temperature #USA

Is that a C? Naaaah.

On the topic of rejecting the scientific method, I wonder if Donald Trump genuinely doesn't believe climate change is the most accurate conclusion. For example, the Russians are consolidating the arctic as climate change makes its resources potentially viable... How would the USA compete if it isn't making preparations, but instead debating whether it's real or not?

Laughing putins for the future. It raises an interesting point to gauging the sincerity of Trump's beliefs; if he makes moves to counter Russia and secure oil for the USA Canada, then his claims that climate change is a hoax is a cynical excuse for removing environmental protections on gas companies. If he doesn't do anything in the Arctic; he believes it, and double laughing putins.

[Neonivek]

I love how in fiction a lot of ordinary devices have a "Kill you" setting

My favorite was a Merry-Go-Round that had a "Kill all the kids" centrifuge setting.

everyone knows 100 degrees is only, like, half the boiling point of water, man, but it's not far from body temperature #USA

Is that a C? Naaaah.

On the topic of rejecting the scientific method, I wonder if Donald Trump genuinely doesn't believe climate change is the most accurate conclusion. For example, the Russians are consolidating the arctic as climate change makes its resources potentially viable... How would the USA compete if it isn't making preparations, but instead debating whether it's real or not?

Laughing putins for the future. It raises an interesting point to gauging the sincerity of Trump's beliefs; if he makes moves to counter Russia and secure oil for the USA Canada, then his claims that climate change is a hoax is a cynical excuse for removing environmental protections on gas companies. If he doesn't do anything in the Arctic; he believes it, and double laughing putins.

To me it isn't that Trump doesn't believe in Climate Change... he may very well.

It is that business is all about doing something until someone makes you stop... because if you don't exploit something, no matter how immoral, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.

Making concessions for climate change means the US loses money... which is something terrible from a business POV.

[wierd]

Don't you just love it when life imitates art?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlWyV00YLf8

[misko27]

I mean sorry guys but you are doomed... I was like "Alright fine, wipe away all the election feedback and give Trump a Clean slate"

Let the record show, then, that you are admitting that you are wrong and everything since is your fault.

Pitchforks and torches! Let's string up Neo by his gills, and force him to breathe air!

Don't you just love it when art imitates life?

Sure. I like that type of art a lot. I don't think you are sharing my love of realist art, though.

On the topic of rejecting the scientific method, I wonder if Donald Trump genuinely doesn't believe climate change is the most accurate conclusion. For example, the Russians are consolidating the arctic as climate change makes its resources potentially viable... How would the USA compete if it isn't making preparations, but instead debating whether it's real or not?

We already have plans in place for that, incidentally. US Military Intelligence is, at it's finest, an institution that has coldly (*rimshot*) analyzed plans to invade every part of the rest of the world for any reasonable provocation, and several unreasonable ones. Logically we already have plans in place due to the Cold War making the prospect of "The USSR, but not separated from the US by miles and miles of ice, tundra, and snow" a very spooky one. It's now a lot less spooky (a lot fewer nuclear weapons are involved, although that's of little consolation to those of us still living in potential future "post-apocalyptic parking lot" locations), but a lot more real.

[Luke_The_Hungry]

What always got me was that the rejection of Climate Change must also include the rejection of environmentalism as a whole. While I believe in global warming, my first concern is with renewable resources, less pollution, and caring about the environment because these things also have an immediate effect on us, not just long term things. But when brought up  the answer is that we shouldn't care about this is because...global warming is a hoax? Why do these things HAVE to be connected?

[wierd]

The notion that the environment can be fouled by wanton dumping of industrial effluent runs counter to the incentive of "Do it the cheapest way possible and suck down the biggest profits".

Eg,  disposal of trichloethylene down a hole is much cheaper than having it laboriously reprocessed, and money is what really matters.

When you demonize it at such a base level, then actions to protect the planet are " waste of good profit x 9000!" and naturally, they want nothing to do with it.

[Rockphed]

What always got me was that the rejection of Climate Change must also include the rejection of environmentalism as a whole. While I believe in global warming, my first concern is with renewable resources, less pollution, and caring about the environment because these things also have an immediate effect on us, not just long term things. But when brought up  the answer is that we shouldn't care about this is because...global warming is a hoax? Why do these things HAVE to be connected?

Oddly, I have seen lots of evidence that, at least among the grassroots of the right, belief in global warming is orthogonal to broad-sense environmentalism.  Consider the amount of trash left at tea party rallies as opposed to the trash left at Obama's inauguration.  Just because people refuse to accept that saving the planet requires them to reduce their energy consumption by 90% does not mean that they don't care about the environment.  It just means that they have a healthy dose of skepticism for people whose pay-checks depend on ever escalating doomsday scenarios.  Oft times they reject renewable resources as a reaction to the kick-backs and rent seeking that seem to accompany them.  Or they reject wind power because it kills condors.

And here is a good explanation of the conservative thoughts on climate change.

[Neonivek]

Not to mention... that Environmentalism hurts the poor far more then it does everyone else...

AND the fact that the US can barely keep large businesses in its borders because another country has less labor and pollution concerns.

[Elephant Parade]

Man the more I learn about Trump and his cabinet... the more I see how doomed the US is...

Hopefully a miracle happens and he is ineffectual someone sane is elected... but no... the US is doomed

Yeah.

Did you really need to make this post?

...Did I really need to make this post?

Do any of us need to make any of these posts, in the end? Perhaps we should abandon the Ameripol thread forever.

(but seriously: a one-word "I agree" post is a waste of space unless you're responding to something directed at you. for this minor violation of forum etiquette, I hereby fine you 500 ForumPoints. how will you get a gold-plated username now???)

[Frumple]

Uh. No, neo, environmentalism doesn't hurt the poor more than other demographics. They're actually the ones that feel its lack the hardest. It ain't the rich or middle class that's doing much living besides toxic swamps and dealing with flaming tap water. Also tends to be the poorer parts of an area that gets screwed the hardest when the infrastructure keeping the ocean off the land breaks, and so on, and so forth.

Logically we already have plans in place due to the Cold War making the prospect of "The USSR, but not separated from the US by miles and miles of ice, tundra, and snow" a very spooky one. It's now a lot less spooky (a lot fewer nuclear weapons are involved, although that's of little consolation to those of us still living in potential future "post-apocalyptic parking lot" locations), but a lot more real.

For what it's worth, so far as I can recall a post-melt arctic (north in general) would by and large be harder to wage a land war across than the current ice, tundra, and snow, if that's the sort of thing you're talking about. And that's not even getting into what it means for actually getting to places, heh.

Part of the thing folks seem to forget about the thought of the colder parts of the earth heating up is that it's not going to turn up something fresh and happily nourishing daisies, it's going to turn up a massive bog of terrifyingly bad land that occasionally spews out clouds of noxious death and/or falls out from under you. That ain't exactly prime farmland hiding under all that permafrost, heh.

[Flying Dice]

Yes, Neo, Flint, Michigan is full of rich people. Appalachia is full of rich people. It's rich people on the Gulf Coast that are being killed or rendered homeless by increasingly severe Atlantic storms. It's rich people who aren't able to flee places like California and low-lying Pacific communities where climate change is making areas markedly less habitable.

Wealth is the single greatest factor in determining how effectively an individual can avoid the effects of environmental deterioration.

e:

Okay, and Dozebom is probably going to dislike this, but you're arguing with a high schooler and using that to judge a large portion of liberals. The left seems to constantly get judged by kids on Tumblr and nobody bats an eye, while everyone realizes it's ridiculous as soon as the reverse happens (Pepe).

What, do you think this ideology sprouts fully-formed in the minds of children? It's not some bizarre construct which emerges ex nihilo from the ether. It's the creation of the conservative intelligentsia of the left, spread by near-total control of many forms of media. Do you think it's a coincidence that it is so prominent in modern youth when it is disseminated in new-media echo chambers which cater to them? That many adopt it either after participating in communities which espouse it or attending a university populated by the people that create it?

[Lord Shonus]

Uh. No, neo, environmentalism doesn't hurt the poor more than other demographics. They're actually the ones that feel its lack the hardest. It ain't the rich or middle class that's doing much living besides toxic swamps and dealing with flaming tap water. Also tends to be the poorer parts of an area that gets screwed the hardest when the infrastructure keeping the ocean off the land breaks, and so on, and so forth.

Environmental regulations tend to drive prices up, because it costs more to do things in an environmentally friendly way. For the rich or even the comfortably middle class, this is merely an annoyance. For the people that are barely making it, it can easily be a disaster. Just as importantly, while the poor would typically benefit far more from green innovations, we do not have anything close to the ability to buy-in. For a concrete example, if my (already fairly modest, as I live alone and most of the devices I own are fairly efficient) electric bill went up around twenty percent because carbon-offsetting measures raised the suppliers' costs that were passed on, I would not be able to afford to pay it. On the inverse, a solar roof would help me enormously by offsetting my electric bill and even providing a supplementary income - but would cost three or four times what I make in a year.

[wierd]

See the "a civil action" story I linked to.

While the price of leather accessories went down because of tce dumping bringing down costs, costs of health and childcare skyrocketed.

There is this fallacy in economics about externalities being ignorable. They aren't.

In the end, people if all rungs of life profit more from a healthy environment than they pay for it with increased costs. The issue is that with globalism without tariffs, there us always somebody who is willing to poison the world for personal short term profits, or worse, to drive out competition. (Cough, China. Cough, India.)