Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[boutons_deux]

oligarchy buying govt policy to protect/increase its profits

Secret Deal Helped Housing Industry Stop Tougher Rules on Climate Change


A secret agreement has allowed the nation’s

homebuilders to make it much easier to block changes to building codes that would require new houses to better address climate change

The written arrangement, in place for years and not previously disclosed,

guarantees industry representatives four of the 11 voting seats on two powerful committees

that approve building codes that are widely adopted nationwide.

The pact has helped enable the trade group that controls the seats,

the National Association of Home Builders,

to prevent changes that

would have made new houses in much of the country more energy-efficient or

more resilient to floods, hurricanes and other disasters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/climate/building-codes-secret-deal.html

Oligarchy protects itself while fucking over citizens and the environment.

[boutons_deux]

We are heading for a New Cretaceous, not for a new normal

A lazy buzz phrase – ‘Is this the new normal?’ – has been doing the rounds as extreme climate events have been piling up over the past year.

To which the riposte should be:

it’s worse than that – we’re on the road to even more frequent, more extreme events than we saw this year.

We have known since the 1980s what’s in store for us.

But nothing was done, and the welter of climate data mounting since then only confirms and refines the original predictions.

the Cretaceous ... was also very warm, with global temperatures 3-10°C hotter (https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1101388855?and_facet_journal=jour.1140625) than preindustrial levels.

in a Cretaceous rerun, there would very likely be no ice at the poles once again, and

sea levels would be about 216 feet (66 metres) above current levels.

We would also see the creation of vast warm shallow seas with mineral deposits similar to those that produced (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376736196800306) 1,300 ft (400 metre)-thick chalk strata in the old Cretaceous;

while, in place of the larger mammals that would become extinct, reptiles might radiate across the globe and grow large in form – a fitting dinosaur revenge?

In 2010, researchers showed (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552) that

our species cannot survive for more than six hours at what’s called a ‘wet bulb’ temperature of 35°C (95°F).

Wet bulb here means 100 per cent humidity, so it’s not 35°C as we know it.

But in the great Indian agricultural belts of the Indus and Ganges, high-40s temperatures combined with 50 per cent humidity (which equates to that wet-bulb temperature of 35°C ) are going to prevail (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/8/e1603322.full) within decades.

most-likely temperature-rise prediction of 3°C would see forests growing in the Arctic, and

entail the loss of most coastal cities through irreversible sea-level rise by the end of the century.

A lesson for today is that such a sudden and lasting change to the climate has consequences lasting thousands of years.

https://aeon.co/ideas/we-are-heading-for-a-new-cretaceous-not-for-a-new-normal?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8c29b26d26-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_28_12_53&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-8c29b26d26-70695677 (https://aeon.co/ideas/we-are-heading-for-a-new-cretaceous-not-for-a-new-normal?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8c29b26d26-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_28_12_53&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-8c29b26d26-70695677)

and still, nothing is being done, except,eg, the American oligarchy, through its govt control, making climate catastrophe arrive quicker

[boutons_deux]

AGW anthropocene destroys nature, and therefore is suicidal (for profit)

Insect decline more extensive than suspected

Causes of insect decline and biodiversity loss to be found at the landscape level

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-10/tuom-idm103019.php (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-10/tuom-idm103019.php)

[RandomGuy]

NBD

https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says

Interesting, both articles. Knew about the study, but hadn't gotten around to reading it.

[RandomGuy]

New Marine Heatwave Emerges off West Coast, Resembles "the Blob"
https://cdn2.webdamdb.com/1280_AzeTBgicZFa7.png?1567711005
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/new-marine-heatwave-emerges-west-coast-resembles-blob

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1190363755064037376?s=19


:lmao

[DMC]

New York isn't thought of as tornado-prone, but our state has recorded more than 400 twisters since the official record began in 1950. ... New York has averaged about nine tornadoes a year since the mid-1990s, when technological improvements and greater public awareness led to better detection of the storms.

Has a tornado ever hit Manhattan?
One such tornado was recorded in the Bronx in 1974, and another recently recorded tornado swept through Brooklyn after first touching down in Staten Island in 2007, the New York Times reports. ... But tornadoes don't often happen in New York and the chances of one touching down in the city on Friday are unlikely.

[DMC]

Before 1800
Between 1278 and 1438 — A major hurricane struck the modern-day New York/New Jersey area.[1]
August 25, 1635 — A hurricane that is reported to have tracked parallel to the East Coast impacts New England and New York, although it remains unknown if any damage occurred.[2]
September 8, 1667 — A 'severe storm' is reported in Manhattan and is reported to be a continuation of a powerful hurricane which affected the Mid-Atlantic.[2]
October 29, 1693 — The Great Storm of 1693 causes severe damage on Long Island, and is reported to create the Fire Island Cut as a result of the coast-changing storm surge and waves.[2][3]
September 23, 1785 — Several large ships crash into Governors Island as a result of powerful waves which are reported to have been generated by a tropical cyclone.[3]
August 19, 1788 — A hurricane strikes New York City or Long Island and is reported to have left the west side of the Battery "laid in ruins" after severe flooding occurs.[3]
1800–99

Estimated track of the 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane
October 9, 1804 — Heavy snow falls in Eastern New York peaking at 30 inches (75 cm) as a hurricane tracks northward along the East Coast and becomes extratropical, as cold air fed into the system.[4]
September 5, 1815 — A hurricane tracks over North Carolina and parallels the East Coast before producing a heavy rainstorm in New York.[5]
September 24, 1815 — Several hundred trees fall and the majority of the fruit was stripped off apple trees just prior to harvesting time after a hurricane makes landfall on Long Island.[6]
September 16, 1816 — A possible hurricane strikes New York City, but damage remains unknown.[2]
August 9, 1817 — A tropical storm produces heavy rainfall in New York City and Long Island.[2]
September 3, 1821 — The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane results in severe damage on Long Island and is accompanied by storm surge of 13 feet (4 m). High wind causes a ship to crash on Long Island killing 17 people.[7]
June 4, 1825 — A hurricane moves off the East Coast and tracks south of New York causing several ship wrecks, and killing seven people.[3]
August 27, 1827 — High tides are reported in New York City which are caused by a hurricane offshore.[8]
August 1, 1830 – A hurricane passes to the east of New York and produces gale-force winds to New York City and Long Island.[9]
October 4, 1841 — Gale–force winds affect New York City as a hurricane tracks north along the East Coast of the United States. Damage is estimated at $2 million (1841 USD, $41 million 2007 USD).[10]
October 13, 1846 — The Great Havana Hurricane of 1846 tracks inland, causing some damage to New York City.[3]
October 6, 1849 — Severe structural damage occurs in New York City and Long Island with the passage of a hurricane to the east.[3]
July 19, 1850 — A hurricane destroys a Coney Island bath house and causes heavy rain, although damage is unknown.[3] This storm destroyed the ship Elizabeth off Fire Island and drowned American transcendentalist Margaret Fuller.
August 24, 1850 — A storm that is reported to be a hurricane affects New York and New England although there is no known damage.[2]
September 9, 1854 — A hurricane brushes the East Coast from Florida to New England causing rain on Long Island.[3]
September 16, 1858 — Low barometric pressure of 28.87 inches mercury at Sag Harbor is reported, and is thought to be associated with a tropical cyclone which causes no known damage.[3]
September 6, 1869 — A category 3 hurricane makes landfall in Rhode Island and brushes Long Island, which is affected by rain, although minimal damage resulted from the storm.[3]
October 28, 1872 — A tropical storm passes over New York City and Long Island.[11]
October 1, 1874 — New York City and the Hudson Valley receives rainfall after a minimal tropical storm tracked over Eastern New York.[11]
September 19, 1876 — The remnants of the San Felipe hurricane track over western New York State, although damage is unknown.[11]
October 24, 1878 — The state is affected by tropical storm-force winds and heavy rain with the passage of a hurricane, which made landfall in Virginia.[11][12]
August 22, 1888 — A tropical storm tracks over New York City before tracking north along the East Coast of the United States.[11]
August 24, 1893 — Hog Island is washed away by strong storm surge associated with a tropical storm of unknown strength.[3] According to HURDAT, this was a Category 1 hurricane that struck the western end of the Rockaway Peninsula, passing through Brooklyn as a weakening hurricane. Manhattan Island saw gale-force winds to 56 mph.
August 29, 1893 Sea Islands hurricane moves thorough the Hudson Valley as a tropical storm.[13] Lives were lost in the Rockaways and when tow boats were destroyed at various points along the Hudson River. Roofs, structures, boats and crops were destroyed or damaged from Brooklyn to as far west as Dunkirk. Winds of 54 and 57 MPH recorded in New York and Albany respectively.[14][15]
October 10, 1894 10 People were killed and 15 injured at 74 Monroe Street in Manhattan when winds blew a building under construction onto a tenement crushing it. Extensive damage in the NYC and Long Island to telegraph lines, trees and boats docked on shore. Storm formed over Gulf of Mexico as a Category 3 weakened over land in the Southeast and re strengthened to a Category 1 over the Chesapeake Bay before striking Long Island.[16][17]
1900–49

Storm surge from the 1938 New England hurricane
September 12, 1900 - Remnants of the Galveston hurricane brought tropical storm conditions to New York City and Brooklyn killing one person and damaging property.[18]
September 17, 1903 — The 1903 Vagabond Hurricane produces wind gusts in excess of 65 mph (105 km/h) and 3 inches (75 mm) of rain in Central Park.[19]
August 15, 1904 — A Category 2 hurricane skirts the East Coast of the United States producing gale-force winds and heavy rain in Eastern New York and Long Island.[20]
August 2, 1908 — A hurricane develops near North Carolina and moves northward along the coast, brushing Long Island.[21]
July 21, 1916 — Strong winds are reported on Long Island as a category 3 hurricane passes to the east.[3]
August 25, 1933 — The 1933 Chesapeake–Potomac hurricane produces up to 6 inches (150 mm) of rain in Southeast New York State; other damage is unknown.[22]
September 8, 1934 — A strong tropical storm makes landfall on Long Island.[23]
September 20, 1936 — Strong waves and storm surge associated with a powerful hurricane floods much of Long Beach Island and causes severe beach erosion along the coast.[24]
September 21, 1938 — The New England hurricane of 1938 (also called "The Long Island Express") makes landfall on Suffolk County (Long Island) as a category 3 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale.[25] Wind gusts of 125 mph (200 km/h) and storm surge of 18 feet (5 m) washes across part of the island.[26] In New York 60 deaths and hundreds of injuries were attributed to the storm.[27] In addition, 2,600 boats and 8,900 houses are destroyed.[28] Throughout New England the hurricane killed over 682 people,[29] damaged or destroyed over 57,000 homes, and caused property losses estimated at $4.7 billion (2005 US dollars).[30]
September 14, 1944 — The 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane makes landfall on Long Island as a category 1 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale at a high forward speed of 40 mph (64 km/h). Wind gusts of well over 100 mph (160 km/h) breaks previous wind records in New York City, while a minimum pressure reading of 28.47 inches is recorded on Long Island. 117 homes are completely destroyed, while 2,427 are severely damaged and almost 1000 businesses are destroyed or damaged. In all, six people are killed, and one person is injured.[31]
September 18, 1945 — A weak tropical depression crosses into Southeastern New York.[11]
August 29, 1949 — A tropical storm tracks into Central New York causing no known damage.[11]
1950–74

Rainfall from Hurricane Agnes (1972)
1954 — Hurricane Hazel - wind gust of 113 mph at Battery Park, highest ever recorded in New York City.
August 31, 1954 — Hurricane Carol makes landfall on Long Island and produces wind gusts of 120 miles per hour (190 km/h) on Montauk Point.[3] On eastern Long Island near where Carol made landfall, a pressure of 960 mbar is recorded.[32] Winds on the island gust to 120 mph (195 km/h). The hurricane's storm surge covers the Montauk Highway in Montauk, effectively isolating eastern Long Island for a period of time. Due to the compact nature of the storm, most of Long Island is largely unaffected by the hurricane.[32] Specific damage totals for New York are unknown, although the storm in its entirety causes $460 million (1954 USD) in damage.[32]
September 10, 1954 — Hurricane Edna tracks to the east of Long Island producing 9 inches (230 mm) of rain.[3] Prior to the storm, New York City orders an emergency standby for the majority of its hospitals, and subways.[33]
August 13, 1955 — Hurricane Connie produces 13.24 inches (370 mm) of rain in Southeast New York, although damage is unknown.[34]
September 28, 1956 — Hurricane Flossy tracks to the south of Long Island, brushing it with light rainfall.[35]
October 1, 1959 — The remnants of Hurricane Gracie track into Central New York and drops up to 6 inches (150 mm) of rain.[36]
September 11, 1960 — Hurricane Donna makes landfall on Long Island as a Category 2 hurricane. Sustained winds of 100 mph (160 km/h) on eastern Long Island and 70 mph (110 km/h) winds on western Long Island are reported, and tides are 6 feet (2 m) above normal along most of the coast. Strong waves also cause beach erosion and several homes along the shore to be destroyed. Due to well-executed warnings, damages are extremely low, and it is reported that no deaths result from the storm.[37]
September 21, 1961 — Hurricane Esther causes $3 million (1961 USD, $20 million 2007 USD) in damage in Suffolk County as it tracks to the east of Long Island. Coastal areas of Long Island were flooded, as well as storm surge and wind gusts of 108 mph (173 km/h), which causes 260,000 homes to be left without power.[38]
October 8, 1962 — Hurricane Daisy tracks east of New England, producing light rainfall in extreme eastern portions of Upstate New York.[39]
September 23, 1964 — Beach erosion and moderate wind gusts are reported on Long Island as Hurricane Gladys tracks a couple hundred miles south of New York.[40]
October 19, 1964 — Light rainfall is reported as Hurricane Isbell tracks off the coast.[41]
September 10, 1969 — Rainfall up to 3 inches (75 mm) is reported on Long Island and in portions of Southeastern New York associated with Hurricane Gerda.[42]
August 28, 1971 — Tropical Storm Doria produces up to 8 inches (200 mm) of rain in New York City and Upstate New York causing moderate to severe flooding and floods subways in New York City.[43][44]
June 22, 1972 — Hurricane Agnes makes landfall near New York City and produces up to 12 inches (300 mm) of rain in Southeastern New York State and much of Western New York, with locally higher amounts. Storm tides of 3.1 feet (1 m) and wind gusts of 55 miles per hour (89 km/h) occur in New York City, and severe river flooding causes six deaths.[45]
September 4, 1972 — Tropical Storm Carrie produces light rainfall on the eastern end of Long Island.[46]
1975–99
August 11, 1976 — Hurricane Belle makes landfall on Long Island as a Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale, producing up to 6 inches (150 mm) of rain.[47] 30,000 people are evacuated in New York in anticipation of Belle. Wind gusts of up to 70 mph and tides of 7.2 feet (2.3 m) above normal are reported in New York City and Long Island. Moderate river flooding occurs, as well as minor crop damage. In all, one person is killed by a falling tree, and damage is reported at $257 million (1976 USD, $980 million 2007 USD).[48]
September 1, 1978 — The remnants of Tropical Storm Debra produces light rainfall along the southern edge of New York State.[49]
September 7, 1979 — The remnants of Hurricane David produce light to moderate rainfall up to 3 inches (75 mm) in much of New York State.[50]
September 2, 1983 — Tropical Storm Dean produces light rain near New York City[51] and causes minor beach erosion.[52]
Late October 1984 — The remnants of a tropical depression track just north of New York City, producing extremely light showers.[53]
July 1985 — The remnants of Hurricane Bob produce light rainfall in Southeastern New York.[54]
September 25, 1985 — The remnants of Tropical Storm Henri produce light rain in isolated areas.[55]

Hurricane Gloria to the south of New York (1985)
September 27, 1985 — Hurricane Gloria makes landfall on Long Island as a Category 2 hurricane. Wind gusts of up to 100 mph (135 km/h) and 3.4 inches (86 mm) of rain [56] contribute to $300 million (1985 USD, $591 million 2007 USD) in damage, and one fatality.[57] In addition, 48 homes on Long Island were destroyed, and hundreds more were damaged.[57]
September 10, 1987 — Tropical Depression Eleven produces rainfall up to 3 inches (75 mm) in much of New York State.[58]
August 30, 1988 — Tropical Storm Chris produces moderate rainfall in Upstate New York.[59]
September 24, 1989 — The remnants of Hurricane Hugo produce light rain and gusty winds in Central and Eastern New York.[60]
August 19, 1991 — Hurricane Bob comes within a short distance of making landfall on the eastern tip of Long Island as a category 2 hurricane. Heavy rainfall up to 7 inches (175 mm) and high wind gusts causes two deaths and $75 million (1991 USD, $117 million 2007 USD), as well as severe beach erosion which came as a result of storm surge up to 6 feet (2 m) above average.[61]
October 30, 1991 — The 1991 Perfect Storm kills one man when he is swept off a bridge, and causes moderate to severe beach erosion.[62]
August 28, 1992 — The remnants of Hurricane Andrew produce light rainfall in the western portions of the state.[63]

Hurricane Floyd produced heavy rain in New York (1999).
September 27, 1992 — Tropical Storm Danielle produces light rain in Western New York.[64]
July 22, 1994 — Tropical Depression Two produces light rain in isolated areas of the state and generates thunderstorms which down several trees.[65]
August 18, 1994 — Tropical Storm Beryl's remnants produce up to 3 inches (75 mm) of rain in Central New York[66] causing moderate flooding which causes two fatalities and $1.5 million (1994 USD, $21 million 2007 USD) in damage, and 14 homes are damaged or destroyed. In addition, State Route 7 was closed for several hours due to flooding.[67]
July 13, 1996 — Hurricane Bertha makes landfall on Long Island as a tropical storm, producing heavy rainfall which caused moderate flooding in the lower Hudson Valley in addition to tropical storm-force winds.[68]
July 24, 1997 — Hurricane Danny causes light rainfall over New York City and Long Island.[69]
September 8, 1999 — The remnants of Hurricane Dennis produce bands of heavy rain which caused some flooding, especially in Rockland County where three feet of flood water accumulated in some locations.[70]
September 16, 1999 — Hurricane Floyd produces rainfall up to 13 inches (325 mm) and wind gusts of up to 60 mph (95 km/h) affect Southeastern New York. Severe flooding results from the storm, killing two people and causing an early estimate of $14.6 million (1997 USD, $18 million 2007 USD), although it is reported that damage could total to far more than that. One of the deaths occurred when a person was swept into a flooded river.[71][72]
2000–2009

The outer rainbands of Hurricane Isabel affected the state in 2003.
September 20, 2000 — The remnants of Hurricane Gordon produce light rainfall in Southeastern New York State.[73]
September 23, 2000 — The remnants of Tropical Storm Helene brushes Southeastern New York with moderate rainfall and 30MPH winds.[citation needed]
June 17, 2001 — The remnants of Tropical Storm Allison produce moderate rainfall up to 3 inches (75 mm), although it fell in just a couple hours causing minor to moderate flash flooding.[74]
August 10, 2002 — Tropical Storm Cristobal generates rip currents which drown three people on the coast of Long Island.[75]
September 28, 2002 — The remnants of Hurricane Isidore produce widespread light rainfall over much of the state and moderate wind gusts.[76] Some small trees are blown down, and minor power outages are reported.[77]
September 21, 2003 — Hurricane Isabel affects the state with high winds and flooding. Damage in New York totals to $90 million (2003 USD, $98 million 2006 USD).[78] In and around New York City, about 1.1 million customers were left without power, though most outages were fixed by the day after the hurricane passed through the region.[79] Offshore of Long Beach, rough waves killed a man while bodysurfing.[80]
August 4, 2004 — Hurricane Alex drops 2.83 inches (70 mm) of rain on Long Island.[81]
August 13, 2004 — Tropical Storm Bonnie produces rainfall peaking at 4 inches causing several rivers to swell to at or slightly above flood stage.[82]
August 14, 2004 — Hurricane Charley brushes Long Island and produces light rainfall.[81]
September 4, 2004 — Hurricane Gaston produces light rainfall on Long Island.[83]
September 9, 2004 — The remnants of Hurricane Frances produces heavy rainfall up to 7 inches (175 mm) which causes extensive flooding in central New York. One death from drowning and $6 million (2005 USD, $6.5 million 2007 USD) in damage resulted from the flooding.[84][85]
July 9, 2005 — The remnants of Hurricane Cindy produce moderate rainfall in Upstate New York causing light damage due to flooding and gusty winds, which downed some trees.[86]
August 30, 2005 — The remnants of Hurricane Katrina produce heavy rainfall up to 5 inches (125 mm) of rain in the western portion of the state. High winds also affect the state, with 4,500 people in Buffalo left without power after high winds downed trees and power lines.[87]
October 5, 2005 — Tropical Storm Tammy's remnants contribute to a rainstorm which turns into the Northeast U.S. flooding of October 2005. Up to 13 inches (325 mm) of rain cause severe flooding throughout the Hudson Valley, causing no deaths in the state, but millions of dollars in damage throughout the country.[88][89]
September 2, 2006 — The remnants of Hurricane Ernesto produce light to moderate rainfall over much of the state and wind gusts of up to 60 miles per hour (97 km/h).[90] Numerous trees and power lines are reported fallen, and several thousand people are left without power, primarily in the New York City area.[91]
June 5, 2007 — Tropical Storm Barry produces 3.91 inches (99 mm) of rain in New York City.[92] The heavy rainfall leads to flooding in the Finger Lakes region of New York State, washing out roads and driveways. Roads and several driveways were washed out.[93]
September 6, 2008 — Hurricane Hanna strikes Long Island as a tropical storm with wind gusts of 52 mph (84 km/h) at Shinnecock Inlet. Aside from numerous downed trees, damage was minimal.[94]
August 22, 2009 — Offshore Hurricane Bill causes severe beach erosion and coastal damage on the southern shore of Long Island.[95]
2010–present

[spurraider21]

People who deny science and physics are delusional or ignorant.
:tu

[spurraider21]

hyperbolic statements dont help anybody's cause. cuomo should have chosen words more carefully

[DMC]

:tu

So then do you agree people who claim to be the opposite gender that science says they are are also delusional and ignorant?

[Chris]

hyperbolic statements dont help anybody's cause. cuomo should have chosen words more carefully

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So then do you agree people who claim to be the opposite gender that science says they are are also delusional and ignorant?

Gender and especially gender roles are a social construct. Sex is not the same as gender.

[TheGreatYacht]

So then do you agree people who claim to be the opposite gender that science says they are are also delusional and ignorant?

THE END GOAL OF THE TRANSGENDER MOVEMENT- David Icke | London Real

https://youtu.be/uwZFURZaIWY

[DMC]

Gender and especially gender roles are a social construct. Sex is not the same as gender.

Show me on the ID or DL where "gender" is mentioned. Sex changes because they feel like they are the opposite sex isn't a social construct.


Oh but then ignoring science is good.

If a man says he feels more feminine than masculine, ok, but that doesn't make him female. Getting surgeries to add or remove features doesn't either. Born male always male. Born female always female.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Show me on the ID or DL where "gender" is mentioned. Sex changes because they feel like they are the opposite sex isn't a social construct.


Oh but then ignoring science is good.

If a man says he feels more feminine than masculine, ok, but that doesn't make him female. Getting surgeries to add or remove features doesn't either. Born male always male. Born female always female.

your sure wailing on that strawman. you said "who claim to be the opposite gender that science says." it is what it is.

it's not hard.

gender: subjective
sex: objective

and the trans community talks in terms of gender. if they talk in terms of sex then I agree. for example someone with a y chromosome has no business in women's sports.

[spurraider21]

So then do you agree people who claim to be the opposite gender that science says they are are also delusional and ignorant?
gender =/= sex

your sex is based on your chromosomes and your role in reproduction. gender is entirely different.

[spurraider21]

Show me on the ID or DL where "gender" is mentioned.
so those are asking for sex, not gender.

cool talk

[DMC]

your sure wailing on that strawman. you said "who claim to be the opposite gender that science says." it is what it is.

it's not hard.

gender: subjective
sex: objective

and the trans community talks in terms of gender. if they talk in terms of sex then I agree. for example someone with a y chromosome has no business in women's sports.

You're right. Gender isn't the same as sex. I misspoke.

The concept of pretending to be the opposite sex through alterations and roles then expecting society to play along - that's science denial.

[DMC]

Perhaps though they should change the name from "gender reveal" to "sex reveal" since no one asked the baby about their gender.

[Th'Pusher]

Perhaps though they should change the name from "gender reveal" to "sex reveal" since no one asked the baby about their gender.

That would be more accurate.

[boutons_deux]

New study finds errors in rising sea level predictions:

It's much, much worse than anyone imagined

New study finds errors in rising sea level predictions: It's much, much worse than anyone imaginedNew study finds errors in rising sea level predictions: It's much, much worse than anyone imagined

The error was in estimating the impact of sea rise based primarily on 3-D satellite imagery from NASA, which

led scientists to erroneously establish “ (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/rising-seas-are-going-to-drown-more-cities-than-wed-thought.html)the planet’s upper surfaces—such as treetops and tall buildings,” as ground level. (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/rising-seas-are-going-to-drown-more-cities-than-wed-thought.html) :lol

recently discovered and corrected for this error and, with the assistance of artificial intelligence technology, were able to correct prior estimates.

“that many of the world’s coastlines are far lower than has been generally known.”

This means that “sea level rise could affect hundreds of millions of more people in the coming decades” than was already feared. That’s a three- to four-fold increase over estimates based on the erroneous NASA data.

by 2050, as many as 150 million to 340 million people living below annual high-tide or flood levels could be subject to displacement by higher sea levels,

depending on which scenario—

“optimistic” (reflecting lower rates of continued greenhouse gas emissions) or

“pessimistic” (reflecting higher rates of such emissions)—is considered.

The projections for 2100 roughly double these numbers, if that can be imagined.

https://images.dailykos.com/images/222780/large/risingsealevel.jpg?1457721769

1189222793105330176

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/30/1896046/-By-2050-rising-seas-will-be-much-much-worse-than-anyone-imagined-according-to-a-new-study (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/30/1896046/-By-2050-rising-seas-will-be-much-much-worse-than-anyone-imagined-according-to-a-new-study)

[boutons_deux]

11,000 scientists say that the ‘climate emergency’ is here

“Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any great existential threat and to ‘tell it like it is,’”

“On the basis of this obligation … we declare … clearly and unequivocally, that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”

the first time so many scientists have directly told the public that the current state of the climate constitutes a crisis, rather than letting their data speak for itself.

https://grist.org/article/11000-scientists-say-that-the-climate-emergency-is-here/

[spurraider21]

Perhaps though they should change the name from "gender reveal" to "sex reveal" since no one asked the baby about their gender.
they probably should. gender is a more tame term because sex also refers to the act, for possibly for that reason, colloquially, the terms had been used fairly interchangeably for a while, albeit inaccurately. they had been distinct in academia/textbooks all along though, as far as i'm aware

[Chris]

Experts are saying all signs point to another Ice Age

[DMC]

Experts are saying all signs point to another Ice Age

Hopefully this time that squirrel gets the nut.

[Winehole23]

Experts are saying all signs point to another Ice AgeLink?

Critics have been right to criticize the inaccuracy of climate change modeling, the models have been way too conservative estimating the rate of change and the civilizational impact:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/

[pgardn]

You're right. Gender isn't the same as sex. I misspoke.

The concept of pretending to be the opposite sex through alterations and roles then expecting society to play along - that's science denial.

Yes because genes tell you how you MUST act.

Idiot...

[pgardn]

Experts are saying all signs point to another Ice Age

Experts say...
They all say...
Some are even saying...
Many people say to me...

You got this Trumptardian talk down beautifully.

[pgardn]

Shit it’s winter a comin and she’s gettin cold. How’s that? We still have Winter, wtf?

We have had some record setting lows in some parts of the country.

Who would have thought average global temperature is rising and we could still measure record lows at various places on the Earth?
(Not members of the red team apparently)

[pgardn]

Shit it’s winter a comin and she’s gettin cold. How’s that? We still have Winter, wtf?

We have had some record setting lows in some parts of the country.

Who would have thought average global temperature is rising and we could still measure record lows at various places on the Earth?
(Not members of the red team apparently)

[Winehole23]

Warming is only one aspect of climate change, which is the more accurate term. Ocean warming destabilizes the jet stream, which can lead to freak cold snaps in North America.

[boutons_deux]

Warming is only one aspect of climate change, which is the more accurate term. Ocean warming destabilizes the jet stream, which can lead to freak cold snaps in North America.

If the Gulf Stream dies or wanders, Ireland, Icelland, UK will become much colder

predatory, voracious, corrupt, murderous Capitalism (BigCarbon and BigFinance) has really fucked the planet beyond unfuckability.

If there were a "solution", it's unknown, and nobody nowhere is implementing ANY solution.

[Winehole23]

If we don't start to manage the problem, it will manage us, tbh.

[DMC]

Yes because genes tell you how you MUST act.

Idiot...

Didnt say anything about acting. Climate change doesn't tell you how you must act. It's always your decision. A male is a male and a female is a female. Those are scientific facts.

[boutons_deux]

If we don't start to manage the problem, it will manage us, tbh.

nope, it's over, already way too late to overcome 150+ years of GHG emissions.

and GHG and other emissions CONTINUE to increase

and then

there's the severe, pervasive plastic and chemical pollution in air, water, land, animals, plants.

Humans have SHIT THEIR BED and there ain't no fix, with no fix is even being attempted.

[boutons_deux]

TL;DNR : causes of AGW are increasing, not flat, no decreasing

A world off track on climate change
https://graphics.axios.com/2019-11-12-world-energy-demand-scenarios/images/2019-11-12-world-energy-demand-scenarios-desktop.png
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-generate-557199c4-00c9-406c-8d84-997156fd2cb4.html

[RandomGuy]

Hopefully this time that squirrel gets the nut.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/
The question is significant for two reasons. First, climate skeptics and deniers have often accused scientists of exaggerating the threat of climate change, but the evidence shows that not only have they not exaggerated, they have underestimated. This is important for the interpretation of the scientific evidence, for the defense of the integrity of climate science, and for public comprehension of the urgency of the climate issue. Second, objectivity is an essential ideal in scientific work, so if we have evidence that findings are biased in any direction—towards alarmism or complacency—this should concern us We should seek to identify the sources of that bias and correct them if we can.

In our new book, Discerning Experts, we explored the workings of scientific assessments for policy, with particular attention to their internal dynamics, as we attempted to illuminate how the scientists working in assessments make the judgments they do. Among other things, we wanted to know how scientists respond to the pressures—sometimes subtle, sometimes overt—that arise when they know that their conclusions will be disseminated beyond the research community—in short, when they know that the world is watching. The view that scientific evidence should guide public policy presumes that the evidence is of high quality, and that scientists’ interpretations of it are broadly correct. But, until now, those assumptions have rarely been closely examined.

We found little reason to doubt the results of scientific assessments, overall. We found no evidence of fraud, malfeasance or deliberate deception or manipulation. Nor did we find any reason to doubt that scientific assessments accurately reflect the views of their expert communities. But we did find that scientists tend to underestimate the severity of threats and the rapidity with which they might unfold.

Among the factors that appear to contribute to underestimation is the perceived need for consensus, or what we label univocality: the felt need to speak in a single voice. Many scientists worry that if disagreement is publicly aired, government officials will conflate differences of opinion with ignorance and use this as justification for inaction. Others worry that even if policy makers want to act, they will find it difficult to do so if scientists fail to send an unambiguous message. Therefore, they will actively seek to find their common ground and focus on areas of agreement; in some cases, they will only put forward conclusions on which they can all agree.

[boutons_deux]

One of the country’s biggest climate denier groups just did an about-face

Until now, the pro-business group has also supported U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

In 2017, it funded a highly criticized (https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/us-chamber-commerces-energy-institute-misleads-climate-action-costs-3-things-know) report on the consequences of meeting the commitments of the pact.

The report paints a bleak picture of economic downturn and was used by President Trump as evidence for pulling the U.S. out of the pact.

just before Trump took the first formal step to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement,

the lobbying group quietly updated its website with a brand new stance on the matter.

A page titled “Our Approach to Climate Change (https://www.uschamber.com/climate-change-position)” now reads:

“Greater collaboration between governments and businesses is essential to build the best models to tackle climate challenges,

which is why

the Chamber supports U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement”.

https://grist.org/article/one-of-the-countrys-biggest-climate-denier-groups-just-did-an-about-face/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=beacon

too fucking late, assholes!

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/lensfocus/status/1194633288503058432?s=19

[DMC]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/
The question is significant for two reasons. First, climate skeptics and deniers have often accused scientists of exaggerating the threat of climate change, but the evidence shows that not only have they not exaggerated, they have underestimated. This is important for the interpretation of the scientific evidence, for the defense of the integrity of climate science, and for public comprehension of the urgency of the climate issue. Second, objectivity is an essential ideal in scientific work, so if we have evidence that findings are biased in any direction—towards alarmism or complacency—this should concern us We should seek to identify the sources of that bias and correct them if we can.

In our new book, Discerning Experts, we explored the workings of scientific assessments for policy, with particular attention to their internal dynamics, as we attempted to illuminate how the scientists working in assessments make the judgments they do. Among other things, we wanted to know how scientists respond to the pressures—sometimes subtle, sometimes overt—that arise when they know that their conclusions will be disseminated beyond the research community—in short, when they know that the world is watching. The view that scientific evidence should guide public policy presumes that the evidence is of high quality, and that scientists’ interpretations of it are broadly correct. But, until now, those assumptions have rarely been closely examined.

We found little reason to doubt the results of scientific assessments, overall. We found no evidence of fraud, malfeasance or deliberate deception or manipulation. Nor did we find any reason to doubt that scientific assessments accurately reflect the views of their expert communities. But we did find that scientists tend to underestimate the severity of threats and the rapidity with which they might unfold.

Among the factors that appear to contribute to underestimation is the perceived need for consensus, or what we label univocality: the felt need to speak in a single voice. Many scientists worry that if disagreement is publicly aired, government officials will conflate differences of opinion with ignorance and use this as justification for inaction. Others worry that even if policy makers want to act, they will find it difficult to do so if scientists fail to send an unambiguous message. Therefore, they will actively seek to find their common ground and focus on areas of agreement; in some cases, they will only put forward conclusions on which they can all agree.

Twotons.. cousin of Boutons.

[pgardn]

Didnt say anything about acting. Climate change doesn't tell you how you must act. It's always your decision. A male is a male and a female is a female. Those are scientific facts.

A male is usually XY. A female is usually XX. Those are scientific facts.
XXY, X... continue are variations of sex chromosomes that .... are usually associated with....

Because a person is XX does not mean they want to wear dresses and have sex with XY. Behavioral differences are much more difficult to explain with science.
But you got a male is a male. Thanks for that.

[pgardn]

Warming is only one aspect of climate change, which is the more accurate term. Ocean warming destabilizes the jet stream, which can lead to freak cold snaps in North America.

The overall warming leads to an instability of ocean currents as well. Water can hold vast amounts of heat energy and when the ocean currents change paths, the climate in an area can become very different as well. Rain patterns and temperatures can completely change how we farm and or cause the vegetation in an area to change. Along with coastal habitation, I think these changes will lead to the most drastic short term changes as far as $ impact. When we build infrastructure based on a certain type of climate ( which we have) and the climate changes rapidly it costs $.
I think people living next to water will feel the greatest monetary impact. Distribution of water will become a bigger issue. Imo red team chooses to treat this on a geological scale in order to put off having to deal with it. “Oh well, at some point continents will shift” If we were still mobile hunter gatherers we would most likely find it easier to adapt. But we are not.

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/lensfocus/status/1194633288503058432?s=19
the solar cycle is well known and is factored into every model

[boutons_deux]

Climate change exposes future generations to life-long health harm

A child born today faces multiple and life-long health harms from climate change - growing up in a warmer world with risks of food shortages, infectious diseases, floods and extreme heat

Climate change is already harming people’s health by increasing the number of extreme weather events and exacerbating air pollution

if nothing is done to mitigate it, its impacts could burden an entire generation with disease and illness throughout their lives.

“Children are particularly vulnerable to the health risks of a changing climate.

Their bodies and immune systems are still developing, leaving them more susceptible to disease and environmental pollutants,”

“Without immediate action from all countries :lol

to cut greenhouse gas emissions, gains in wellbeing and life expectancy will be compromised, and

climate change will come to define the health of an entire generation,”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-health/climate-change-exposes-future-generations-to-life-long-health-harm-idUSKBN1XN2WQ?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FhealthNews+%28Reute rs+Health+News%29 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-health/climate-change-exposes-future-generations-to-life-long-health-harm-idUSKBN1XN2WQ?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FhealthNews+%28Reute rs+Health+News%29)

Ain't no country gonna do significant mitigation of its pollution,

so destructive business as usual (Capitalists gorge on more $Ts) will keep the planet on steady trajectory downwards.

100Ms will die, $Ts lost in planetary (property) wealth, etc, etc.

[Chris]

the solar cycle is well known and is factored into every model

Sure thing pal.

[pgardn]

Sure thing pal.

Says the man of science.

[Winehole23]

Climate whiplash. Tree ring research seems to indicate weather volatility has increased dramatically in the last 60 years:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-whiplash-wild-swings-in-extreme-weather-are-on-the-rise

[DMC]

A male is usually XY. A female is usually XX. Those are scientific facts.
XXY, X... continue are variations of sex chromosomes that .... are usually associated with....

Because a person is XX does not mean they want to wear dresses and have sex with XY. Behavioral differences are much more difficult to explain with science.
But you got a male is a male. Thanks for that.

I have no idea what you're even arguing here. You went off the rails. Variations are called that for a reason.

[DMC]

Climate whiplash. Tree ring research seems to indicate weather volatility has increased dramatically in the last 60 years:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-whiplash-wild-swings-in-extreme-weather-are-on-the-rise

Ah so it started before I was born. Not my problem.

[pgardn]

I have no idea what you're even arguing here. You went off the rails. Variations are called that for a reason.

That genes in themselves do not determine behavior.
Environment acts on genetic material therefore behavior is more complex.
You said a male is a male. What does this even mean?

And genes themselves can be confusing. XX. XY. Wait a bit... what’s going on here.
This is all relatively new.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That genes in themselves do not determine behavior.
Environment acts on genetic material therefore behavior is more complex.
You said a male is a male. What does this even mean?

And genes themselves can be confusing. XX. XY. Wait a bit... what’s going on here.
This is all relatively new.

Did you mean by themselves?

[Winehole23]

Ah so it started before I was born. Not my problem.
Yeah, it's all about you. How could I forget.

[Winehole23]

The geometric increase in atmospheric pollution started in the mid 19th century. In geographical time, mere moments before you were born, DMC.

You say it has nothing to do with you, but events are already overrunning this claim. Natural feedbacks won't be mocked.

[DarrinS]

fuck you, natural feedbacks

I just mocked them

[Winehole23]

You can mock nature for sure, but the effect of your mockery on natural feedback loops will be nil.

[pgardn]

Did you mean by themselves?

Yes.

Genes alone.
And then further to the point is that we have found that the chromosomes that determine whether one will produce sperm or egg (the biological definition of sex) are much more fluid than we thought. XX and XY male/female can be XXX XXY on and on... Then even within the x and Y (thus associated hormone genes) chromosomes, bits and pieces of these chromosomes thus genes can mix. We have people born with a wide variety of visible sexual physical features as well. Now that we have the capacity to look at DNA closer it is quite complicated.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/caster-semenya-testosterone-ruling-gender-science-analysis

A glance at this sports article represents just a small taste of how complex this is. So in a world in which we learn more I can understand the confusion all the way from gender identity to hard sexual designations male XY and female XX. Even gender identity is confusing because one might associate with a behavior that is currently designated male or female or what? I can see how it’s confusing to people who are born with a variety of what I have mentioned above, and also the general public who never had to experience any sort of confusion.

Im just glad I did not have to experience any sort of questionable urges. Saw breasts and associated “softer” female facial features, attracted to breasts and associated features, game over.

[pgardn]

You can mock nature for sure, but the effect of your mockery on natural feedback loops will be nil.

But he feels empowered.
Don’t you do this to him.

[boutons_deux]

Combined with Exxon's scientists finding the same 40? years ago, we have coal going back 50+ years

Coal Knew, Too


A newly unearthed journal from 1966 shows the coal industry, like the oil industry, was long aware of the threat of climate change.

“Exxon knew.”

Thanks to the work of activists and journalists, those two words have rocked the politics of climate change in recent years, as investigations revealed the extent to which giants like

Exxon Mobil and Shell were aware of the danger of rising greenhouse gas emissions even as they undermined the work of scientists.
But the coal industry knew, too — as early as 1966, a newly unearthed journal shows.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coal-industry-climate-change_n_5dd6bbebe4b0e29d7280984f?ri18n=true&ncid=newsltushpmgnews (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coal-industry-climate-change_n_5dd6bbebe4b0e29d7280984f?ri18n=true&ncid=newsltushpmgnews)

[boutons_deux]

Earth’s carbon dioxide levels hit a 3 million year high

carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations reached 407.8 parts per million in 2018.

In 2017, they reached a high of 405.5 parts per million.

Earth surpassed the 400 parts per million mark in 2015.

“There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration

“Back then,

the temperature was 2 to 3 degrees [centigrade] warmer, [and]

sea level was 10 to 20 meters higher than now.”

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/25/earths-carbon-dioxide-levels-hit-a-3-million-year-high/ (https://www.salon.com/2019/11/25/earths-carbon-dioxide-levels-hit-a-3-million-year-high/)

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Court allows libel suit by climate scientist who was compared to Jerry Sandusky

The Supreme Court

refused on Monday to shield two conservative writers from being sued for defamation

by a climate-change expert whom they

accused of having “molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”

Over a dissent by Justice Samuel A. Alito, :lol

the high court cleared the way for Penn State professor

Michael Mann to sue the National Review and the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute

for having compared him to the former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was imprisoned for sexual abuse.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-11-25/supreme-court-climate-scientist-sue-defamation?utm_source=Today%27s+Headlines&utm_campaign=88aa2e01ff-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_12_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b04355194f-88aa2e01ff-80027601 (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-11-25/supreme-court-climate-scientist-sue-defamation?utm_source=Today%27s+Headlines&utm_campaign=88aa2e01ff-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_12_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b04355194f-88aa2e01ff-80027601)

[RandomGuy]

Twotons.. cousin of Boutons.

You are talking about facts, and evidence. This is a meta analysis of available data and peer-reviewed studies.

If your response is an ad hominem, then you would appear to not really care about facts and evidence.

Do you care about facts and truth?

[boutons_deux]

As Trash and his BigCorp kakistocracy move to permit and increase all kinds of pollution

Canadians dying at a higher rate in areas with more air pollution

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-canadians-dying-higher-areas-air.html (https://phys.org/news/2019-11-canadians-dying-higher-areas-air.html)

[Chris]

y5sjoCW8Ncs


Buttplug compares "climate change crisis" to 9/11 and WW2. Also compares border wall to "moat full of alligators".

[spurraider21]

y5sjoCW8Ncs


Buttplug compares "climate change crisis" to 9/11 and WW2. Also compares border wall to "moat full of alligators".
how specifically did he compare the climate change crisis to 9/11 and WW2?

[Chris]

how specifically did he compare the climate change crisis to 9/11 and WW2?

Watch the video

[spurraider21]

Watch the video
i did. i'm asking you how you think he compared the climate change crisis to 9/11 and WW2

[DMC]

The geometric increase in atmospheric pollution started in the mid 19th century. In geographical time, mere moments before you were born, DMC.

You say it has nothing to do with you, but events are already overrunning this claim. Natural feedbacks won't be mocked.

Prime mover not DMC

[DMC]

You are talking about facts, and evidence. blah blah..
Do you care about facts and truth?

You're stupid

[Chris]

i did. i'm asking you how you think he compared the climate change crisis to 9/11 and WW2

That's my opinion. Did you have something to add, or are you just doing the Pavlov thing?

[spurraider21]

That's my opinion. Did you have something to add, or are you just doing the Pavlov thing?
You didnt give an opinion. Just posted a YouTube

[Chris]

You didnt give an opinion. Just posted a YouTube

nah I posted an opinion along with the video and you asked about said opinion w/o watching the video

now you're just straight up lying

be better

[spurraider21]

nah I posted an opinion along with the video and you asked about said opinion w/o watching the video

now you're just straight up lying

be better
i watched the video. didnt see any issues with it, and im not a buttplug fan by any stretch.

how did he compare the climate change crisis to 9/11 chris?

[Winehole23]

Prime mover not DMCIf anything, the models so far seem to be underestimating the knock on effects.

Cruel irony if the Cassandras are understating the danger.

[Chris]

beep.boop.beep.

[spurraider21]

anything to avoid giving/explaining a take

[DMC]

If anything, the models so far seem to be underestimating the knock on effects.

Cruel irony if the Cassandras are understating the danger.

Based on what new information?

[Chris]

anything to avoid giving/explaining a take

What take? You said it yourself, I just posted a video. I can show you "avoid" though.

Bye.

[spurraider21]

What take? You said it yourself, I just posted a video. I can show you "avoid" though.

Bye.
exactly. you avoid giving a take. and then you avoid. lol.

[boutons_deux]

Warming Waters, Moving Fish:

How Climate Change Is Reshaping Iceland

warming waters associated with climate change are causing

some fish to seek cooler waters elsewhere, beyond the reach of Icelandic fishermen.

Ocean temperatures around Iceland have increased between 1.8 and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 20 years.

For the past two seasons, Icelanders have not been able to harvest capelin, a type of smelt, as their numbers plummeted.

The warmer waters mean that as some fish leave, causing financial disruption, other fish species arrive, triggering geopolitical conflicts.

Worldwide, research shows the oceans are simmering.

Since the middle of last century,

the oceans have absorbed more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/climate/ocean-warming-climate-change.html)gas emissions (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/climate/ocean-warming-climate-change.html).

To beat the heat, fish are moving toward cooler waters nearer the planet’s two poles.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/climate/climate-change-ocean-fish-iceland.html?emc=rss&partner=rss (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/climate/climate-change-ocean-fish-iceland.html?emc=rss&partner=rss)

[RandomGuy]

You're stupid

The "doody head defense". I see you have me in the crushing grip of reason. I yield.

[DMC]

The "doody head defense". I see you have me in the crushing grip of reason. I yield.

The quote precedes the comment, stupid.

[RandomGuy]

The quote precedes the comment, stupid.

You seem to have me confused with someone who cares. No idea what you are trying to get to. Sorry, your scorn is wasted here.

[DMC]

You seem to have me confused with someone who cares. No idea what you are trying to get to. Sorry, your scorn is wasted here.

:lol claims to not care
:lol keeps responding

[RandomGuy]

:lol claims to not care
:lol keeps responding

Care enough to respond, but not to take the effort to figure out your in-jokes. Do your own work, you lazy ass.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1201832875810852864?s=19

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1201832875810852864?s=19
sounds awful

[boutons_deux]

Capitalists have lent $750B in recent years for new coal plants

Marine life, fisheries increasingly threatened as the ocean loses oxygen

https://www.iucn.org/news/marine-and-polar/201912/marine-life-fisheries-increasingly-threatened-ocean-loses-oxygen-iucn-report (https://www.iucn.org/news/marine-and-polar/201912/marine-life-fisheries-increasingly-threatened-ocean-loses-oxygen-iucn-report)

Oxygen depletion,

acidification,

the climate catastrophe is well under way,

so ignre the bullshit that it's "avertable"

Mankind shit, and continues to accelerate shitting, in its bed.

[SnakeBoy]

Ban wetlands not cows

Huge Boost in Methane Concentrations Traced Back to Africa's Wetlands
https://www.newsweek.com/huge-boost-methane-concentrations-africa-wetlands-1476667

[RandomGuy]

Ban wetlands not cows

Huge Boost in Methane Concentrations Traced Back to Africa's Wetlands
https://www.newsweek.com/huge-boost-methane-concentrations-africa-wetlands-1476667

If rising CO2 and other greenhouse gases aren't to blame for the warming trend...

What is?

[spurraider21]

If rising CO2 and other greenhouse gases aren't to blame for the warming trend...

What is?
THE EARTH HAD WARMING TRENDS MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO TOO AND THERE WERENT SUVS THEN!

[boutons_deux]

Methane ‘super emitters’ releasing massive plumes after Trump rolled back environmental regulations (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/12/14/1905639/-Methane-super-emitters-releasing-massive-plumes-after-Trump-rolled-back-environmental-regulations)


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/12/14/1905639/-Methane-super-emitters-releasing-massive-plumes-after-Trump-rolled-back-environmental-re%E2%80%A6 (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/12/14/1905639/-Methane-super-emitters-releasing-massive-plumes-after-Trump-rolled-back-environmental-re%E2%80%A6)

[boutons_deux]

Catastrophic Ohio Methane Leak Stayed Hidden Until a Satellite Found It


A blowout in Ohio made little news in 2018, but satellite images show it was a major global event.

2018 methane leak at an Exxon Mobil site in Ohio was one of the worst in recent memory,

outpacing the methane emissions from the entire oil and gas industries of many countries.


https://www.livescience.com/giant-methane-leak-exxon-pennsylvania.html

[boutons_deux]

The release of GHG from melting permafrost is a disastrous positive feedback cycle that is accelerating.

Repugs have permitted clear cutting of ancient forests in Tongass.

[RandomGuy]

Catastrophic Ohio Methane Leak Stayed Hidden Until a Satellite Found It


A blowout in Ohio made little news in 2018, but satellite images show it was a major global event.

2018 methane leak at an Exxon Mobil site in Ohio was one of the worst in recent memory,

outpacing the methane emissions from the entire oil and gas industries of many countries.


https://www.livescience.com/giant-methane-leak-exxon-pennsylvania.html




Saw that.

Massive leak, and what DON'T we know about? That is what worries me.

[boutons_deux]

Biosphere Collapse? (https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/19/biosphere-collapse/)

Following Paris ’15, global banks have invested $1.9 trillion in fossil fuel projects.

global governments plan to increase fossil fuels by 120% by 2030, including the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, Canada, and Australia.

over that past 18 months China has added enough new coal-based power generation (43GW) to power 31 million new homes.

China plans on adding another 148GW of coal-based power, which will equal the total current coal generating capacity of the EU.

India increased coal-fired power capacity by 74% over the past 7 years.

The country expects to further increase coal-generated capacity by another 22% over the next 3 years.

China is financing 25% of all new worldwide coal plant construction outside of its borders,

e.g., South Africa, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

Meantime, China, kissing goodbye to its commitment to cut emissions, cuts renewable power subsidies by 30%.

in the United States, Trump proposes slashing renewable budget items, as his administration rebrands fossil fuels “Molecules of U.S. Freedom.” (Forbes, May 30, 2019)

in America’s most northerly town, Barrow, Alaska is experiencing an unprecedented “massive spike in methane emissions” ongoing for the past 4 months

the Stockholm Environment Institute claims

the world is on a pathway to 3C pre-industrial, probably “locked-in” because of fossil fuel expansion across the globe.

the IPCC has already informed the world that 2C brings the house down, not only that, scientists agree 1.5C is unbearably unlivable throughout many regions of the planet.

the world is on a colossal fossil fuel growth phase in the face of stark warnings from scientists that emissions must decline to net zero.

Hot House implies too much heat disrupting, and destroying, too many ecosystems for the planet to support 7.8 billion people.

“It’s basically the end for humanity.

We’re looking at biosphere collapse.

The richness of life is being destroyed by deforestation and by catastrophic climate change.

Africa is in severe drought.

Chile is in a mega drought.

Australia is in a drought expected to become a mega drought within the next two years.”

Absolutely nothing is happening to mitigate global warming.

Currently, there has been a massive ongoing eruption of methane in the Arctic.

It’s gone practically unreported.

Looking at the 2.2 million year ice core, the maximum methane concentration ever was 800 ppb.

In Barrow, Alaska it is 2,050 ppb and staying there. It’s been up there for 4 months.”

the land permafrost is emitting a lot of methane, CO2, and nitrous oxide (12xs more than scientists estimated).

“Accelerating heating of the Arctic Ocean could make global temperatures skyrocket in a matter of years”

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/19/biosphere-collapse/

[TheGreatYacht]

https://mobile.twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1212809494218072070

[RandomGuy]

https://mobile.twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1212809494218072070

(facepalm)

[boutons_deux]

(facepalm)

ignorance RAINS supreme

[boutons_deux]

Amazon threatens to fire employees demanding climate justice

Employees who spoke up about the company and its role in climate change received threats from above

Amazon employee Maren Costa, a User Experience Principal Designer, was

threatened with termination of employment for speaking to the Washington Post in October.

https://www.salon.com/2020/01/02/amazon-threatens-to-fire-employees-demanding-climate-justice-report/

[boutons_deux]

World Gone Wrong:

an Environmental Diary of 2019 (https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/03/world-gone-wrong-an-environmental-diary-of-2019/)

+ Ryan Zinke, under investigation for trying to enrich himself in office, refused to step down from his post at the Interior Department until he could have a Christmas party with lobbyists and take pictures in front of a stuffed polar bear…
+ Zinke’s greed was largely personal. His likely replacement David Bernahrdt, a former lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/16/david-bernhardt-ryan-zinke-lobbyist-interior-department?fbclid=IwAR3xFmDwMFyhVXKWVoYYWFKGS26loo 6YZAhAbhIFtVBbFqwc3OhMOGRxGZk), will dutifully feed the greed of the shareholders of big oil and coal.

+ There are fewer North Atlantic Right Whales (https://www.clf.org/blog/north-atlantic-right-whales-end-of-their-rope-protections-cant-wait/) left in the world than sitting members of Congress. They may well go extinct in our lifetimes.

+ According to a new study by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, climate change has made the Western megadrought (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/12/us-southwest-already-mega-drought/578248/) (the worst in at least 500 years) 38 percent more severe (https://phys.org/news/2018-12-climate-western-megadrought-percent-severe.html?fbclid=IwAR3dxpu0NLA7zqxL4DN86Dvs79GPN YHFUUWOb6vjxjB3yB8HUlmYYIFxYZI), leading to record low flows in Colorado River and dwindling reservoirs behind Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams.

+ The Arctic is now warming so quickly that 14,000 tons of melted ice (https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/21/melting-arctic-ice-is-now-pouring-tons-water-per-second-into-ocean-scientists-find/?utm_term=.73e02a949dfa)is gushing into the oceans every second.

https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2018/12/Du39BM9U0AAhXO2-510x306.jpg

+ “He’s a vampire, babe, sucking blood from the Earth (https://www.outsideonline.com/2380731/interior-open-oil-gas-companies-national-parks?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=onsiteshare), sell you twenty barrels worth….”


+ Blood on the Tracks: Last week a female wolf, weighing only 70 pounds, was shot by a “hunter” on the plains of northeastern Montana (https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wolf-shot-in-northeastern-montana-for-first-time-in-years/article_bccf9c3e-16da-5f9e-b741-f4efd1a67596.html?fbclid=IwAR2Kb7NH9lugLfvAgWB7rUB ZoAUrLj2GdX3E5upWW2-_gNdqgy34p5oNRf0) (nearly 300 miles from the Rocky Mountains), where wolves haven’t been seen in many years.
+ After three years of decline, carbon emissions in the US rose by 3.4 percent (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/us-carbon-emissions-rise-2018/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=image&utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2019-01-08T13%3A20%3A03&fbclid=IwAR3BUaFKgpOkpAw4uCTfIn4WSmrYw38J0xA7pzNZH 9zL2dsnVISRMoePRI4) in 2018.

+ After two weeks of mayhem, with off-roaders chopping down rare Joshua Trees, palms and yuccas, the Park Service finally closed Joshua Tree National Park (https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-joshua-tree-national-park-to-close-shutdown-20190108-story.html?fbclid=IwAR2jeFyjNNtKnNQkTwrFEzkusvTL5-8uZzXaSUna_TeZuqomxbvQvfzoF20) to public entry. They should close them all. And use the government shutdown to Rest the West by ending logging on the National Forests and getting the damn cows and oil derricks off of BLM lands.

+ The government isn’t the only thing shutting down. So is the planet…Ecologist Scott Lister has found that over the last 35 years 98% of ground insect species (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/insect-collapse-we-are-destroying-our-life-support-systems?fbclid=IwAR32_DpBuPwPkD7MlPcw3KalzcQpcgge1 GgDpIr8bV-eYgEpMLMG-Uojcr4) in Puerto Rico have been extirpated.

+ The Rio Grande is s (https://durangoherald.com/articles/255677)hriveling (https://durangoherald.com/articles/255677). It’s not a drought. It’s the future…

+ A new report (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafe25) from Harvard’s Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment argues that Trump’s replacement for Obama’s climate is “worse than doing nothing (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/15/trump-replacement-obama-climate-plan?fbclid=IwAR3od_vAZfKmMK8Zx4FdceziqDLvjQlJPwHn Y0wWagenYgCyRyXYa7cnH3s).” Of course, “doing nothing” was the Obama Climate Plan.


+ Top 5 warmest annual global temperatures since at least 1891, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency:
1. 2016
2. 2015
3. 2017
4. 2018
5. 2014

https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2019/01/aveglobaltemp-510x477.jpg

+ What will they call “permafrost” when it’s no longer permanent (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16012019/permafrost-thaw-climate-change-temperature-data-arctic-antarctica-mountains-study?fbclid=IwAR0d0wu_Ka2Yi85lCLOaH28Dd1V8mPeFM3s lRYAhw4d3X_4u_JO6KmGsp1w)?


+ How do you define sextupled?

Antarctic ice loss in 1979: 40 billion tons per year.
Antarctic ice loss in 2017: 252 billion tons per year.

The state of Idaho just put out a $200,000 bounty (https://www.idahopress.com/news/state/idaho-wolf-control-board-seeks-to-kill-wolves/article_3328b4a0-c3fc-5a33-9eb5-0974da0ed21e.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR3Rmxp7AV8QZRM0p6eO7keSInGHyrFy80A6KzBfY R58X1KsyAA9e9JtYA4) on the state’s wolves. It’s time to put the wolf killers on permanent furlough.

+ Barbara Ehrenreich: “If I had a gun and knew how to use it, my first target would be the fiends who’ve been destroying Joshua Trees in the eponymous park. The rest of you bastards can wait.”

+ Australia is sweltering under some of its hottest days ever recorded (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/18/australia-heatwave-sydneys-west-to-hit-45c-after-week-of-extreme-weather?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet_with_Plume). The death count is rising, especially among bats. During a November blast of heat, flying fox bats started falling from the trees. In just two days, more than a third (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59vn8k/climate-change-driven-heat-wave-killed-a-third-of-a-bat-population-in-two-days?fbclid=IwAR1lK5XmGNmQoK7ICcdtTCPQtPVbZtfNSZz3 3_SMI2QLbZhojrWXygfvEoQ) of the nation’s flying fox bat population perished. Mass die offs can happen fast.

+ A new study (https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/yellowstone_national_park/study-yellowstone-s-forests-could-become-grasslands-by-mid-century/article_501326d6-190d-5300-96be-84e82ab63bf4.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR1593DoCO7R_dmnnlOuyQmzJQ4wio3zkLgAxEEkH bQMNYo7XJJgwgXpbvY) from ecologists at the University of Wisconsin predicts that Yellowstone’s forests may be replaced almost entirely by grasslands within the next 30 years. Among other dire consequences for the ecosystem, this climate-driven transition will mean the extinction of the Yellowstone grizzly, which depends on white bark pine seeds as an essential source of protein.

+ A record number of private jets landed in Davos (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jan/22/record-private-jet-flights-davos-leaders-climate-talk?CMP=share_btn_tw&fbclid=IwAR3Rc8YiOgFp570hTT0zBuHWqu7CFyvSnyB7sh--IK89XGowkhKObsPYdB8) this week to attend the Climate Summit. Why? Because their carbon don’t stink…

+ If Trump succeeds in shutting down airports coast-to-coast, even for only a few days, he’ll have done more to combat Catastrophic Climate Change than all other presidents combined.

+ The Himalayan glaciers are in rapid retreat (https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/himalayan-glacier-recedes-as-climate-change-hits-home/story-ptcPXOEpKBWrl3MjKpGVFL.html?fbclid=IwAR2RRXTuo2fuY z6KYYQ3ZB-qKAPCjLqhu-hj5a8v6iaUyOz5Ikcd8A5nNd4). They are the principle water source for more than a billion people and three nations armed with nuclear weapons.

+ Lake Foul became a “dead pool (https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2019/01/20/lake-powell-could-become/?fbclid=IwAR0kwAEhYJTE568seBPH2jSeSD_hAwUKlpthfZMp myEvXtQriTIy6vuB7vM)” the moment they closed the floodgates at Glen Canyon Dam…

... etc etc, for the rest of 2019

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/03/world-gone-wrong-an-environmental-diary-of-2019/



What happened in Joshua Tree park without enforcment was directly from the novel Lord of the Flies

[TheGreatYacht]

AUSTRALIA WAKE UP! - FREE THE WATER! ARREST THE GOVERNMENT! - OR DIE - MAKE THIS VIRAL!

https://youtu.be/PBsFVn-kKV8

[Chris]

Australia Slaughtering 10,000 Camels To Combat Global Warming

https://www.westernjournal.com/australia-slaughtering-10000-camels-combat-global-warming/

[boutons_deux]

Australia is the biggest exporter of coal, and is run by climate-denying conservatives, of course

[TheGreatYacht]

**** ALERT! ALERT!!!! *** YOU CAN SAVE AUSTRALIA IF YOU MAKE THIS VIRAL *****

https://youtu.be/8bO2c3RCFWc

[spurraider21]

**** ALERT! ALERT!!!! *** YOU CAN SAVE AUSTRALIA IF YOU MAKE THIS VIRAL *****

https://youtu.be/8bO2c3RCFWc
:lmao "jew engineering"

[TheGreatYacht]

AUSTRALIAN FIRES - AN EMERGENCY MESSAGE FROM YOUR GOVERNMENT - MAKE VIRAL! MAKE VIRAL! MAKE VIRAL!

https://youtu.be/2_rGi0NDVl8

[boutons_deux]

THIS IS WARMING THE PLANET EVEN FASTER THAN CARBON DIOXIDE

one of the main culprits is black carbon, particles in the air (https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/can-californias-carbon-queen-recycle-pollution/83719) that arise from burning forests, diesel engines and coal pollution. But black carbon isn’t just a problem for those near forest fires or diesel-choked highways.

it’s widely considered to be the second-largest culprit when it comes to climate change, after CO2.

A 2013 study of the substance found that black carbon is responsible for 1.1 watts of extra energy being stored in the atmosphere per meter of the Earth’s surface.

By comparison, CO2 is responsible for an estimated 1.56 watts per square meter.

Black carbon is formed via an incomplete process of combustion.

About half the planet’s black carbon is traced to burning fossil fuels, including coal, and the other half is from burning biomass like wildfires or agricultural razing.

Apart from its polluting effects — the particles can settle in human lungs, causing respiratory diseases and other health problems — black carbon absorbs rays from the sun and converts it to heat, warming the planet with alarming efficiency.

That’s particularly disastrous for icy landscapes like the Arctic and Antarctica:

When black carbon settles on snow and ice, it heats the surface and melts them even faster.

The Arctic is currently thought to be warming twice as fast as the global average.

(https://www.ozy.com/news-and-politics/this-is-warming-the-planet-even-faster-than-carbon-dioxide/95450/?utm_term=OZY&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyDose%20%282020-01-14%2016:16:50%29&utm_content=Final)https://www.ozy.com/news-and-politics/this-is-warming-the-planet-even-faster-than-carbon-dioxide/95450/?utm_term=OZY&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyDose%20%282020-01-14%2016:16:50%29&utm_content=Final

The Planet is Fucked and UnFuckable

[boutons_deux]

Where nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300-times stronger than CO2, is being emitted

If something is burning, nitrous oxide is flowing into the atmosphere.

Increasingly, the most concentrated nitrous oxide sources come from humans burning fossil fuels and transforming ecosystems.

As a greenhouse gas, it gets less attention than carbon dioxide, accounting for just 6% of all emissions in 2017.

But it’s a major factor intensifying climate change:

NOx, as the gas is known, lasts for a century and is far more potent.

It is nearly 300 times stronger (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases) than carbon dioxide at trapping heat.

https://qz.com/1745204/maps-of-nitrous-oxide-emissions-a-potent-greenhouse-gas/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief (https://qz.com/1745204/maps-of-nitrous-oxide-emissions-a-potent-greenhouse-gas/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief)

No worries, people.

Capitalism and Free Markets will solve, with the perfect solution, the environmental, planetary catastrophe.

[boutons_deux]

https://images.dailykos.com/images/756310/story_image/demonize-ecowise915.png?1578990752

[TheGreatYacht]

Geoengineering: The real climate threat

https://youtu.be/hpz6W980n4I

[spurraider21]

:lmao james corbett as a source of scientific authority?? :lmao

all the scientific research points to CO2 as a key driver of climate

but james corbett says its a 3rd rate scientific hoax so thats that.

[boutons_deux]

https://mobile.twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1212809494218072070

"silver iodide when studied in labs is a different story all together and is indeed toxic and dangerous.

There are other studies (http://www.nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/toxic//silver.pdf) showing that silver iodide is toxic especially to fish and wildlife.

This particular study is quoted as stating that

“repeated exposure of animals to silver might produce anemia, cardiac enlargement, growth retardation, and degenerative changes in the liver.”

silver iodide is not shown to be toxic for humans but it does show an accumulation in fish."

https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/christian-cristiano/10899-los-angeles-is-cloud-seeding-harmful-to-your-health

China should rather stop building 100s of coal fired electricity plants in China and around the planet.

[RandomGuy]

Australia Slaughtering 10,000 Camels To Combat Global Warming

https://www.westernjournal.com/australia-slaughtering-10000-camels-combat-global-warming/

Could I get that in a tweet form? Come on man, you're slipping. Twitterbating hand tired? :lol

[RandomGuy]

The 2010s were officially the hottest decade on record


It's official: Last year was the world's second hottest on record, and 2010-2019 was the hottest decade ever recorded.

Why it matters: The findings, published in two separate reports by NOAA and the British weather service the Met Office Wednesday, are in line with those of research group Berkeley Earth, revealed at the start of the year. It's yet more evidence of the long-term warming trend that stems from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

https://www.axios.com/2010s-hottest-decade-ever-noaa-nasa-4f82b9ed-4136-422f-91b7-db0d74e46241.html

[Chris]

Could I get that in a tweet form? Come on man, you're slipping. Twitterbating hand tired? :lol

^ imagine getting triggered by tweets on a forum

[boutons_deux]

Spy Satellite Images Uncover Staggering Mount Everest Ice Loss

New analysis shows the extent of ice reduction in glaciers in the Himalayas.

The glaciers surrounding Mount Everest have lost far more ice than once thought, declassified spy satellite photos have revealed.

From 1962 to 2018, the glaciers along Mount Everest's flanks had shrunk significantly from the top down,

As Earth (https://www.livescience.com/earth.html) warms, many glaciers' outermost boundaries visibly retreat and expose the rock underneath, so it's easy to spot where ice has been lost.

For the new investigation, the scientists sought a missing piece of the puzzle:

how loss of ice might affect a glacier's height, Bolch told Live Science. They found the first signs of significantly reduced ice dating back to the 1960s.

"When we now look at the entire area, we see a clear increase in mass loss while it was in the period of 1962 to 1969, around 20 centimeters [8 inches] per year,"

Rongbuk and Khumbu glaciers, where Everest base camps are located, had thinned by more than 260 feet (80 meters) over 60 years,

while Imja glacier lost more than 300 feet (100 m) of ice during the same timespan.
The researchers also found that ice loss sped up in recent decades, with the acceleration beginning in the 1980s,

the region's supply of stored fresh water is draining away quicker than computer models have predicted.

https://www.livescience.com/melting-everest-glaciers.html?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9160&utm_content=LVS_newsletter+&utm_term=194127&m_i=HvLCpoXehGHbu6R9i3teRyj2HbYGa%2BgWjztyTnFV%2B9 jIBMSVj3rLN84M7XFqUGeSu0pTl_SnqxTzja%2BOxweLYFT_Me pG6JkNPHec19HHHm

Bs of people depend on the rivers fed by Himalayan melt water.

... just more FACTS for you AGW denier pricks to ignore.

btw, the AGW planetary catastrophe is accelerating AND unstoppable.

[TheGreatYacht]

What Is Really Happening In Australia? - David Icke

https://youtu.be/EiAPn2NUnvA

[boutons_deux]

Hilarious bullshit

This Is Our Last Decade to Get Climate Right

"Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report) in October 2018 that we have 12 years to keep global temperatures increases at 1.5 degrees Celsius or less.

Now, we have more like 10 years.We have this decade.

https://truthout.org/articles/this-is-our-last-decade-to-get-climate-right/ (https://truthout.org/articles/this-is-our-last-decade-to-get-climate-right/)

:lol The predatory, avaricious Capitalists of BigOil, carbon energy still have $Ts to pocket. They are unstoppable

the truthout article itself shows how BigOil whores fuck up climate conferences, fuckup everything and anyone who just talks about just slowing the catastrophe.

[boutons_deux]

Trump blasts 'prophets of doom' in attack on climate activism

He said he was “a big believer in the environment” :lol

in a speech that ensured he was absent from Washington as impeachment hearings took place on Capitol Hill.

“The environment to me is very important,” he said. :lol

Trump boasted that this support for the coal and oil industries meant the US was self-sufficient in energy. :lol

the president swore he wanted “the cleanest water and the cleanest air,” :lol

despite his administration’s record of weakening (https://go.grist.org/e/399522/ump-environment-rollbacks-html/n7g9bd/484766049?h=QsnVKqTtAaawj3jXDbR46AHUOJ6Du6J2sv-AqHwTPco) air and water protections.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/21/trump-climate-1tn-trees-davos (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/21/trump-climate-1tn-trees-davos)

Trash's Exec branch has done EVERYTHING it can to pollute air, water, wetlands, permit coal ash, and no doubt the same detruction will continue in 2020.

[TheGreatYacht]

https://mobile.twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1220047117537947661

[spurraider21]

https://mobile.twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1220047117537947661
:lmao why would she visit ecuador? what's their contribution in CO2 emissions either total or per capita compared to the the rest of the world? what kind of influence can ecuador have in an international effort compared to powerhouses like the US and China?

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Chevron wins Ecuador rainforest 'oil dumping' case

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45455984

Texaco/Chevron fucks up a country then lawyers its escape unpunished

[boutons_deux]

ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS


SIGNATORIES INCLUDE


3558 U.S. Economists


4 Former Chairs of the Federal Reserve (All)


27 Nobel Laureate Economists


15 Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers

https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ (https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/)

[TheGreatYacht]

Banksters Warn of Green Swan Collapse Unless They Get A Carbon Tax - #NewWorldNextWeek

https://youtu.be/V2h27ud3Oks

[TheGreatYacht]

"I was a climate alarmist. I believed the narrative" - Som Wardner Talks To Gareth Icke

https://youtu.be/pKmYBtGp_Lw

:wow

[spurraider21]

wow 2 non climate scientists talking about how its fake. thrilling stuff.

[boutons_deux]

TGY, Wardner, Icke G F Y

there ain't no fucking AGW pejorative "narrative", there's just AGW facts

[pgardn]

^ imagine getting triggered by tweets on a forum

Imagine using only tweets on a forum because you can’t make your own argument.

[TheGreatYacht]

wow 2 non climate scientists talking about how its fake. thrilling stuff.

Geoengineering my man. Watch the movie "Geostorm." The Zionist Jews in Hollywood didn't just come up with that movie out of their own creative imaginations.

[pgardn]

Geoengineering my man. Watch the movie "Geostorm." The Zionist Jews in Hollywood didn't just come up with that movie out of their own creative imaginations.

Oh good Lord...

[RandomGuy]

https://www.co2.earth/

CO2 PPM
May 2020
417.16


"Averaged as a whole, the global land and ocean surface temperature for March 2020 was 1.16°C (2.09°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F) and the second highest in the 141-year record. Only March 2016 was warmer at 1.31°C (2.36°F). The 10 warmest Marches have all occurred since 1990, with Marches of 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020 having a global land and ocean surface temperature departure from average above 1.0°C (1.8°F). The March 2020 global land and ocean surface temperature departure tied with February 2020 and December 2015 as the third highest monthly temperature departure from average in the 1,683-month record. Only February and March 2016, when a strong El Niño was present in the tropical Pacific Ocean, had higher temperature departures.

"March 2020 marked the 44th consecutive March and the 423rd consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, ENSO-neutral conditions were present across the tropical Pacific Ocean during March 2020. The March 2020 global land and ocean surface temperature departure from average tied with February 2020 as the highest monthly temperature departure without an El Niño present in the tropical Pacific Ocean. The three highest ENSO neutral temperature departures from average have all occurred in 2020. CPC states that ENSO-neutral is favored during the Northern Hemisphere spring (Southern Hemisphere fall). This forecast focuses on the ocean surface temperature between 5°N and 5°S latitude and 170°W to 120°W longitude, called the Niño 3.4 region.

CO2 in my birthyear, 1970: 310 or so.

[RandomGuy]

2020 likely to be the warmest year on record globally

While the public's attention is consumed by concern over the global pandemic and protests against social injustices, the chronic condition of climate change continues to escalate. In fact, it's becoming more and more likely that 2020 will be the hottest year globally since records have been kept, dating back to the late 1800s.

Reviews of temperatures for May 2020 have now been reported by four standard-bearer climate data organizations including NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth and the European agency Copernicus. The unanimous conclusion: Last month was the warmest May on record globally, with the caveat from NOAA that it was a virtual tie with May 2016.


Climate Denying pseudo-scientists have stopped claiming it isn't getting warmer.

But still can't offer any decent hypothesis that explains the increases.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warmest-year-on-record-2020-likely/

[RandomGuy]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Funny is that climate deniers main website... seems to have less and less to say about how the earth isn't warming, and CO2 isn't the driver as time goes on.

Wonder why that is?

As I said, waaaay back, the data will continue to pile up, which it has.

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2020/06/Figure-3-350x270.png

[Winehole23]

very compelling, if accurate


“The air quality scientific community has hypothesized this for at least a decade (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014007/pdf), but research advances have let us quantify and confirm this notion, over and over,” says Rebecca Saari, an air quality expert who teaches in civil and environmental engineering at the University of Waterloo. “The air quality ‘co-benefits’ are generally so valuable that they exceed the cost of climate action, often many times over.”


Over the next 50 years, keeping to the 2°C pathway would prevent roughly 4.5 million premature deaths, about 3.5 million hospitalizations and emergency room visits, and approximately 300 million lost workdays in the US.”



All that prevented death, illness, and lost productivity adds up to a lot of savings:


The avoided deaths are valued at more than $37 trillion. The avoided health care spending due to reduced hospitalizations and emergency room visits exceeds $37 billion, and the increased labor productivity is valued at more than $75 billion. On average, this amounts to over $700 billion per year in benefits to the US from improved health and labor alone, far more than the cost of the energy transition.



Importantly, many of the benefits can be accessed in the near term. Right now, air pollution leads to almost 250,000 premature deaths a year in the US. Within a decade, aggressive decarbonization could reduce that toll by 40 percent; over 20 years, it could save around 1.4 million American lives that would otherwise be lost to air quality.https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/8/12/21361498/climate-change-air-pollution-us-india-china-deaths

[RandomGuy]

very compelling, if accurate



https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/8/12/21361498/climate-change-air-pollution-us-india-china-deaths

Think about he toll being taken on the Chinese and Indian populations. Chinese cities... yikes.

[Winehole23]

China sets its carbon neutrality target for 2060. It would've been big news in the pre-COVIDening, in a non-election year.

https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/national/chinas-carbon-target-moves-big-economies-into-radical-climate-consensus/article_cbb57eb4-a3ee-589c-87bf-9dbe4f95b414.html

[Winehole23]

(Chinese leadership, US intransigeance.)

[FrostKing]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Funny is that climate deniers main website... seems to have less and less to say about how the earth isn't warming, and CO2 isn't the driver as time goes on.

Wonder why that is?

As I said, waaaay back, the data will continue to pile up, which it has.

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2020/06/Figure-3-350x270.png
We agree climate change exists. We just aren't going to blindly follow your supposed solutions which sometimes are political and ideological.

[DMC]

We agree climate change exists. We just aren't going to blindly follow your supposed solutions which sometimes are political and ideological.

Entire world affects climate

US can fix it

Signed - US

[pgardn]

Entire world affects climate

US wont agree that man made climate change exists.

Signed - US

[DarrinS]

China sets its carbon neutrality target for 2060. It would've been big news in the pre-COVIDening, in a non-election year.

https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/national/chinas-carbon-target-moves-big-economies-into-radical-climate-consensus/article_cbb57eb4-a3ee-589c-87bf-9dbe4f95b414.html


We only have 12 years left tho. :cry

[Winehole23]

We only have 12 years left tho. :cryThe solution to decades of casual cynicism and and blithe dismissal is more of the same, how imaginative.

TINA :cry

[RandomGuy]

We agree climate change exists. We just aren't going to blindly follow your supposed solutions which sometimes are political and ideological.

Not asking anyone to blindly follow anything.

You are just going to allow yourselves to be manipulated into doing nothing, because that is what benefits the donor class of the right wing.

Lowering CO2 emissions will end up creating jobs, and preventing some very very bad outcomes.

Probably a bit late to avoid a lot of damage, but we still need to try.

People like Darrin saying we shouldnt' do anything are like the idiots who shelter in their beach houses in a hurricane because "never hit us before"

[Winehole23]

interesting article about how the rising sea level affects groundwater in Hawaii and fucks other things up.


Rising groundwater has the potential to debilitate many low-elevation coastal cities worldwide, particularly those constructed on loose material such as sand, gravel, or silt. In the United States alone, 3.7 million people inhabit land at risk of overland flooding linked to sea level rise, and even more will experience inundation once groundwater is taken into account. Even places slightly inland that most people think are immune to inundation could be affected. Buried contaminants may surface. Underground infrastructure—water and sewer pipes, as well as power, gas, and telecommunications lines—that was embedded in soil above the water table (the surface of the groundwater) will become soaked, and cast-iron pipes like the one along Nimitz Highway will corrode. Significant tracts of Honolulu face these risks, yet climate change and adaptation plans laid out by municipal and state governments only hint at addressing them.


Some of the first research linking sea level rise and the coastal water table came out of Honolulu. In 2011, then–graduate student Kolja Rotzoll was monitoring the water depths of wells for his dissertation at the University of Hawai‘i (UH) at Mānoa when he shared with university geologist Chip Fletcher that well-water depth fluctuated with daily tides and large offshore waves. Rotzoll’s data showed this connection in wells as far as five kilometers from the shore in areas that were flat. It struck Fletcher that mounting seas would similarly force the water table to rise. The two quickly published their deductions, which were subsequently harnessed by scientists around the country and world. Further studies indicated that metropolises from northern Europe to Southeast Asia, and in the United States along the eastern seaboard (New York; Washington, DC; Norfolk, Virginia; Miami, Florida) and the San Francisco Bay Area in California, could all be subject to the threats of rising groundwater.
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/features/the-rising-tide-underfoot/

[Winehole23]

Entire world affects climate

US can fix it

Signed - USYou ain't nothing but strawman and bullshit.

[BSfromTX]

Climate change is real. The cause is debatable. Regardless, we should all try to be good stewards

[Winehole23]

Climate change is real. The cause is debatable. Regardless, we should all try to be good stewardsRegardless, you should just keep polishing your both sides cred.

Hats off to you for having the courage to have no specific take while emitting faintly moral exhortation. :tu

[boutons_deux]

The cause is debatable.

fucking bullshit, you gullible fool

[BSfromTX]

fucking bullshit, you gullible fool


So you have all the answers? Please tell us in your own words what specifically has changed over the last 150 years that is abnormal relative to the changes the planet has seen over 4 billion years...then explain and quantify how human impact is responsible for that change. Don't give me any links either. Tell me in your own words what you know to be true and understand.

Maybe, just maybe, the cause could be multiple factors in addition to human impact that have contributed to changes in our climate? And if so, how much?


I will admit, I do not know the answers which is why I consider it debatable, but I guess you have all the answers since I am a gullible fool and you are not.

I do not deny humans have had a negative impact on our climate and resources. I am suggesting that there are multiple factors and their levels of contribution in a Spurs political forum, yes, is debatable.

[Winehole23]

So you have all the answers? Please tell us in your own words what specifically has changed over the last 150 years that is abnormal relative to the changes the planet has seen over 4 billion years...then explain and quantify how human impact is responsible for that change. Don't give me any links either. Tell me in your own words what you know to be true and understand.

Maybe, just maybe, the cause could be multiple factors in addition to human impact that have contributed to changes in our climate? And if so, how much?


I will admit, I do not know the answers which is why I consider it debatable, but I guess you have all the answers since I am a gullible fool and you are not.

I do not deny humans have had a negative impact on our climate and resources. I am suggesting that there are multiple factors and their levels of contribution in a Spurs political forum, yes, is debatable.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/c553e6e344604fa75469e85fed6f3f38/tenor.gif?itemid=17507134

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you have all the answers? Please tell us in your own words what specifically has changed over the last 150 years that is abnormal relative to the changes the planet has seen over 4 billion years...then explain and quantify how human impact is responsible for that change. Don't give me any links either. Tell me in your own words what you know to be true and understand.

Maybe, just maybe, the cause could be multiple factors in addition to human impact that have contributed to changes in our climate? And if so, how much?


I will admit, I do not know the answers which is why I consider it debatable, but I guess you have all the answers since I am a gullible fool and you are not.

I do not deny humans have had a negative impact on our climate and resources. I am suggesting that there are multiple factors and their levels of contribution in a Spurs political forum, yes, is debatable.

Darrin or WC.

Same arguments. Different name.

[DMC]

Darrin or WC.

Same arguments. Different name.

Another Fuzzy assessment from the liberal version of Wild Cobra.

[DMC]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/c553e6e344604fa75469e85fed6f3f38/tenor.gif?itemid=17507134

Nice of you to offer a hand.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Another Fuzzy assessment from the liberal version of Wild Cobra.

Is this the part where I whine about not talking to you and mind your own business?

Maybe you can get KW to like your post here or something but most people just don't give a shit about your weak ass attempts at insulting. if you're going to make vague attempts at a dig like that you at least need to come up with some sort of explanation. For example there is evidence of you being fat, fatties.

Both Darren and wc have been making these lukewarm agreements with climate science lately but then advocating for no action. The only thing missing is titling those that want action as alarmist. It is what it is

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuCibSeXcAkla4j?format=jpg&name=medium

[RandomGuy]

Is this the part where I whine about not talking to you and mind your own business?

Maybe you can get KW to like your post here or something but most people just don't give a shit about your weak ass attempts at insulting. if you're going to make vague attempts at a dig like that you at least need to come up with some sort of explanation. For example there is evidence of you being fat, fatties.

Both Darren and wc have been making these lukewarm agreements with climate science lately but then advocating for no action. The only thing missing is titling those that want action as alarmist. It is what it is

Until we collectively have to pay the price for their inaction and fucktarded conspiracy theories being translated into policy.

[Winehole23]

"externalities"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-fuels-pollution-deaths-research

[RandomGuy]

Another Fuzzy assessment from the liberal version of Wild Cobra.


Scientists have established links between pervasive air pollution from burning fossil fuels and cases of heart disease, respiratory ailments and even the loss of eyesight. Without fossil fuel emissions, the average life expectancy of the world’s population would increase by more than a year, while global economic and health costs would fall by about $2.9tn.

[RandomGuy]

We agree climate change exists. We just aren't going to blindly follow your supposed solutions which sometimes are political and ideological.

Climate change exists, and we are the primary driver. That is what the science says.

The solution is to simply burn less fossil fuels, and stop deforestation.

It isn't hard, nor really driven by any ideology other than self-preservation.

How hard do you think a trillion dollar industry would work to discredit valid, good science that showed its product was harmful?

[DMC]

Climate change exists, and we are the primary driver. That is what the science says.

The solution is to simply burn less fossil fuels, and stop deforestation.

It isn't hard, nor really driven by any ideology other than self-preservation.

How hard do you think a trillion dollar industry would work to discredit valid, good science that showed its product was harmful?
You first

[RandomGuy]

You first

Pretty damn hard. They would fund all sorts of shills, front groups, white papers, and push narratives through proxies, and paid-for politicians.

Your turn.

How hard do you think a trillion dollar industry would work to discredit valid, good science that showed its product was harmful?

[DMC]

Pretty damn hard. They would fund all sorts of shills, front groups, white papers, and push narratives through proxies, and paid-for politicians.

Your turn.

How hard do you think a trillion dollar industry would work to discredit valid, good science that showed its product was harmful?

I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. I was saying "you use less fossil fuels" first. Also, stop using paper and wood products.

[RandomGuy]

I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. I was saying "you use less fossil fuels" first. Also, stop using paper and wood products.

ah. gotcha.

You dodged the question entirely for a lazy jab, instead of looking for any kind of discussion.

I gave you too much credit.

my bad. I should have known better.

[DMC]

ah. gotcha.

You dodged the question entirely for a lazy jab, instead of looking for any kind of discussion.

I gave you too much credit.

my bad. I should have known better.

Not a lazy jab. If you want change, change. Talk about what you're going to do differently and stop pretending you're a remote viewer.

[RandomGuy]

Not a lazy jab. If you want change, change. Talk about what you're going to do differently and stop pretending you're a remote viewer.

"my two word post was NOT lazy". :lol

More laziness, mixed in with flawed thinking.



What is Tu Quoque (Logical Fallacy) in Rhetoric?
An ad hominem argument in which the accused becomes the accuser

"The tu quoque fallacy occurs when one charges another with hypocrisy or inconsistency in order to avoid taking the other's position seriously.


Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid motherfucker.

[DMC]

"my two word post was NOT lazy". :lol

More laziness, mixed in with flawed thinking.




Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid motherfucker.

If we were having a formal debate then sure, you could accuse me of using that logical fallacy but in this thread, you suggested the world change something and yet you have likely not done so yourself.

So what position do you hold that I should take seriously? That others should change but not you?

[RandomGuy]

[repeats flawed argument based on flawed reasoning as if re-stating it a second time makes it more valid than the first.]

:lol

You do you, boo. Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid motherfucker.

[DMC]

:lol

You do you, boo. Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid motherfucker.

That's real grown of you.

[RandomGuy]

That's real grown of you.

<Randomguy shrugs>

It is actually more grown than repeatedly using failed reasoning, even when that failure has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions. That is down right childish.

C'est va?

[RandomGuy]

What is funny to me though, is that the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bullshit, and failed reasoning on the part of people who want to take the policy position that we should not do anything about climate change because it either isn't real or would have some unbearable burden on the economy.

Neither of those things is, in fact, true.

The only way you can support those beliefs is with failures of reasoning.

Every time your childish ass refuses to evaluate your own thinking, you prove my point.

Suck it.

[DMC]

<Randomguy shrugs>

It is actually more grown than repeatedly using failed reasoning, even when that failure has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions. That is down right childish.

C'est va?

Your dipole moment passed years ago

[DMC]

What is funny to me though, is that the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bullshit, and failed reasoning on the part of people who want to take the policy position that we should not do anything about climate change because it either isn't real or would have some unbearable burden on the economy.

Neither of those things is, in fact, true.

The only way you can support those beliefs is with failures of reasoning.

Every time your childish ass refuses to evaluate your own thinking, you prove my point.

Suck it.

Dem leaders/GOP leaders... all believe in invisible sky daddy.

Talk more about pseudoscientific bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

We only have 12 years left tho. :cry

Creeping toward Permanent Drought
Both trees and climate models are telling us the same frightening story

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/creeping-toward-permanent-drought

You.
Fucking.
science-denying.
moron.

Told you a decade ago that the data would accumulate each year, and it has.

The CO2 we have emitted in massive quanities has started having profound effects, and there is some concern that those effects will be self-sustaining.

[RandomGuy]

Dem leaders/GOP leaders... all believe in invisible sky daddy.

Talk more about pseudoscientific bullshit.

Going from an tu cocque to a false equivalence.

Do they both let their sky-daddy beliefs guide their policy equally?

[DMC]

Going from an tu cocque to a false equivalence.

Do they both let their sky-daddy beliefs guide their policy equally?

:lol "cocque"

You uneducated motherfucker.

[Winehole23]

whatever the causes, it's happening


The amount of heat Earth traps has roughly doubled since 2005, contributing to more rapidly warming oceans, air and land, according to new research from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


“The magnitude of the increase is unprecedented,” said No Letters. “The Earth is warming faster than expected.”rman Loeb, a NASA scientist and lead author of the study, which was published this week in the journal Geophysical Research
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-earth-is-now-trapping-an-unprecedented-amount-of-heat-nasa-says/

[RandomGuy]

:lol "cocque"

You uneducated motherfucker.

can't actually address any actual point.

:lol Limp-dick spelling smack.

[Winehole23]

The premise is simple, there's not enough terrestrial stuff for economies and population to expand constantly without wrecking the environment or using up the materials necessary to sustain economic growth..

The solution proposed, global synchronous flatlined resource use AND global synchronous declines in pollution, won't happen for the obvious reasons.

(fucked, unfuckable, etc..)

1406934985785872386

[Winehole23]

Dubai-like temperatures in Oregon and Washington next week?

Weather modeling is more art than science, hope it doesn't happen.


1407068340661653505

[DMC]

can't actually address any actual point.

:lol Limp-dick spelling smack.

Stick to simple words. When you try to wax philosophical you come across like a dumb ass.

[RandomGuy]

can't actually address any actual point.

Limp-dick spelling smack.


[more smack that doesn't actually address any substantive point]

smh

[DMC]

You haven't made a substantive point.

[DMC]

Dubai-like temperatures in Oregon and Washington next week?

Weather modeling is more art than science, hope it doesn't happen.


1407068340661653505

I wouldn't worry, AOC will raise money for them.

[RandomGuy]

You haven't made a substantive point.

Climate change denial is pseudoscientific bullshit.

Easy.

[spurraider21]

You haven't made a substantive point.
his point was that people in government use pseudoscience to justify inaction re: climate change and your rebuttal was "well the other side believes in god too"

[RandomGuy]

his point was that people in government use pseudoscience to justify inaction re: climate change and your rebuttal was "well the other side believes in god too"

Sums it up well.

I would add that the pseudoscience is very often a think vaneer that covers for covers for essentially campaign-cash bribes by the fossil fuel industry. A deep-pocket, multi-trillion dollar industry that will fight tooth and nail agaist the notion that its product is harmful.

Further:
We should act immediately, and decisively to deal with the problem. Doing so would not only prevent a lot of human problems, but would also be arguably better for the economy.

and

The doom and gloom claims on pseudoscience side about the impact to the economy are not supported by evidence.

[spurraider21]

Sums it up well.

I would add that the pseudoscience is very often a think vaneer that covers for covers for essentially campaign-cash bribes by the fossil fuel industry. A deep-pocket, multi-trillion dollar industry that will fight tooth and nail agaist the notion that its product is harmful.

Further:
We should act immediately, and decisively to deal with the problem. Doing so would not only prevent a lot of human problems, but would also be arguably better for the economy.

and

The doom and gloom claims on pseudoscience side about the impact to the economy are not supported by evidence.
Merchants of Doubt

[DMC]

his point was that people in government use pseudoscience to justify inaction re: climate change and your rebuttal was "well the other side believes in god too"

Where did I indicate I didn't understand what he was saying?

If you profess a belief in the same god and profess to follow the teachings of the same god, you're in the same "believes bullshit and uses it to justify actions" category as others in that group. As long as people believe in fairies, there's no reason to pretend they'll ever use pure science to make decisions. Besides, we cannot know everything, right? Ergo god. The leaps on climate change are much narrower gaps than the one they've already overcome.

[spurraider21]

Where did I indicate I didn't understand what he was saying?
when you gave that complete non sequitur response


If you profess a belief in the same god and profess to follow the teachings of the same god, you're in the same "believes bullshit and uses it to justify actions" category as others in that group. As long as people believe in fairies, there's no reason to pretend they'll ever use pure science to make decisions. Besides, we cannot know everything, right? Ergo god. The leaps on climate change are much narrower gaps than the one they've already overcome.
what policy positions are held the “the left” which they justify with religion

[DMC]

when you gave that complete non sequitur response


what policy positions are held the “the left” which they justify with religion

Are you saying people who openly profess to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ do not allow those teachings to affect how they make decisions?

[spurraider21]

Are you saying people who openly profess to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ do not allow those teachings to affect how they make decisions?
i asked you what policy positions are held by "the left" which they justify with religion

[DMC]

i asked you what policy positions are held by "the left" which they justify with religion

“I think it’s unfortunate [the Democratic Party] has lost touch with a religious tradition that I think can help explain and relate our values. At least in my interpretation, it helps to root a lot of what it is we do believe in, when it comes to protecting the sick and the stranger and the poor, as well as skepticism of the wealthy and the powerful and the established.” -Mayor Pete

Do you want a party platform bullet point or will individual quotes from prominent democrats suffice? People vote based on their conscience.

[koriwhat]

i asked you what policy positions are held by "the left" which they justify with religion

You act like the left is secular when in fact it's a cult with its own religion of which "climate change" is one chapter in their bible of falsehoods.

We should all be dead by now from what Al Gore told us.

[spurraider21]

“I think it’s unfortunate [the Democratic Party] has lost touch with a religious tradition that I think can help explain and relate our values. At least in my interpretation, it helps to root a lot of what it is we do believe in, when it comes to protecting the sick and the stranger and the poor, as well as skepticism of the wealthy and the powerful and the established.” -Mayor Pete

Do you want a party platform bullet point or will individual quotes from prominent democrats suffice? People vote based on their conscience.
all im asking is for you to name one or a few policy positions held by "the left" which they justify with religion

based on your quote from buttigieg are you claiming that "the left" holds the positions of "protecting the sick and stranger and the poor, as well as skepticism of the wealthy and the powerful and the established" and justifies those positions with religion?

[spurraider21]

You act like the left is secular when in fact it's a cult with its own religion of which "climate change" is one chapter in their bible of falsehoods.
how is it a religion?

do you think religion just means "something that people believe" ?


We should all be dead by now from what Al Gore told us.
al gore isn't a scientist

[DMC]

all im asking is for you to name one or a few policy positions held by "the left" which they justify with religion

based on your quote from buttigieg are you claiming that "the left" holds the positions of "protecting the sick and stranger and the poor, as well as skepticism of the wealthy and the powerful and the established" and justifies those positions with religion?
When they claim to hold faith in a god and then go on to espouse morals that align with their interpretation of their religious belief, then sure. They don't need to say "because of my religion" when they have offered up a preface

“Every great religion in the world, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, others, essentially comes down to Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. And what I have believed my whole life – I believed it when I was a 22 year old getting arrested in Chicago protesting segregation – that at some level we are all in this together. When you hurt, I hurt. And when my kids hurt, you hurt. And it is very easy to turn out backs on kids who are hungry and veterans who are sleeping out in the street and we can develop a psychology that says ‘I don’t have to worry about them, all I got to worry about is how I can make another five billion dollars. But I believe that everybody in this room impacts everybody else in all kinds of ways that we can’t even understand, its beyond intellect. It’s a spiritual, emotional thing. When we do the right thing, when we treat one another with respect and dignity, I think we are more human. That’s my religion, that’s what I believe in.” Bernie Sanders

[DMC]

“That passage is not about you had a good thought and held on to it. You sat back and were just a part of — you know, thought about good things. It does not say, you just didn’t hurt anybody, and that’s good enough. No. It says, you saw something wrong. You saw somebody who was thirsty. You saw somebody who was in prison. You saw their face. You saw somebody who was hungry, and it moved you to act. I believe we are called on to act.” - Sen Elizabeth Warren

Individually they profess that they act on their religious beliefs yet you somehow think they collectively don't.

[spurraider21]

When they claim to hold faith in a god and then go on to espouse morals that align with their interpretation of their religious belief, then sure. They don't need to say "because of my religion" when they have offered up a preface

“Every great religion in the world, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, others, essentially comes down to Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. And what I have believed my whole life – I believed it when I was a 22 year old getting arrested in Chicago protesting segregation – that at some level we are all in this together. When you hurt, I hurt. And when my kids hurt, you hurt. And it is very easy to turn out backs on kids who are hungry and veterans who are sleeping out in the street and we can develop a psychology that says ‘I don’t have to worry about them, all I got to worry about is how I can make another five billion dollars. But I believe that everybody in this room impacts everybody else in all kinds of ways that we can’t even understand, its beyond intellect. It’s a spiritual, emotional thing. When we do the right thing, when we treat one another with respect and dignity, I think we are more human. That’s my religion, that’s what I believe in.” Bernie Sanders


“That passage is not about you had a good thought and held on to it. You sat back and were just a part of — you know, thought about good things. It does not say, you just didn’t hurt anybody, and that’s good enough. No. It says, you saw something wrong. You saw somebody who was thirsty. You saw somebody who was in prison. You saw their face. You saw somebody who was hungry, and it moved you to act. I believe we are called on to act.” - Sen Elizabeth Warren

Individually they profess that they act on their religious beliefs yet you somehow think they collectively don't.
so "the left" justifies desegregation and caring for the sick and poor with religion. thats your critique and counter to RG's point that the right uses pseudoscience to justify inaction on climate change?

[koriwhat]

so "the left" justifies desegregation and caring for the sick and poor with religion. thats your critique?

Actually I don't know what era you're living in but the left is clearly for segregation these days. :lol

[spurraider21]

Actually I don't know what era you're living in but the left is clearly for segregation these days. :lol
im just taking DMC's "argument" at face value tbh

[koriwhat]

im just taking DMC's "argument" at face value tbh

I mean yall did put a segregationist in the WH who's also a decomposing corpse with a crackhead pedo son. :tu

[spurraider21]

I mean yall did put a segregationist in the WH who's also a decomposing corpse with a crackhead pedo son. :tu
good thing he didnt give his son any actual position within government

[DMC]

so "the left" justifies desegregation and caring for the sick and poor with religion. thats your critique and counter to RG's point that the right uses pseudoscience to justify inaction on climate change?

You just moved the goalpost.

Do you admit that the left also uses their religious beliefs to make policy? Let's not jump to "ya but" just yet. Do you admit that or not?

[koriwhat]

good thing he didnt give his son any actual position within government

Sure he did... He's a consultant of sorts like a middle man between the big guy and Chyna! Also Ukraine and Russia!

You think one dimensional bro.

[spurraider21]

You just moved the goalpost.

Do you admit that the left also uses their religious beliefs to make policy? Let's not jump to "ya but" just yet. Do you admit that or not?
ive been the one asking you to name some policies that they justify with religion :lol

so far are you have are vague quotes about caring for the poor and whatnot

[DMC]

ive been the one asking you to name some policies that they justify with religion :lol

so far are you have are vague quotes about caring for the poor and whatnot

I just showed you several quotes from prominent democrats that illustrate they follow their religious beliefs when making policy decisions. These quotes weren't made in church.

"and whatnot".

No.. I showed you statements of religious belief and adherence to those beliefs. Being "called on to act" means what to you, that Warren has aspirations in Hollywood?

[DMC]

“Universal Basic Income is a beginning for followers of Christ, and all who believe in putting Humanity First, to begin to love our neighbors as ourselves and begin caring for and helping others the way we have been commanded.”- Andrew Yang

[koriwhat]

I just showed you several quotes from prominent democrats that illustrate they follow their religious beliefs when making policy decisions. These quotes weren't made in church.

"and whatnot".

No.. I showed you statements of religious belief and adherence to those beliefs. Being "called on to act" means what to you, that Warren has aspirations in Hollywood?

You should've wrote down your stance on a yellow legal pad so SR's paralegal could do the leg work tbh.

[ElNono]

“Universal Basic Income is a beginning for followers of Christ, and all who believe in putting Humanity First, to begin to love our neighbors as ourselves and begin caring for and helping others the way we have been commanded.”- Andrew Yang

That says more about religion than Andrew Yang, IMO.

[DMC]

That says more about religion than Andrew Yang, IMO.

He's the one who said it.

[DMC]

“We put on the full armor of God so that we can stand our ground when we take on the rulers, the authorities, and the powers of this dark world.” -K Gillibrand

[spurraider21]

I just showed you several quotes from prominent democrats that illustrate they follow their religious beliefs when making policy decisions. These quotes weren't made in church.

"and whatnot".

No.. I showed you statements of religious belief and adherence to those beliefs. Being "called on to act" means what to you, that Warren has aspirations in Hollywood?
again, i'm asking "what policy"

what policy does "the left" support that they justify with religion

this conversation started when RG pointed out a specific policy position held by conservatives (inaction on climate change) that they justify with pseudoscience. your responses was "but the left believes in god too!" i think you made a false equivalence (on top of a whataboutism). if you can point out some policy positions that are based on their pseudoscience (here, belief in god), then we can have that conversation. just showing that they believe in god is not making the point you think it does, any more than saying einstein's theory of relativity was justified by religion because he was religious

[DMC]

again, i'm asking "what policy"

what policy does "the left" support that they justify with religion

It's a misleading question. Do you admit the left espouses religious beliefs? If you do, then you're either saying they ignore their own beliefs when making policy or they are lying. The fact they mention their beliefs when talking about policy is evidence enough they rely on their moral upbringing through religion to form their worldviews. They believe in an afterlife, in a god. They cite Bible verses and interpret them in ways that support their decisions. You can dismiss that because they don't say "This policy is because of our religion" all you like, but the evidence is quite clear that people who believe in fairies and wizards and demons and shit are just as non-science as anyone else who believes the same shit. They just go to different churches.

Interesting how you've somehow allowed yourself to believe there's such a dichotomy between god believers based solely on climate change discussion.

[DMC]

What is funny to me though, is that the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bullshit, and failed reasoning on the part of people who want to take the policy position that we should not do anything about climate change because it either isn't real or would have some unbearable burden on the economy.

Neither of those things is, in fact, true.

The only way you can support those beliefs is with failures of reasoning.

Every time your childish ass refuses to evaluate your own thinking, you prove my point.

Suck it.


Dem leaders/GOP leaders... all believe in invisible sky daddy.

Talk more about pseudoscientific bullshit.


again, i'm asking "what policy"

what policy does "the left" support that they justify with religion

this conversation started when RG pointed out a specific policy position held by conservatives (inaction on climate change) that they justify with pseudoscience. your responses was "but the left believes in god too!" i think you made a false equivalence (on top of a whataboutism). if you can point out some policy positions that are based on their pseudoscience (here, belief in god), then we can have that conversation. just showing that they believe in god is not making the point you think it does, any more than saying einstein's theory of relativity was justified by religion because he was religious

Since you're going to edit...


Typical tactic of the left/center-left here...

Left wing Poster A makes sloppy, broad brush comment, gets called out.
Left wing Poster A makes a sloppy retort in defense
Left wing Poster B shows up and makes a different defense, gets called out for the original claim
Left wing Poster B denies ever making the original claim, even though poster B is defending it
Left wing Poster C shows up, defends original claim, defends poster B
Left wing Poster C gets called out, denies caring about the original claim, denies supporting Poster B, still wants a back and forth about the original claim.
Left wing Poster D shows up, posts a strawman meme about the attack on the original claim
The responses pretty much cease because of the web of shit that's developed,
Left wing Poster E calls fold

rinse and repeat

Highlighted is where are are in this evolution

RG didn't say they justify it with religion.

[spurraider21]

It's a misleading question. Do you admit the left espouses religious beliefs? If you do, then you're either saying they ignore their own beliefs when making policy or they are lying. The fact they mention their beliefs when talking about policy is evidence enough they rely on their moral upbringing through religion to form their worldviews. They believe in an afterlife, in a god. They cite Bible verses and interpret them in ways that support their decisions. You can dismiss that because they don't say "This policy is because of our religion" all you like, but the evidence is quite clear that people who believe in fairies and wizards and demons and shit are just as non-science as anyone else who believes the same shit. They just go to different churches.

Interesting how you've somehow allowed yourself to believe there's such a dichotomy between god believers based solely on climate change discussion.
its possible they hold personal beliefs but dont base their policy positions on it. secularism doesnt call for atheism

[spurraider21]

What is funny to me though, is that the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bullshit, and failed reasoning on the part of people who want to take the policy position that we should not do anything about climate change because it either isn't real or would have some unbearable burden on the economy.

Neither of those things is, in fact, true.

The only way you can support those beliefs is with failures of reasoning.

Every time your childish ass refuses to evaluate your own thinking, you prove my point.

Suck it. DMC (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=20665) its right there. his concern was people in positions of power dictating policy which they justify with dumb beliefs. the fact that other people might also hold dumb beliefs isn't relevant unless you can demonstrate that they justify their positions with those beliefs


typical tactic of DMC

1 - tries to pick a fight
2 - gets shit on
3 - rinse, repeat

[DMC]

its possible they hold personal beliefs but dont base their policy positions on it. secularism doesnt call for atheism

Your preference seems to be what you just said is possible. There are a lot of possibilities. You're not under oath, no need to pretend to be.

[DMC]

DMC (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=20665) its right there. his concern was people in positions of power dictating policy which they justify with dumb beliefs. the fact that other people might also hold dumb beliefs isn't relevant unless you can demonstrate that they justify their positions with those beliefs

Dumb beliefs aren't restricted to religious beliefs. People who can believe the deontological explanation for reality really shouldn't throw epistemological stones. The notion that people act outside of their core beliefs requires some evidence, not just lip service.

[spurraider21]

Your preference seems to be what you just said is possible. There are a lot of possibilities. You're not under oath, no need to pretend to be.
of course my preference is secularism. its part of why i lean left. what's your point?

[DMC]

of course my preference is secularism. its part of why i lean left. what's your point?

Don't be obtuse. You only showed the possibility that agrees with the direction you want this to go, a confirmation bias based possibility.

[spurraider21]

Dumb beliefs aren't restricted to religious beliefs. People who can believe the deontological explanation for reality really shouldn't throw epistemological stones. The notion that people act outside of their core beliefs requires some evidence, not just lip service.
or you can just look at what their policy positions are and see if they are specifically justified by their stated religious beliefs. ive given you every opportunity to make that demonstration for the left. you've punted every time. meanwhile, we can do that with the right for a number of issues.

[spurraider21]

Don't be obtuse. You only showed the possibility that agrees with the direction you want this to go, a confirmation bias based possibility.
ive given you every opportunity to make your case. the problem is you didnt really think this out before you just wanted to blurt out something about the left being bad

[DMC]

or you can just look at what their policy positions are and see if they are specifically justified by their stated religious beliefs. ive given you every opportunity to make that demonstration for the left. you've punted every time. meanwhile, we can do that with the right for a number of issues.

That would certainly relieve you of the burden that comes from knowing they confessed their beliefs, their armor of god, their call to action from God.

You moved the goalpost. I have no reason to consider leftwing poster B's misdirection anything but what it is, and you've skipped a few posters in your declaration of "fold".

[koriwhat]

That would certainly relieve you of the burden that comes from knowing they confessed their beliefs, their armor of god, their call to action from God.

You moved the goalpost. I have no reason to consider leftwing poster B's misdirection anything but what it is, and you've skipped a few posters in your declaration of "fold".

He can't do this without his paralegal's yellow legal pad with all her answers on it. This will have to wait until he's back in the office tomorrow.

[spurraider21]

That would certainly relieve you of the burden that comes from knowing they confessed their beliefs, their armor of god, their call to action from God.

You moved the goalpost. I have no reason to consider leftwing poster B's misdirection anything but what it is, and you've skipped a few posters in your declaration of "fold".
nah, you can keep whining about the goalposts but its been the same for a few days now

his point was that people in government use pseudoscience to justify inaction re: climate change and your rebuttal was "well the other side believes in god too"

[DMC]

nah, you can keep whining about the goalposts but its been the same for a few days now

My point to your client was that religious people use mysticism to justify a lot of things. Pseudoscience is a step up.

[ElNono]

He's the one who said it.

Not disagreeing with that, just pointing out you can fit pretty much whatever you want under the mantra of 'this is what God would've wanted'.


“We put on the full armor of God so that we can stand our ground when we take on the rulers, the authorities, and the powers of this dark world.” -K Gillibrand

Case in point.

[DMC]

Is Religion Pseudoscience?
A review of the Special Divine Action Conference in Oxford
Posted July 31, 2014

A pseudoscience is a set of beliefs or practices that pretends at being science—that puts forth evidence and arguments which it says are scientifically sound, but in fact are not. Pseudoscientists argue in support of new fundamental forces (e.g., Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance) and even entities (e.g., ancient aliens). The TV show Ghost Hunters is a prime example; they even have instruments—like voice recorders, EM meters, laser thermometers (and deluxe carrying cases)—which seem scientific, but of course do nothing to detect ghosts. But all pseudosciences have one thing in common: The arguments and reasoning they put forth violate basic rules of scientific reasoning....

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/201407/is-religion-pseudoscience

[spurraider21]

My point to your client was that religious people use mysticism to justify a lot of things. Pseudoscience is a step up.
RG's point was that conservatives use pseudoscience the justify policy, specifically. you tried to play the "both sides" game but have yet to demonstrate how "the left" uses religion (or any pseudoscience) to justify any particular policy(ies)

[DMC]

Not disagreeing with that, just pointing out you can fit pretty much whatever you want under the mantra of 'this is what God would've wanted'.



Case in point.

Of course, but the discussion is about pseudoscience and I contend that religion is rife with it. Since religion isn't exclusive to one political party, then there are prominent folks on both sides of the isle who have the stench of pseudoscience on their breaths.

[DMC]

RG's point was that conservatives use pseudoscience the justify policy, specifically. you tried to play the "both sides" game but have yet to demonstrate how "the left" uses religion (or any pseudoscience) to justify any particular policy(ies)

So espousing belief in demons, angels and deities, magical afterlife destinations and edicts from the prime mover, that's all just what exactly?

"Yeah I believe in Santa too but I don't leave milk and cookies out!"

[ElNono]

Of course, but the discussion is about pseudoscience and I contend that religion is rife with it. Since religion isn't exclusive to one political party, then there are prominent folks on both sides of the isle who have the stench of pseudoscience on their breaths.

Sorry, was just commenting on that individual quote, I'm not following the rest of the argument here.

Please proceed.

[DMC]

Sorry, was just commenting on that individual quote, I'm not following the rest of the argument here.

Please proceed.

Thanks left poster C.. :lol

[ElNono]

Thanks left poster C.. :lol

I mean, I dunno what's going on but I can catch up and opine if you think it's worthwhile.

[DMC]

I mean, I dunno what's going on but I can catch up and opine if you think it's worthwhile.

No I'm taking the piss.

[ElNono]

I see the argument now...

Here are a good examples of the left using pseudoscience:

- Anti-vaccine. This movement was now co-opted by the conspiratards, but originally was pushed by the likes of Jenny McCarthy and some of the left-leaning Hollywood types.

- Anti-GMO. 100% pseudoscience. Had a political impact.

- Astrology and 'self-healing'... more pseudoscience.

[DMC]

I see the argument now...

Here are a good examples of the left using pseudoscience:

- Anti-vaccine. This movement was now co-opted by the conspiratards, but originally was pushed by the likes of Jenny McCarthy and some of the left-leaning Hollywood types.

- Anti-GMO. 100% pseudoscience. Had a political impact.

- Astrology and 'self-healing'... more pseudoscience.
there's an almost endless list of shitty practices that qualify as a pseudoscience, ionic bracelets, magnet therapy, chiropractors.. all that shit. But I am talking specifically about a core fundamental belief system that drives morality based decisions. Probably half or more of those who claim the pseudoscience angle against global warming have a dog in the hunt and are financially bent.

[ElNono]

there's an almost endless list of shitty practices that qualify as a pseudoscience, ionic bracelets, magnet therapy, chiropractors.. all that shit. But I am talking specifically about a core fundamental belief system that drives morality based decisions. Probably half or more of those who claim the pseudoscience angle against global warming have a dog in the hunt and are financially bent.

I dunno about that. The simplest argument you can make about climate change is that, all things being equal, policies that try to help subside climate change are more desirable over those that make climate change worse. And this isn't a moral proposition, it's just a logical one.

The core counter-argument I hear against fighting climate change is also not moral, but strictly economic. It's the jobs and the fossil fuel industry, etc.

[spurraider21]

So espousing belief in demons, angels and deities, magical afterlife destinations and edicts from the prime mover, that's all just what exactly?

"Yeah I believe in Santa too but I don't leave milk and cookies out!"
do you know what secularism is?

[DMC]

do you know what secularism is?

Of course. Wasn't it some slave owner who started that shit?

[spurraider21]

Of course. Wasn't it some slave owner who started that shit?
more non sequitur

[DMC]

more non sequitur

Stop acting like a twat and you might get a decent response. I knew what secularism was before you were born, or did you think it came along with the MP3?

[spurraider21]

Stop acting like a twat and you might get a decent response. I knew what secularism was before you were born, or did you think it came along with the MP3?
then why do you act otherwise? you play dumb then get mad when you are treated as though you are dumb

on its own, the claim that "but the left believes in god" is a meaningless retort to RG's position, because it wouldn't matter if they acted in a secular manner (which "the left" tends to do, which as i said, is among the reasons i lean that way). for your whataboutism to even be valid, you'd have to demonstrate that they justify some policy positions (ideally to your argument, stupid policies) on those belief systems.

[DMC]

then why do you act otherwise? you play dumb then get mad when you are treated as though you are dumb

on its own, the claim that "but the left believes in god" is a meaningless retort to RG's position, because it wouldn't matter if they acted in a secular manner (which "the left" tends to do, which as i said, is among the reasons i lean that way). for your whataboutism to even be valid, you'd have to demonstrate that they justify some policy positions (ideally to your argument, stupid policies) on those belief systems.

I didn't use that claim.

RG didn't mention religious reasons for climate change denial. He mentioned pseudoscience. Religious folk embrace pseudoscience. In fact, the left notoriously embraces pseudoscience, just a different type than the right embraces. You're the one who went looking for a "gotheem" moment without even understanding the point I was making. Par the course for you Philo. Pages later you still haven't a clue.

[spurraider21]

I didn't use that claim.

RG didn't mention religious reasons for climate change denial. He mentioned pseudoscience. Religious folk embrace pseudoscience. In fact, the left notoriously embraces pseudoscience, just a different type than the right embraces. You're the one who went looking for a "gotheem" moment without even understanding the point I was making. Par the course for you Philo. Pages later you still haven't a clue.
was your literal response

What is funny to me though, is that the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bullshit, and failed reasoning on the part of people who want to take the policy position that we should not do anything about climate change because it either isn't real or would have some unbearable burden on the economy.

Neither of those things is, in fact, true.

The only way you can support those beliefs is with failures of reasoning.

Every time your childish ass refuses to evaluate your own thinking, you prove my point.

Suck it.


Dem leaders/GOP leaders... all believe in invisible sky daddy.

Talk more about pseudoscientific bullshit.
im bored at this point. i can tell you are too given your random non sequiturs like brining up secular slaveowners as some attempted dig :lol

and all this just so you can have a proper whataboutism... which would still be a whataboutism given the subject of this thread

[RandomGuy]

That would certainly relieve you of the burden that comes from knowing they confessed their beliefs, their armor of god, their call to action from God.

You moved the goalpost. I have no reason to consider leftwing poster B's misdirection anything but what it is, and you've skipped a few posters in your declaration of "fold".

The goalpost was "name a specific 'left' policy that was driven by religion.

Your dumb ass was asked this repeatedly, and you failed to do so.

:lol "honest broker" fail

[RandomGuy]

My point to your client was that religious people use mysticism to justify a lot of things. Pseudoscience is a step up.

Pseudoscience is very often dressing up mysticism in fancy science-y words, i.e. Intelligent Design

[ElNono]

It's not just a lexical problem, is that trying to dress up religion as science is simply not possible, due to science requiring testability.

Religious constructs like God or Christ do not define parameters that let them proceed to the empirical hypothesis state, making them simply not science.

That doesn't mean religion is worthless or useless, it can have some form of utilitarian value at a personal level for some people, and that's great.

However, the addition of religion to areas that affect a multitude of people (ie: politics, war, etc) tends to have a horrible effect.

Creates division, fanaticism, the attempt to impose a given set of arbitrary moral rules... really a shit show.

[boutons_deux]

That doesn't mean religion is worthless or useless,

a fundamental "use" of Religion is giving men the power to oppress women, to define them as inferior to men.