Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/climate-change-breakdown-arctic-frost-thawing-canada-environment-a8959056.html

Tl;dr: The Artic permafrost north of Canada is melting, a scenario that climate scientists did not expect to occur until 2090. We are 70 years ahead of schedule on the previous models. The potential temperature rise is now all the way up to 8-10 degrees Celsius. This would be absolutely devastating to basically everything on the planet. 

It's a feedback loop at this point, as the gases trapped under the ice are going to accelerate the warming even further. I am no longer sure we can stop it. What I am sure of is that we have absolutely no damn chance if we don't even try and act like its not a problem. Any politician that is in the pocket of big oil needs to go ASAP. 

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Australian study says human civilization will be wiped out by 2050. Only way to stop it would be to get the world to near 0% emissions in the “very near future”. 

So, if you give that study any weight... we’re basically fucked. May as well enjoy the time we have left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Not all studies are created equal. You are comparing a single dude's work with one other guy endorsing it to the overwhelming majority of experts in the field that say we still have time. 

2) The two scientists that did this study said it was an absolute worst case scenario based on their own models and that human civilization *could* be wiped out by 2050, not that it will be. Note that even in that model they are not taking about temperature except insofar as it drives massive migration, which then leads to the end of human civilization. They aren't saying climate change will be responsible, merely that its the catalyst that starts the whole thing.

So no, you can give that study weight without assuming its absolute worst case scenario that they said had a possibility of happening is certain of happening, not sure where we even got that sensationalist headline.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's surprising that a doom and gloom headline perpetuating a billion dollar industry caught fire on social media. lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post was the first I'd heard of it, tbh.

Just because some people like to exaggerate doesn't mean climate change isn't real and isn't a real threat. And who knows, with the accelerating timetable we keep getting, it may even be by 2050 that we're screwed. We're going to sit here and bicker and argue about how we can't afford changes to fix the system and fuck our kids/grandkids over so much that they won't be able to fix it.

I do love the GOP's latest line of attack, which I believe is something like: all the scientists in the world are in on a giant plot to make money by coming up with climate change models that are either A) are being supported by everyone even though they know they are outlandish/outright false or B) they're all stupid and only the ones hired by big oil know what they're talking about.

Like we can sit here and argue the two parties are the same, but there is a clear general truth here.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Thanatosit's hilarious that people think there is more money in spreading some client change conspiracy than there is taking money from fossil fuel companies to deny it's existence. I always say this to libertarians and conservatives. Don't you want clean water and clean air? Shouldn't land be protected where people farm and hunt? Ya know, conservationism like Teddy Roosevelt? Don't you think he would be interested in preserving the environment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean there is money in both. Fossil Fuel lobbyists have just gotten a much larger head start than the green sector. 

I think the big problem with a lot of climate  change activists is there just aren’t a lot of solutions. They can point out the problems but when it comes to fixing things, they push that responsibility off on other people. That’s not everyone, there are solutions out there but when it comes to action— both sides of the debate are weak AF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are tons of scientists with climate change solutions but we don't see them in news papers or on TV. We see lobbyists lol. There's no one thing that will solve our climate crisis. It's about a lot of smart people implementing a lot of ideas and yes it is about helping other countries get off fossil fuels and yes we need to do whatever it takes. 

How about Tulsi Gabbard calling out the false flag oil tanker shenanigans? There is only one peace candidate in the race folks and I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders. I would support Bernie if he gets the nomination but it makes me sick to repeat the state propaganda establishing these foreign leaders as dictators or illigitiment because it helps them establish the pretext of a pre-emptive attack. Tulsi Gabbard refuses to give into that. I need someone to explain to me how people are better off when the infrastructure of their countries are destroyed and thousands are killed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our governments dedication to going to war with Iran would be almost admirable if it wasn't so sick.

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, meme and text

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

I mean there is money in both. Fossil Fuel lobbyists have just gotten a much larger head start than the green sector. 

I think the big problem with a lot of climate  change activists is there just aren’t a lot of solutions. They can point out the problems but when it comes to fixing things, they push that responsibility off on other people. That’s not everyone, there are solutions out there but when it comes to action— both sides of the debate are weak AF. 

This is just false. We've said how to fix it, the "other side" just says they wont do it or that it cant be done.

Also there is really no debate. If you still doubt climate change and man's effect on it at this point you certainly aren't coming at the "debate" from a scientific footing.

This is a crisis at this point and we are still treating it like an inconvenience. Barring the human race blowing each other to smithereens, there is no greater threat to humanity than climate change.

Edited by Thanatos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

This is just false. We've said how to fix it, the "other side" just says they wont do it or that it cant be done.

Also there is really no debate. If you still doubt climate change and man's effect on it at this point you certainly aren't coming at the "debate" from a scientific footing.

This is a crisis at this point and we are still treating it like an inconvenience. Barring the human race blowing each other to smithereens, there is no greater threat to humanity than climate change.

Being that you include yourself in the "we". What have you spread beyond, probably, Facebook? I doubt it's much, but you may surprise me. Also, when proposing solutions, you really need to take into consideration the "other side".

For example, telling large CO2 emitting businesses that they need to cut those emissions isn't a solution. Obviously, that's the endgame, butt hat isn't you (general) proposing a solution. A large portion of emissions comes from generating electricity... companies have for years been working to incorporate technologies that would get them to zero or near-zero emissions for their fossil fuel power plants. Problem? It is (was) extremely expensive... to capture the carbon, you're talking about building a new facility that consumes so much power that you aren't doing a lot of good in the end.

I could be wrong, but the first natural gas power plant was just recently built down in Texas. It's being used as a test and if everything goes well, they will expand. Again.. I am pretty sure this is the first of it's kind. People are working on things, but ragers want it done immediately. Shit does not work like that. I don't trust the government to regulate cap and trade systems.... California is either about to or already has passed a bill saying their state can pull tens of millions of dollars out of their emissions cap&trade market to fund other projects. That money is supposed to go towards cutting emissions -- which California is doing but not at the rate they promised when they started the programs. The government is a dirty mistress ready to infect you with an STD. 

I really think the best solution is innovation, like NetPower's plant in Texas. Problem is, innovation takes time and money -- neither of which many activists want to contribute (of course, there are some). Of course, it doesn't help that the country is so anti-nuclear power either.

If you want to debate the existence of climate change, argue with yourself. I am not interested in that drivel or going nowhere conversation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People ARE proposing solutions https://www.votetulsi.com/node/32974 (Off Act aka H.R. 3671)

How do we solve it? Devote more money, more resources and more minds to the problem and we will solve it exactly the same way we did when we put a man on the moon. 

https://mikegravel.com/citizens-amendment-to-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-2/

I would also really love to see Mike Gravel's vision of A Citizens Amendment to The Constitution by one of the Democratic candidates. Just as an aside.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are waiting for bureaucrats to solve our problems, we are in more trouble than Than alluded to. Also, I went to the sight to sign Tulsi's thing and the site didn't work. RIP Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

Being that you include yourself in the "we". What have you spread beyond, probably, Facebook? I doubt it's much, but you may surprise me. Also, when proposing solutions, you really need to take into consideration the "other side".

For example, telling large CO2 emitting businesses that they need to cut those emissions isn't a solution. Obviously, that's the endgame, butt hat isn't you (general) proposing a solution. A large portion of emissions comes from generating electricity... companies have for years been working to incorporate technologies that would get them to zero or near-zero emissions for their fossil fuel power plants. Problem? It is (was) extremely expensive... to capture the carbon, you're talking about building a new facility that consumes so much power that you aren't doing a lot of good in the end.

I could be wrong, but the first natural gas power plant was just recently built down in Texas. It's being used as a test and if everything goes well, they will expand. Again.. I am pretty sure this is the first of it's kind. People are working on things, but ragers want it done immediately. Shit does not work like that. I don't trust the government to regulate cap and trade systems.... California is either about to or already has passed a bill saying their state can pull tens of millions of dollars out of their emissions cap&trade market to fund other projects. That money is supposed to go towards cutting emissions -- which California is doing but not at the rate they promised when they started the programs. The government is a dirty mistress ready to infect you with an STD. 

I really think the best solution is innovation, like NetPower's plant in Texas. Problem is, innovation takes time and money -- neither of which many activists want to contribute (of course, there are some). Of course, it doesn't help that the country is so anti-nuclear power either.

If you want to debate the existence of climate change, argue with yourself. I am not interested in that drivel or going nowhere conversation.

 

I haven't heard anything about the natural gas power plant, but that's fantastic news! Yes we need more of this. We need more funding to research grants looking into clean energy, because you're right it doesn't happen overnight. Cut some of our ridiculous military budget that we use to invade other countries for no reason and put it into something that will prevent our grandchildren from inheriting a world that is beyond repair. Hell at this point it may be our kids.

I have to disagree with you on cutting emissions. That's absolutely the solution.  Big businesses may not want to do so because it cuts into their profit margin. Tough cookies. This is a global threat at this point, if we have to enforce some sort of graduated penalty for ignoring carbon emissions, so be it. You continue to point out singular examples, and I grant you the government is far from perfect, but there is only one entity who can get businesses in the US to cap carbon emissions, and that's the government. That's why we sorely need people who will enforce what needs to be done in Washington. And history shows that the vast majority of those people are Democrats, (not that the vast majority of Democrats are those people, to be perfectly clear here: the Dems have plenty of people that are against this or only pay lip service to it). The GOP has sided against policies that would at least slow down climate change over and over again- and that is because at least half their base- being very generous here- doesn't think climate change is real. The GOP reps- nearly all of them- do not care about the long-term future of the planet, they only care about getting votes. Now there are plenty of Dems who also care about getting votes over helping the planet, but at least their way of doing so is by passing legislation that will help the planet.  

I 100% agree with you on nuclear power. We need more nuclear power. Chernobyl is a worst-case disaster caused by massive oversight and shortcuts. Three Mile Island was the worst that happened here, and all the failsafes worked fine, but its got it into the public's head that nuclear power is extraordinarily dangerous. And certainly, worst-case scenario, its far more dangerous than  a regular power plant, but regulated properly and run properly, it would be a huge step towards fixing the problem.

By "we" in this case, I mean the left, btw. I personally think the best thing that can be done for this issue is to vote people into office who will do something about it- or run for office yourself. I am doing everything I can to turn people onto Tulsi Gabbard. I have contacted her campaign directly asking them to come to Louisville and got a response back from her personally that she was absolutely interested in coming back again. 

I'm not interesting in debating the existence of climate change. As I said, there is no debate any longer between scientists on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

I mean there is money in both. Fossil Fuel lobbyists have just gotten a much larger head start than the green sector. 

I think the big problem with a lot of climate  change activists is there just aren’t a lot of solutions. They can point out the problems but when it comes to fixing things, they push that responsibility off on other people. That’s not everyone, there are solutions out there but when it comes to action— both sides of the debate are weak AF. 

I think we easily have the capability of coming up with solutions and there probably already are some, I just have a hard time seeing where you can make money doing it though. I kind of like the idea of a carbon tax, which is paid in credits to people who engineer ways to manage the chemistry of the atmosphere. I feel like NATO/EU countries could hopefully concoct an agreement to pool funds as well. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked the link and it worked for me but cell phones act weird sometimes lol. What other tools do we have to make this shit happen? I don't sit on any boards of any companies or have a large amount of private wealth. I do have a vote though and I do have a right to participate in government. If your solution is to just say fuck it, it's too late, then I guess by all means, do you but idk man I guess we just have different approaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bjorn going back and hitting one of my other posts made me realize I forgot something I've been meaning to post. 

I am super frustrated that the Democrats absolutely refuse to do a post-mortem on 2016. It seems like any time anyone dares criticize Hillary from the left, the Dems jump to her defense. Their analysis has basically been "these people were racist" full stop. That's how you lose again in 2020 if you refuse to even consider your campaign to have been run poorly and for what reasons that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

Bjorn going back and hitting one of my other posts made me realize I forgot something I've been meaning to post. 

I am super frustrated that the Democrats absolutely refuse to do a post-mortem on 2016. It seems like any time anyone dares criticize Hillary from the left, the Dems jump to her defense. Their analysis has basically been "these people were racist" full stop. That's how you lose again in 2020 if you refuse to even consider your campaign to have been run poorly and for what reasons that happened.

The reason is that the party is controlled by money and not it's actual constituents. They know that if they move to the left that their corporate cash flow will dry up. They're trying to stack the deck for Clintonite centrists all over the country and we've already seen it early in the primary process. As a result the Democrats function as a party of controlled opposition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, seanbrock said:

I checked the link and it worked for me but cell phones act weird sometimes lol. What other tools do we have to make this shit happen? I don't sit on any boards of any companies or have a large amount of private wealth. I do have a vote though and I do have a right to participate in government. If your solution is to just say fuck it, it's too late, then I guess by all means, do you but idk man I guess we just have different approaches.

I never said fuck it. I liked your angle of going to people and asking about clean water, for example. I’m a huge supporter of clean water and just getting water to people who otherwise don’t have the means. I don’t have a lot of money, but I give what I can within reason to multiple charities and causes that I just kind of rotate through every month. Many of those are environment-minded.

As individuals, we have to make a difference in our own lives before we can start demanding mass change in industry, and then expecting it to change overnight just isn’t practical. 

It is an important issue. If it was possible to snap my fingers, Thanks-style, and change all industry to near zero emissions I would and o think 99% of these companies would too.

Unfortunately, we have to understand that (depending on the business / industry) its a serious financial and time commitment to completely change how they do things to capture that created carbon. 

It’s easy for me to sit here and yell at them to do it but change usually doesn’t happen like that. 

We need more and faster innovation and as individuals we need to take responsibility. After that industry has no choice but to comply and it will be a lot easier easier to pull off financially as well. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah idk man I just think that while you and I don't have a lot to give to charity, the federal government can put A LOT towards that without even spending extra money if the Pentagon audits were taken remotely seriously and we could get real cuts to the military budget. I think a real simple way would be to stop selling weapons and put those people to work creating a green infrastructure instead of building bombs. I think it would make us and our allies a lot safer too. 

There's no doubt that people have individual responsibility and need to make personal changes too but sometimes it's hard to be able to afford to make those changes or maybe even just the knowledge of what actions are available and why they're important. We can't make that an excuse for inaction imo. That's a big mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seanbrock said:

Yeah idk man I just think that while you and I don't have a lot to give to charity, the federal government can put A LOT towards that without even spending extra money if the Pentagon audits were taken remotely seriously and we could get real cuts to the military budget. I think a real simple way would be to stop selling weapons and put those people to work creating a green infrastructure instead of building bombs. I think it would make us and our allies a lot safer too. 

There's no doubt that people have individual responsibility and need to make personal changes too but sometimes it's hard to be able to afford to make those changes or maybe even just the knowledge of what actions are available and why they're important. We can't make that an excuse for inaction imo. That's a big mistake.

No doubt, there are easy ways we could do things like that. As you stated, our military budget has ballooned far beyond our actual practical needs. There is so much money there that we could take and divert to that green infrastructure and get really aggressive with innovation. And it isn't just the military, the government and fiscal responsibility don't really go together that well. So, I am not saying you're wrong at all. Like I said before though, I don't think we can sit around and demand the government to do anything. I don't trust them at all to do anything, really. lol. They're great at taking our money, not so great at spending it. 

The millennial generation is the most giving, in time and money, of any generation before it. They / we have changed the face of philanthropy. That needs to keep up, because unlike all those old geezers I think millennials and even maybe early Z'ers can really change the world (at least here in the US) and plethora of systematic failures and obstacles the system faces in getting things done. That doesn't happen by top to bottom.

Just when it comes down to it.. Forcing the change at top and hoping everyone at the bottom follows suit reminds me of force-feeding poor people trickle down economics, lol. Obviously very different things, that is just what comes to mind. I just think it's coming from a point of weakness to go in hot and expect/force these companies to change. Don't get me wrong... They SHOULD. And I think they will, in time. But you're gonna get way more fight out of them and their attorneys and their lobbyists right now as opposed to building a grass roots movement to spread these fundamental changes in our culture. They're just gonna slow that shit down to a crawl and drag it out until so many individuals are participating that change doesn't even need to be forced. And even if some still want fight it, they will be swept away by free market because the masses will no longer follow them. 

There are a ton of even small differences you can make in your life that can make a pretty big impact. And then you spreading those things to your friends and family and then they spread it to theirs, etc... Things like buying more fuel efficient vehicles (I still don't think technology is at a point where we can expect everyone to go electric). Or even smaller, stop using plastic bottles and straws. Like I said, I just don't think there is enough action from individuals yet. Once we get there, changing the top will be so much easier.

There are a lot of people out there who care about the environment, sure. But I still don't think it's enough. A lot of people talk about it, but they refuse to act on it. Even though it may seem counter-intuitive... I really think the most efficient and fastest way to achieve our goals is to start local, get more people involved in different projects, etc. Right now climate and environmental debates just devolve into pointless squabbling. It gets to the point that it doesn't even matter who is right or wrong, because everyone is using their energy to fight a war of words.

 

Edited by DalaiLama4Ever
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is sending another 1,000 troops to the Middle East. *sigh*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

Trump is sending another 1,000 troops to the Middle East. *sigh*.

Unfortunately many of the people who would be protesting the wars are too busy working their second and third jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/22/trump_everybody_said_i_was_a_warmonger_now_im_a_dove_because_i_oppose_killing_high_quality_iranians.html

There are a lot of supposed liberals who are war mongering HARD and we're being saved by Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump. This is like something out of a movie. It's really hard to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×