Greta is chosen as Time's Person of the Year

[fskimospy]

Cool, I was wrong then. Good on you for using a decent source.

Now, if is is so important why doesn't Trump do it? If it was Schiff don't you think Trump would tweet that out over and over since he wouldn't be breaking any law as you've pointed out?

The truth is the whistleblower doesn't matter at this point. The material in the complaint was verified by multiple sources since then, including by Trump himself and the transcript. The desire to "name the whistleblower" isn't about this case but really about trying to instill fear to prevent future whistleblowers from coming forward.

So we're still back at you're completely full of shit and have no evidence Schiff is the whistleblower.

The reason they want to out the whistleblower is clear, they want to intimidate any future witnesses who might come forward. They are basically acting like an organized crime family.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The reason they want to out the whistleblower is clear, they want to intimidate any future witnesses who might come forward. They are basically acting like an organized crime family.

In addition, depending on the person they can attach 'bias' to the whistleblower's motives, in an attempt to discredit what they're saying (as if bias had anything to do with it). It'd work too, considering anyone still supporting Trump just assumes that anyone that criticizes him is a 'never trumper'. It'd embolden them further.

 

[Luna1968]

hands down the only choice.

 

[K1052]

Why are you making everything in life out to be so decisive based on political party affiliation? Again, you're going about this all wrong.

Roughly 40% of this country identifies as independent - and arguably plenty of people that are registered with a party might not actually identify with them anymore.

There are few true independents.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Meanwhile, conservatives have offered no path to address human-caused global warming. If you'd like to offer a conservative approach that addresses the issue, I'll listen.

Edit: A carbon credit market was a deeply conservative idea but the conservatives rejected it for reasons. Now, it's probably too late for that approach to have time to work.

Well duh, because Al Gore made money by investing in it (somehow people believe Gore is anti-investment or capitalism or...something?), so that makes it the greatest evil ever perpetrated on mankind. I'm not even fucking joking when I say that's how fucking dumbshits on this forum have framed things.

 

[K1052]

Like I said, when liberals are wrong it's the liberals' fault. When conservatives are wrong it's... still the liberals' fault. If conservatives have chosen to deny the overwhelming findings of science because liberals are mean to them then they need to grow the fuck up.

Extremest liberals are really responsible for greedy conservative efforts to do away with PM 2.5 limits lol.

How the culture wars the GOP stoked have been hijacked by narrow corporate greed to the detriment of those same voters is something. They're literally voting to poison themselves because of misdirected anger at their situation in life.

 

[VRAMdemon]

It's not all "lobbying." These companies donate money to conservative think tanks like Heritage foundation who do "studies" claiming that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. Those charts and graphs you see on denial websites and now Fox News were mostly created by conservative think tanks with money from the fossil fuel industry. And they've made their way onto Fox News and other conservative media outlets. Industry->think tanks-> conservatives media->conservative voters. It's all totally symbiotic.

You describing all this as "lobbying" suggests you think they're just lobbying Congress against regulations. Yet they're actively promoting denial just like the tobacco industry did with the harmful effects of smoking. Hell, Exxon finally quit doing it a few years back and publicly apologized for promoting denial.

It's amazing what people will hand wave away in the narrative of "tinfoilhattery" They're optimistically naive about the cognitive clarity of even the professional science deniers. In order to "know that they are lying", they'd first have to be remotely interested in the issue of what the truth is and what their ethical responsibilities to the truth are. I see zero evidence that they care about such things.

People like, say, Marc Morano. I doubt he knows enough or cares enough to have a sincere opinion one way or the other on the reality of climate change. What he wants is to make money and be influential, and his lifelong working environment has been right-wing propaganda. Climate denial is a lucrative game to him, and I doubt that evaluating its scientific validity even rates on his list of priorities.

Morano learned how be a professional bullshitter - to lie and deceive as the as a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show in the 90's. In 2004, he was one of the first "reporters" to hype the John Kerry swiftboating story. Again - a professional bullshitter.

Koch industries became a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition, spending over $48.5 million since 1997 to fund the anti-science disinformation machine.

Report: Koch Industries outspends Exxon Mobil on climate and clean energy disinformation

thinkprogress.org

From 2012:

Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution"

The fossil fuel industry happily gives a loud platform to any scientist that will say what they want. Sociopaths paid to lie" for denial propagandists. The money's good; they probably won't be charged with "crimes against humanity" during their lifetimes anyway. By the time their behavior really catches up with them, they'll be dead.

One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. This is a truism, but it provides small comfort to those of us who listen to so much of what is said by politicians, clergy, and uninformed citizens.

 

[pmv]

In addition, depending on the person they can attach 'bias' to the whistleblower's motives, in an attempt to discredit what they're saying (as if bias had anything to do with it). It'd work too, considering anyone still supporting Trump just assumes that anyone that criticizes him is a 'never trumper'. It'd embolden them further.

But does credibility of 'the whistleblower' even matter now? There's a difference between a case where the testimony of a whistleblower _is_ the evidence, and where it happens to lead to the discovery of evidence.

 

[blackangst1]

So what exactly are you doing? Quibbling over exactly this or exactly that? Climate change requires action, not quibbling. We already have a resident quibbler so that post is already filled.

Look at the topic title for christ's sake. 95% of this thread is because of your alleged "not denialism but quibbling" in an effort to de-rail the thread.

As for your previous question to me: You're a Trump supporter. You know it, everyone here knows it. Your bout of amnesia about him saying that climate change is a hoax is bizarre to say the least if you're trying to portray yourself as anything but a climate change denier.

I simply am skeptical of the hysteria. As everyone should be. That does not mean I think mankind has not contributed to climate change. Ive stated that. But this shit about the world ending in 8, 10, 12 years is bullshit. AOC wasnt the only one to say it, and she was serious. It was not hyperbole.

I suggest you remind yourself of other times "experts" predicted the world would end for one reason or another, including climate events. These predictions have been going on for thousands of years and guess what. Nothing happened. Here's a few to get started.

The fact is, the United States is the leader for significant change in climate related topics. Solar, wind, and electric vehicles for example. EPA laws restriction pollution.

This is not a crisis.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

But does credibility of 'the whistleblower' even matter now? There's a difference between a case where the testimony of a whistleblower _is_ the evidence, and where it happens to lead to the discovery of evidence.

Yeah we back to the example of a klan guy seeing a black guy in the bank.
He calls the police to report the bank is being robbed.
Police show up and the bank is being robbed.

Reason why the call came in is irrelevant

 

[pmv]

I simply am skeptical of the hysteria. As everyone should be. That does not mean I think mankind has not contributed to climate change. Ive stated that. But this shit about the world ending in 8, 10, 12 years is bullshit. AOC wasnt the only one to say it, and she was serious. It was not hyperbole.

I suggest you remind yourself of other times "experts" predicted the world would end for one reason or another, including climate events. These predictions have been going on for thousands of years and guess what. Nothing happened. Here's a few to get started.

The fact is, the United States is the leader for significant change in climate related topics. Solar, wind, and electric vehicles for example. EPA laws restriction pollution.

This is not a crisis.

Just a list of random individuals saying various random things - what is anyone supposed to take from that? What does it have to do with the actual science of climate change?

(No idea who most of them are - I googled Kenneth Watt and the one that came up was a guy convicted of domestic abuse in Scotland...I guess it's not that one).

And, really, the AEI? Yet another one of those propaganda outfits funded by super-rich Americans (including, inevitably, the Koch brothers). There are so damn many of those things. But thanks for reminding me how much money corrupts the political process and how close the US is to a plutocracy.

 

[fskimospy]

I simply am skeptical of the hysteria. As everyone should be. That does not mean I think mankind has not contributed to climate change. Ive stated that. But this shit about the world ending in 8, 10, 12 years is bullshit. AOC wasnt the only one to say it, and she was serious. It was not hyperbole.

She was not serious and every rational, objective person knows this. Your argument is that you really think she thinks life on planet Earth is ending in 10 years? Really?

Regardless, the debate is not whether or not you accept the science that says manmade climate change is real, it's if you accept all the other science that shows mankind is responsible for the overwhelming majority of it. Again, arguably more than 100% of the warming we've seen.

I suggest you remind yourself of other times "experts" predicted the world would end for one reason or another, including climate events. These predictions have been going on for thousands of years and guess what. Nothing happened. Here's a few to get started.

You're promoting more climate change denier propaganda. Random quotes from people are meaningless. What we are discussing is the overwhelming collective opinion of thousands and thousands of experts going back decades.

Also glad to see you're linking to a group so scrupulously honest about climate change that they were caught offering people $10,000 to criticize the scientific consensus on it, hahaha.

The fact is, the United States is the leader for significant change in climate related topics. Solar, wind, and electric vehicles for example. EPA laws restriction pollution.

This is not a crisis.

The science overwhelmingly states this is a crisis. Why do you reject the science?

 

[mect]

I simply am skeptical of the hysteria. As everyone should be. That does not mean I think mankind has not contributed to climate change. Ive stated that. But this shit about the world ending in 8, 10, 12 years is bullshit. AOC wasnt the only one to say it, and she was serious. It was not hyperbole.

I suggest you remind yourself of other times "experts" predicted the world would end for one reason or another, including climate events. These predictions have been going on for thousands of years and guess what. Nothing happened. Here's a few to get started.

The fact is, the United States is the leader for significant change in climate related topics. Solar, wind, and electric vehicles for example. EPA laws restriction pollution.

This is not a crisis.

This is why you get lumped in with the deniers. Because you pass on skepticism when it comes to information from unreliable web sites so long as the message is "do nothing" but at the same time employ skepticism to its fullest when it comes to the consensus of the scientific community.

 

[brycejones]

I simply am skeptical of the hysteria. As everyone should be. That does not mean I think mankind has not contributed to climate change. Ive stated that. But this shit about the world ending in 8, 10, 12 years is bullshit. AOC wasnt the only one to say it, and she was serious. It was not hyperbole.

I suggest you remind yourself of other times "experts" predicted the world would end for one reason or another, including climate events. These predictions have been going on for thousands of years and guess what. Nothing happened. Here's a few to get started.

The fact is, the United States is the leader for significant change in climate related topics. Solar, wind, and electric vehicles for example. EPA laws restriction pollution.

This is not a crisis.

Holy shit you're serious.

 

[ShookKnight]

It's a joke, but it's VERY real and applicable.

 

[blackangst1]

She was not serious and every rational, objective person knows this. Your argument is that you really think she thinks life on planet Earth is ending in 10 years? Really?

I dunno man she was pretty damn serious when she said it. What about Beto? Was it hyperbole when he said 10 years? Or how about Warren when she said 11 years?

Its the new hysteria.

 

[ultimatebob]

Like I said, when liberals are wrong it's the liberals' fault. When conservatives are wrong it's... still the liberals' fault. If conservatives have chosen to deny the overwhelming findings of science because liberals are mean to them then they need to grow the fuck up.

You guys need to clean your own house. The people in charge of the conservative movement deliberately lied to their followers for decades and now you have a bunch of morons who don't accept science running around. I don't care how you fix it, vote them out, turn them into Soylent Green, whatever, but conservatives made a mess and frankly liberals are tired of rescuing you incompetents from the consequences of your own bad decisions.

Umm... I don't remember the last administration really giving a damn about climate change, either. Obama might have talked a good game for green living, but fossil fuel usage and fossil fuel production in the US continued to go up during his term.

We don't need more greenwashing... we need real action on the matter.



--- another Coolcoin worthy mobile post?

 

[mect]

I dunno man she was pretty damn serious when she said it. What about Beto? Was it hyperbole when he said 10 years? Or how about Warren when she said 11 years?

Its the new hysteria.

Sources for these claims? Warren for example specifically stated that we have 11 years to cut our emissions in half, exactly in line with the scientific consensus.

Warren on Climate Crisis: We Only Have 11 Years To Cut Our Emissions In Half

Presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren addressed the climate crisis and how she would face President Donald Trump on the debate stage if she wins the Democratic nomination during a town hall on climate change hosted by CNN's Chris Cuomo: CUOMO: You're on the debate stage. You're across...

www.realclearpolitics.com

 

[mect]

Umm... I don't remember the last administration really giving a damn about climate change, either. Obama might have talked a good game for green living, but fossil fuel usage and fossil fuel production in the US continued to go up during his term.

We don't need more greenwashing... we need real action on the matter.



--- another Coolcoin worthy mobile post?

I agree, democrats haven't been particularly good on this either, but they have been far better than republicans. We don't just need to elect democrats, we need to elect democrats like AOC and Sanders that are willing to take on big business, that are willing to put the well being of the nation (and the world) ahead of quarterly profits.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But does credibility of 'the whistleblower' even matter now? There's a difference between a case where the testimony of a whistleblower _is_ the evidence, and where it happens to lead to the discovery of evidence.

It absolutely matters, if you're a conservative. The best defense against this kind of criminal activity is to claim that the person going after him had a motive, therefore they're the actual criminal. They've been screeching this since the Comey investigation started.

It doesn't matter if you're a rational adult, but see above.

I dunno man she was pretty damn serious when she said it. What about Beto? Was it hyperbole when he said 10 years? Or how about Warren when she said 11 years?

Its the new hysteria.

The real reason why these statements are being made is that we're likely to pass a point of no return in a decade or two, which will result in events that we cannot solve with current technology. Once past that tipping point, the world is effectively over for us, we're just waiting for the chaos to start. We're right to be in hysterics right now due to the overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to things going very, very badly for us very soon.

 

[blackangst1]

Sources for these claims? Warren for example specifically stated that we have 11 years to cut our emissions in half, exactly in line with the scientific consensus.

Warren on Climate Crisis: We Only Have 11 Years To Cut Our Emissions In Half

Presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren addressed the climate crisis and how she would face President Donald Trump on the debate stage if she wins the Democratic nomination during a town hall on climate change hosted by CNN's Chris Cuomo: CUOMO: You're on the debate stage. You're across...

www.realclearpolitics.com

Right. And her full quote is

We've got, what, 11 years, maybe, to reach a point where we've cut our emissions in half, and that's not just America. We're only 20 percent of the problem. That's a big hunk of the problem, but there's another world out there that's 80 percent of this problem. So you bet that this is a moment where we better dream big and fight hard, because that's how it is that we're going to make the changes we need to make.

What do you suppose she thinks will happen in 11 years? Because we may cut emissions in half, but the other 80% wont. So whats going to happen?

 

[fskimospy]

I dunno man she was pretty damn serious when she said it. What about Beto? Was it hyperbole when he said 10 years? Or how about Warren when she said 11 years?

So to be clear you think it is more likely that she believes all life on Earth will spontaneously extinguish in ten years rather than her stating in line with the scientific evidence that after ten more years at this pace extremely serious damage to our ecosystem will become inevitable.

Really.

Its the new hysteria.

It's not anything new, people have been warning of the future costs of global warming for decades now. Because conservatives lied about it for years and fought attempts to address it every step of the way the costs now are much higher.

If you don't like the science I don't blame you, I don't like it either as what it predicts is really bad! The thing is that science doesn't care if we like it or not, it just is.

 

[fskimospy]

Right. And her full quote is

What do you suppose she thinks will happen in 11 years? Because we may cut emissions in half, but the other 80% wont. So whats going to happen?

She's referring to the science on the subject, which you can read for yourself:

Report: we have just 12 years to limit devastating global warming

A UN panel of scientists says every bit of warming matters, and we’re almost out of time to keep it in check.

www.vox.com

 

[brycejones]

She's referring to the science on the subject, which you can read for yourself:

Report: we have just 12 years to limit devastating global warming

A UN panel of scientists says every bit of warming matters, and we’re almost out of time to keep it in check.

www.vox.com

We should wait 15 years to make sure those estimates are accurate before doing anything. It will be absolutely devastating if during that time we create a world with less pollution and a decrease reliance on fossil fuels. #donteverrushintoanything

I have a feeling blackangst1 sees a grass fire and watches it thinking "It may go out on its own, why put forth the effort to fight it?" (While the wind is gusting at 50 mph).

 

[nakedfrog]

Right. And her full quote is



What do you suppose she thinks will happen in 11 years? Because we may cut emissions in half, but the other 80% wont. So whats going to happen?

So, just don't do anything, and fuck it all?