Greta is chosen as Time's Person of the Year

[blackangst1]

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

Ive never...EVER...said that. Ever. There is a middle ground between fuck it all do nothing and OMGBBQ THE WORLD IS GONNA END!!!!!111111

 

[blackangst1]

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.

Why not? She wouldnt be the first to predict the end of the world.

 

[fskimospy]

Ive never...EVER...said that. Ever. There is a middle ground between fuck it all do nothing and OMGBBQ THE WORLD IS GONNA END!!!!!111111

The effects that the scientific consensus predicts are extremely, extremely bad. The scientific consensus has been basically accurate up to this point so it's reasonable to infer that the sort of effects they predict are broadly accurate.

What sort of middle ground are you proposing and how much do you expect this to mitigate rising temperatures?

 

[blackangst1]

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).

And if that is what, after all my posts, you believe I think, either you dont comprehend what Im saying, or cant see beyond your own opinion. Thats your problem, not mine.

 

[Homerboy]

LOL It's so easy to pick off these GOPers online.

 

[mikeymikec]

This is not a crisis.

So you are a climate change denier posing as a "sceptic". The scientific consensus is that this is a crisis.

I do find it funny that you continue to evade the point about Trump though and even try to characterise the US as a world leader in climate change despite the fact that he abandoned the Paris agreement and keeps wanting to make fossil fuels great again.

 

[woolfe9998]

There are few true independents.

View attachment 14287

7% is still enough to swing an election.

Also, that more lean dem than rep contradicts what I keep hearing around here that most independents vote republican.

 

[K1052]

7% is still enough to swing an election.

Really depends where they are located.

Also, that more lean dem than rep contradicts what I keep hearing around here that most independents vote republican.

I actually haven't seen anybody make that particular claim.

 

[pmv]

The effects of climate change are likely to include precisely the things that conservatives get really worked up about and tend to regard as cataclysmic - e.g. large movements of refugees and economic migrants.

Wish they'd make up their mind as to whether they are panglossian optimists or catastrophizers.

 

[pmv]

There are few true independents.

View attachment 14287

I wonder how accurate that graphic is, in it's implication that the 'independents' are necessarily in the middle, and lean towards 'moderate' ends of the main parties?

Surely at least some of those independents are beyond the other (far) side of each party, and some are off on another axis entirely?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The effects of climate change are likely to include precisely the things that conservatives get really worked up about and tend to regard as cataclysmic - e.g. large movements of refugees and economic migrants.

Wish they'd make up their mind as to whether they are panglossian optimists or catastrophizers.

They're focusing on the blood everywhere, not on the root cause (the gaping wound that's getting bigger).

 

[mikeymikec]

The effects of climate change are likely to include precisely the things that conservatives get really worked up about and tend to regard as cataclysmic - e.g. large movements of refugees and economic migrants.

You never know, it could end up being a 'the day after tomorrow' style scenario where Americans have to seek refuge in the countries they've shat upon for decades

 

[K1052]

I wonder how accurate that graphic is, in it's implication that the 'independents' are necessarily in the middle, and lean towards 'moderate' ends of the main parties?

Surely at least some of those independents are beyond the other (far) side of each party, and some are off on another axis entirely?

I doubt it's a perfect representation but it generally comports with what we know from electoral experience. Self identified independents very often just aren't.

 

[blackangst1]

So you are a climate change denier posing as a "sceptic". The scientific consensus is that this is a crisis.

I do find it funny that you continue to evade the point about Trump though and even try to characterise the US as a world leader in climate change despite the fact that he abandoned the Paris agreement and keeps wanting to make fossil fuels great again.

Good Lord loss of comprehension has hit you too. A climate denier is one who thinks all this climate change is normal and we dont need to do anything. Ive NEVER said that. Ever.

 

[thilanliyan]

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?

Maybe I missed a link you posted with some concrete solutions that are a "middle ground"?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Good Lord loss of comprehension has hit you too. A climate denier is one who thinks all this climate change is normal and we dont need to do anything. Ive NEVER said that. Ever.

So you think this is not normal and something needs to be done? Why not then, accept the scientific consensus of what does need to be done? Why fight it so vociferously?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Good Lord loss of comprehension has hit you too. A climate denier is one who thinks all this climate change is normal and we dont need to do anything. Ive NEVER said that. Ever.

Then what should be done?
You appear to like picking apart others plans. What would you plan entail?

 

[mect]

Good Lord loss of comprehension has hit you too. A climate denier is one who thinks all this climate change is normal and we dont need to do anything. Ive NEVER said that. Ever.

So to be clear, who should we trust in establishing our goals for combating climate change? What goals are reasonable. You've pretty clearly advocated for not trusting the scientific consensus, which states that we need to cut our emissions in half by 2030 and eliminating fossil fuel emissions by 2050. These data are the backbone for the green new deal and related legislation proposed by many leading democrats. So what legislation would you support? What timeline could you get behind?

 

[blackangst1]

Maybe I missed a link you posted with some concrete solutions that are a "middle ground"?

So you think this is not normal and something needs to be done? Why not then, accept the scientific consensus of what does need to be done? Why fight it so vociferously?

How about start a thread about this and Ill participate? I made one comment that I dont believe this is such a crisis as many present, and it led to 4 pages of me responding to questions, statements, and picking apart my opinion is what should be about Greta. Ive made my opinion very clear. If you dont understand my thinking you either cant read and comprehend or you refuse to see another POV.

Back to Greta.

 

[mikeymikec]

Good Lord loss of comprehension has hit you too. A climate denier is one who thinks all this climate change is normal and we dont need to do anything. Ive NEVER said that. Ever.

The failure of comprehension I'm pretty sure is yours. As I said, the scientific consensus is that humanity is facing a crisis, yet you in your infinite wisdom are "sceptical". Do you have any idea the sheer amount of change that will be required in order to achieve even say the 'carbon neutral' targets that every major political party (including even the conservatives) in the UK is promising? 8 billion people on this planet, and pretty much every one of them is reliant in some way on fossil matter either for energy or building products. Humanity is addicted to consuming crap and meaningless materialism and dumping their stuff in a landfill. Probably trillions of dollars of transactions worldwide every day and they all depend on systems that pollute our planet. Pretty much all of that has to change. Significant problems are predicted if the typical temps experienced on Earth increase by just a degree, and sea levels don't need to change by much in order for flood-risk areas to be having far worse problems.

Even if just insect populations continue to die off the way they have been, we've got some real fucking problems with plant pollination.

Whether you claim that climate change is normal and we don't need to do anything, or you rubbish the notion that we're facing a crisis, you are rightly considered to be a denialist because it amounts to be the same thing. You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How about start a thread about this and Ill participate? I made one comment that I dont believe this is such a crisis as many present, and it led to 4 pages of me responding to questions, statements, and picking apart my opinion is what should be about Greta. Ive made my opinion very clear. If you dont understand my thinking you either cant read and comprehend or you refuse to see another POV.

Back to Greta.

I don't think the one who veered the discussion off-course gets to veer it off-course again, because they don't want to answer the questions at hand.

 

[woolfe9998]

Really depends where they are located.

Yes, of course it does. But doesn't it seem likely that undecided swing voters would be disproportionately located in states that switch parties every 4 years? States like Florida, for example.

I would also point out that there are people registered as dem or rep who cross party lines, so 7% isn't the entire population of voters who are in contention in each election.

 

[blackangst1]

I don't think the one who veered the discussion off-course gets to veer it off-course again, because they don't want to answer the questions at hand.

So now youre attacking me because I want to get thread back on topic?

lol

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

attacking me

Really? Arguing the merits of your attempt to derail a discussion yet again constitutes an attack to you? Are you that thin skinned? Serious question, not an 'attack'.

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

I never said that Adam Schiff was the whistleblower.

Get your facts straight.

I agree, the whistleblower never did amount to anything. Congress had already made up its mind and the course was set. And here we are.