Author Topic: Time Magazine says Jacksonville . . .  (Read 2909 times)

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13101
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
Re: Time Magazine says Jacksonville . . .
« Reply #45 on: November 28, 2018, 09:56:37 AM »
Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol.  Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now".  That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself...  Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...

The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required.  Why?  The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...

So........ blame the republicans... rofl... ;D ::)

You have a remarkable ability to read things that were never typed.

I don't think that fixing the issue necessarily requires the buy-in of those who deny AGW (though they are doing their best to help make it difficult by spreading lies and stupid conspiracy theories). My point is that some people are pinning their hopes on a grand conspiracy theory and will do what they can to spread falsehoods about a very real issue. And then will expect all to be forgiven when they finally realise the truth.

I never blamed the Republicans and I'd like you to point out where I did. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats (or the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc) have the solution or the will to make it happen. Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high.

I was not "blaming" you... simply scoffing at the settled science argument.  I suppose it is... apparently no one really cares... because my real point was just as you say... "Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high."

It would appear that the scientists consider it settled. But the problem is politicians. There is always the hope that there will arise some sort of free market solution that gains traction. I remember reading a thing about this in Super Freakonomics. They mentioned different types of geoengineering. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory types see geoengineering as some sort of World Government/NWO/Illuminati attempt at mind control or similar.

You are placing blame where it does'nt belong.  The conspiracy theory types are a small and very insignificant minority... But easy to point to and blame.  The politicians are doing exactly what the people want... The vast majority of people say they want solutions... they just do not want uncomfortable, expensive, or dramatic solutions.  So politicians find inexpensive, comfortable, and undramatic "solutions" they can point to and puff out their chests.  Meanwhile the net result is virtually no change in the status quo.

The problem is us... the people...  not the politicians... and not the fringe...  8)
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3119
    • Facebook
Re: Time Magazine says Jacksonville . . .
« Reply #46 on: November 28, 2018, 10:29:20 AM »
Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol.  Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now".  That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself...  Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...

The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required.  Why?  The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...

So........ blame the republicans... rofl... ;D ::)

You have a remarkable ability to read things that were never typed.

I don't think that fixing the issue necessarily requires the buy-in of those who deny AGW (though they are doing their best to help make it difficult by spreading lies and stupid conspiracy theories). My point is that some people are pinning their hopes on a grand conspiracy theory and will do what they can to spread falsehoods about a very real issue. And then will expect all to be forgiven when they finally realise the truth.

I never blamed the Republicans and I'd like you to point out where I did. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats (or the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc) have the solution or the will to make it happen. Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high.

I was not "blaming" you... simply scoffing at the settled science argument.  I suppose it is... apparently no one really cares... because my real point was just as you say... "Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high."

It would appear that the scientists consider it settled. But the problem is politicians. There is always the hope that there will arise some sort of free market solution that gains traction. I remember reading a thing about this in Super Freakonomics. They mentioned different types of geoengineering. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory types see geoengineering as some sort of World Government/NWO/Illuminati attempt at mind control or similar.

You are placing blame where it does'nt belong.  The conspiracy theory types are a small and very insignificant minority... But easy to point to and blame.  The politicians are doing exactly what the people want... The vast majority of people say they want solutions... they just do not want uncomfortable, expensive, or dramatic solutions.  So politicians find inexpensive, comfortable, and undramatic "solutions" they can point to and puff out their chests.  Meanwhile the net result is virtually no change in the status quo.

The problem is us... the people...  not the politicians... and not the fringe...  8)

I am simply blaming the conspiracy theorists for believing in crazy conspiracies, nothing more. I am not blaming them for the lack of action on climate change.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7074
Re: Time Magazine says Jacksonville . . .
« Reply #47 on: November 28, 2018, 12:51:09 PM »

A few things:

1) The paper was reporting on studies. This isn't stuff that paper made up - it's been reported in many papers. So while you may find the WaPo to be biased, that's kind of a red herring here.

2) It's funny that you can tell people what college is like now. You (as I recall) didn't attend college - so you have no idea what a) it "was" like and b) what it "is" like.

3) Even if college has changed somehow, that doesn't explain the results, as it relates to all voting age groups. Younger people are less likely to vote, so if they are somehow being affected by how college has "changed," then we'll likely really see this manifest itself more and more over the coming years.

4) Anthropogenic climate change is settled science. Over 95% of scientists are in consensus. I'm not going to try to argue about whether or not it's a thing, because a) I am unqualified, due to holding an undergraduate liberal arts degree and b) you don't (again, to my knowledge) have any sort of post-secondary education. I think it's best to leave this to the people who actually know what they're talking about - and they overwhelmingly agree it's an issue. But any yahoo can go on the internet and find his own "evidence" to support his point of view and give it equal weight - especially when he doesn't understand the science behind it.

Sorry for commenting so late Adam.

1) Just be careful with using WaPo as a reliable source. Because when I use factual info from a site (that's not some multinational liberal conglomerate) it's automatically dismissed; welcome to my world. 

2) I did some college at Jones College. Yes it's defunct, and no it wasn't the Ivy league, but I did some classes there. No it wasn't all libtarded out (the early 2000's a different era that I wish those sane times could return). 

3) Not only college has changed, the whole paradigm shift has taken place. In the Western World, everything has shifted to the left over the last couple of decades. Look at Fox News for chrissakes, they are basically a half conservative half liberal station. You have to be inside a cave somewhere on an island to not realize that. 

4) Look at "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on youtube; my mind was already made up before watching it, and it just was the cherry on top. Some of those supposed "95 percent of scientists" do not vouch for the IRCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and name's are added anyway. One scientist even threatened to sue the IRCC to take their name off the list. Bottomline, me and you agree that the environment should be clean, we just disagree on how it should be done. You seemingly think that some globalist bureaucratic system (like the Paris climate accord) should tell the UK, US etc how to go about running their countries.

Hi I-10 no worries, I assumed you'd been away. Hadn't seen you commenting lately.

1) I get what you mean about WaPo. As a general rule, I try to verify stories (or at least ones that seem contentious) from more than one source. However, it can sometimes mean that all the different news outlets got their info from the same, flawed source. That happens a lot with 'fake news' - and I don't mean 'fake news' in the political sense. I mean stories about someone in China doing something really ridiculous. Snopes is full of that stuff.

2) Apologies for my assumptions.

3) I would just say that colleges and universities have always had activism on campus (at least back to the 60s) and what we're seeing today reminds me a lot of the way it was in the late 80s/early 90s (as parodied in PCU). I think the main difference is a combination of the 24 hour news cycle and the explosion of social media. This amplifies minor stories and makes them seem far more important and widespread. An example of this would be the hysteria over Ebola in the USA.

4) I'm not going to watch that on YouTube. All I can say is that over 95% of scientists are in agreement about AGW and while there may be a scientist or two who disagrees with his name being attached to a list, they are outliers and not indicative of what is essentially settled science.

Regarding Paris and Kyoto, I think they are flawed and don't go far enough. But for me, it's not about a "globalist bureaucratic system" and is more about people need to get together and sort this out. Seriously. We're fucked if we don't do something NOW. And this is going to be just like the Iraq war - a bunch of willfully ignorant types will admit the error of their ways in 20 years, but by then it will be too late.

A couple of things:

1). Washington Post will always be an acceptable source here. Whether or not they get everything right, they're in a different league than partisan or misleading YouTube videos, which as I recall are the only things people have complained about recently. It's a nice change from the past when we had several editors posting partisan or flatly wrong information to make political points. And for the record, we historically had a much greater problem with left-leaning posts than right-leaning posts, Aldermanparklover excepted.

In this specific instance, WaPo appears to have accurately reported the contents of the the Pew findings, which are here.. The data suggests that more educated people are gravitating to the Democratic Party. The article's analysis seems pretty uncontroversial. The Republican Party is attracting more of the white working class, and losing college-educated white voters. The Democrats are losing the white working class and gaining white college-educated voters. Additionally, educational attainment is growing among groups that already trend Democratic - women, African-Americans, and Hispanics.

2) I've worked at a college for nearly 10 years and this couldn't be more different from my experience. Professors are mostly left-leaning and some are fruitcakes, but college is not some indoctrination factory. Students come from all political leanings, and studies show that most don't experience a serious leftward shift in college. In fact, one study found that the more students interacted with their professors, the more moderate they tend to become.

There are some nutty things that come out of academia, but it's not like colleges are intentionally creating "bs" degrees, other than Bachelor of Science degrees "involving social justice, gender studies, varying histories etc." At UNF for instance, there are degrees in social justice or gender studies (you can minor in gender studies), and there's one history degree, called "history". There are places that offer degrees in social justice or gender/women's studies but they're a fraction of what universities offer (I'm not aware of any social justice programs in Florida).

3) Considering all that, college itself is certainly not what's changing people's voting behavior. Colleges have always been liberal and have never had a serious effect on the politics of graduates, and it's only been in the last few years that certain voters have decided they're a bad thing. What's changing are the demographics and affiliations, which is organic. However, the biggest change (and the most troubling) is the breadth of the divide.

4) The people who know what they're talking about overwhelmingly believe that climate change is real and that human activity is the major cause. No real argument to be had there.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2018, 12:59:32 PM by Tacachale »
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

Snufflee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Time Magazine says Jacksonville . . .
« Reply #48 on: November 28, 2018, 01:37:32 PM »
"There are two problems for our species' survival - nuclear war and environmental catastrophe - and we're hurtling towards them. Knowingly."


"Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless. In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet, and will be for the foreseeable future."

And so it goes