First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
Post Reply do you believe in climate change?
6414 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Uk
Offline
Posted 4/18/17 , edited 4/18/17

MysticGon wrote:


Fozzles wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Yep, I'm intentionally driving in 2nd all the time to actively kill off these fucking things...



WHY?! What has a polar bear ever done to you? ;_____;

v i laughed in the silent section of my library TT___TT


It's not about what they've done, it's what they'd do if I were in their midst. Which is eat me.


If their home doesn't cease to exist, you'll never have to worry about being eaten
5016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
O
Offline
Posted 4/18/17 , edited 4/18/17
Yes.
mxdan 
11831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18
11525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18
Of course. The climate is constantly changing. You can't stop it.
11525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

mxdan wrote:

Thought this was a good amount of poetic justice for the day.


The God-given human right to have godlike control over the weather. That's a new one on me. Maybe in the Cult of Climate they believe we are all latent, weather controlling mutants like Storm of X-Men fame.

The downside to human rights is that there will always be demagogues like this who abuse the concept. Maybe we should focus on chopping up children in the womb before we focus on a child's non-existent right to control the weather.

Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18
Regardless of what Tucker Carlson doesn't believe, I see no reason for me not to believe the scientific consensus for this phenomenon. When I see unrefutable, non-religious, scientific proof it isn't true, and I won't, then I would reconsider.
11525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

Democraticsocialist09 wrote:

Regardless of what Tucker Carlson doesn't believe, I see no reason for me not to believe the scientific consensus for this phenomenon. When I see unrefutable, non-religious, scientific proof it isn't true, and I won't, then I would reconsider.


I don't see why you need a consensus. It's pretty plainly observable that the climate changes.
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:


Democraticsocialist09 wrote:

Regardless of what Tucker Carlson doesn't believe, I see no reason for me not to believe the scientific consensus for this phenomenon. When I see unrefutable, non-religious, scientific proof it isn't true, and I won't, then I would reconsider.


I don't see why you need a consensus. It's pretty plainly observable that the climate changes.


But for someone else to suggest it isn't, yes, in that case would definitely need one.
qwueri 
23732 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:

The God-given human right to have godlike control over the weather. That's a new one on me. Maybe in the Cult of Climate they believe we are all latent, weather controlling mutants like Storm of X-Men fame.

The downside to human rights is that there will always be demagogues like this who abuse the concept. Maybe we should focus on chopping up children in the womb before we focus on a child's non-existent right to control the weather.



The article states the suite is specifically about companies and government doing nothing about their carbon emissions despite knowing that they impact the environment. There's probably about a dozen different ways to lawyer around the case, but resorting to reductio ad absurdum isn't likely to win a judge over.
11525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

qwueri wrote:



The article states the suite is specifically about companies and government doing nothing about their carbon emissions despite knowing that they impact the environment. There's probably about a dozen different ways to lawyer around the case, but resorting to reductio ad absurdum isn't likely to win a judge over.


That's fine; the whole premise is absurd to the core, because literally all human activity produces CO2. The greatest threat to US ecosystems right now is habitat loss due to immigration. If they want to save US ecosystems and greenery they should focus on that. Instead, they're wasting time and money on a frivolous, stupid lawsuit.
qwueri 
23732 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:

That's fine; the whole premise is absurd to the core, because literally all human activity produces CO2. The greatest threat to US ecosystems right now is habitat loss due to immigration. If they want to save US ecosystems and greenery they should focus on that. Instead, they're wasting time and money on a frivolous, stupid lawsuit.


The argument is about quantities produced on an industrial level, not individual use (as far as pursuing the article appears anyway). Throwing around red herrings like immigration aren't convincing arguments either. But if you keep going, with the former claim you're more likely to hit on a legally sound argument than the later.
11525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

qwueri wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

That's fine; the whole premise is absurd to the core, because literally all human activity produces CO2. The greatest threat to US ecosystems right now is habitat loss due to immigration. If they want to save US ecosystems and greenery they should focus on that. Instead, they're wasting time and money on a frivolous, stupid lawsuit.


The argument is about quantities produced on an industrial level, not individual use (as far as pursuing the article appears anyway). Throwing around red herrings like immigration aren't convincing arguments either. But if you keep going, with the former claim you're more likely to hit on a legally sound argument than the later.


Industries are just groups of people working together. Immigration is not a red herring, because it directly affects the environment, and also directly affects those industrial effects. To paraphrase the founder of Earth Day: "To say you're for mass immigration to the USA AND for protecting its ecosystems is BS". You simply cannot claim to be concerned about our ecosystems and environment while ignoring tidal wave immigration numbers. This selective concern is symptomatic of demagogy.
qwueri 
23732 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:

Industries are just groups of people working together. Immigration is not a red herring, because it directly affects the environment, and also directly affects those industrial effects. To paraphrase the founder of Earth Day: "To say you're for mass immigration to the USA AND for protecting its ecosystems is BS". You simply cannot claim to be concerned about our ecosystems and environment while ignoring tidal wave immigration numbers. This selective concern is symptomatic of demagogy.


Industries are on an entirely different magnitude of scale than an individual person. And yes, trying to introduce an entirely different topic as "more important" is indeed a red herring.
11525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

qwueri wrote:


Industries are on an entirely different magnitude of scale than an individual person. And yes, trying to introduce an entirely different topic as "more important" is indeed a red herring.


The problem with your claim is that population size/growth, industrial output, and environmental impact are all very closely related.
Humms 
12865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

Humms wrote:

Definitely maybe.

After this winter I might side with yes



This was my response a couple years back

It snowed in the Sahara desert

Yes... we are fucked
qwueri 
23732 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:

The problem with your claim is the ignorance required to claim population growth is an entirely different topic to a population's industry and environmental impact.


Population growth has little bearing on industrial capability to curtail pollution output, beyond perhaps a drive to rapidly expand an industry at all costs. And specifically on immigration, that's not aggregate population growth, but rather concentration of population within a region.
First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.