>It's not sexist to vote for Trump, but it is pretty clear that Trump himself is a sexist.
That's a huge stretch. At the very least, if you vote for a sexist, racist bigot then you are saying that the reasons you ARE voting for him, is much more important to you than sexism or racism... which pretty much makes you a dickhead all by itself. Because practically NOTHING should reach THAT bar. Seriously - for that to be okay Clinton would have needed to be running on a "sacrifice your first born children to satan" campaign.
There's one catch. Obama could legitimately claim he was hamstrung by republican majorities in both houses. Trump comes in with majorities in both houses - and an empty supreme court seat to fill - so he can swing that to his side as well.
What the hell exactly is going to constrain him ? He holds the levers of literally every check and balance.
It means he cannot claim to be hamstrung by anybody -at the same time, we're all fucked because he ISN'T hamstrung by anybody.
Here's a more interesting question. After 2008 - the republicans responded to a president they hated with the most obstructionist (and least productive) congress in history - by all measures (including their favourite 'laws repealed'). How will democrats respond now to a president they hate as much, or even more, than republicans hated Obama ? The "you lie !" shouts will be TRUE this time... will they behave the same ? Try to obstruct him at every turn - refuse to cooperate even on things they agree with ? Stand against him even when he pushes policies THEY WROTE ? Sure it will be largely symbolic -at least until the midterms when one of the houses might swing - but will they ? Considering how the democrats complained of the obstructionist congress - will they take a higher road now ? Or will they take their revenge on Orange Hitler ?
It's going to be an interesting few years ahead. It can be argued that a huge chunk of the problems America faces today was directly caused by that obstructionism which effectively turned government into an 8-year vacation where people got paid millions to do squat. Would democrats subject America to 4 more years of that ? Or try to be pragmatic for the sake of the country and citizens ? And if they opt for the latter - how will the voters react ? The more reasonable republicans in 2008 got badly burned in the 2010 midterms - the tea-party kicked them all out for not hating on Obama enough. What would happen if democrats try to be pragmatic and bipartisan now ? Would the 2018 midterms see a large chunk of democratic incumbents lose their seats to Bernie-style politicians from the progressive wing in the same way ?
The last time the republicans held all three houses was in 1928. The great depression started just a few months later. The one definitely caused the other.
Yes... because "I could not find a place to live at an affordable price because the ad company hid the offer from me" has NO impact whatsoever on anybody's life and is just an emotional annoyance right ?
These laws exist for a reason - to ensure that people who can afford the rent can rent the house.
Funny how you are applying the usual anti-millenial bullshit attack - against people complaining about violating a law passed by the greatest generation which was, at the time, mostly demanded by the then young boomers (who were all protesting student hippies then).
>What makes *this* perpetual motion machine different enough from all the others that it's worth a look?
The fact that we've had endless tests all apparently showing it working ? Don't get me wrong, I'm sceptical myself - it's entirely possible this will prove to be a measurement error in some subtle area we've never known to look for one - but if that is, that in itself would lead to new discoveries. Figuring out WHY this appears to produce thrust is basically guaranteed to lead to an advancement of physics, whether that advancement is "a new type of space ship engine" is debateable, but it's something. If you have something that seems impossible, and has survived every test thrown at it - then only two conclusions are possible: 1) It is not, in fact, impossible and your assumptions are wrong 2) You are overlooking something in your tests - implying your assumptions are wrong.
Either way - correcting the assumption = breakthrough in science.
Not going to happen. No drive will do that. You can't get interplanetary by flying from one to the other. You have to set up an intersecting orbit, and travel along it. The engine doesn't change that. Anyway, this engine isn't any good for that. It's thrust output is way too low. What it *is* good for, is making the small vessel you're putting into a mars intersect orbit a LOT lighter and cheaper to launch.
>The media usually gets it wrong -- they want a uniform face on a group of people I wasn't trying to suggest the stereotype is representative - but there is no doubt that a more promiscuous gay culture does exist (though I think it's been quite diminished in recent years) and I don't think it's a bad thing. I was merely trying to contemplate possible explanations for how it arose. That many gay people do not participate in that culture is a given. Just like many heterosexual women openly love sex and aggressively pursue it - despite all the social stigma attached to that- no culture is an accurate description of every member of a group. There are Americans who can't stand baseball, South Africans who find Rugby boring as hell - gay men who find sleeping around disgusting and everything in between. Whether it's a 'most' or 'some' thing is something I don't have data on and is also probably not a single answer everywhere. I'm pretty sure most gay men who choose to live in Castro in SF lives there because this culture is so prevalent there, but the numbers there may very well not apply to gay men living in say Portland and almost certainly not to those in Alabama. Here in Cape Town it's almost certainly a majority - but then this is by far the most liberal city in a very conservative country. Gay and Bi people actually move here to be able to live out their sexuality more freely. It is also more promiscuous a city for heterosexual on average. It's been said that you will never in Cape Town meet a person who hasn't slept with at least one person you know - and in my 7 years here, it's been true so far.
>No judgement from me here either, I'm a bisexual man married to another man. American society still has no clue what to think of bisexuals Not just America. In most of the world it is still a case of straight people yelling at you for not being straight and gay people yelling at you for not being gay. It's interesting - I have met more bi men at polyamory meetups than fetish clubs (or anywhere else). My personal theory is they are just as prevalent elsewhere - but outside that particular context - they are cashing in on their pass-as-straight or pass-as-gay ability because it means not dealing with annoying questions. I know I do. I generally only come out to people I know would be comfortable with the idea - and quite a lot of people who are quite okay with gays are not in that category.
That is far rarer actually, and the reality is that roads are a shared resource. Without management they would be a disaster area - you have to have some sort of system to ensure that both directions at a crossing get a chance to cross safely - without lights you effectively turn every road into a tragedy of the commons, and the fatality rate would skyrocket.
You are committing a very basic fallacy by comparing the accidents from rear-endings with the accidents from running-lights and concluding that lights aren't great for safety but that's a false equivalence. To get the actual comparison you need to compare rear-endings with accidents if there WERE no lights... which would be millions of times higher. Right now the vast majority of people survive the vast majority of times they come near a road-crossing. Without lights - the vast majority would die. Frankly that wouldn't last very long - but only because within a week nobody at all would drive or walk anywhere near a public road ever again
That's a possible explanation - but I don't think you're right, you're still ignoring the fact that they are told all their lives that pursuing all the sex you can get is the right and proper way to live. It's only who they pursue it from that's frowned upon - as soon as they stop caring about that frowning, the pursuits are unimpeded. That the people they are pursuing has the same attitude leads to a more promiscuous outcome (on average - many gay people choose monogamy too).
More people follow the things society drums into them than rebel in the opposite direction - that's why only a minority of people become murderers. To suggest that pure rage-rebellion is the sole explanation falls short of explaining the scale of the phenomenon.
And there is no judgement from me there - I'm bisexual, married to a bisexual woman and we are polyamorous, since both of us just sees sex as a fun thing you can enjoy sometimes, we see no reason to restrict whom the other one can have it with - especially since we both have desires the other one cannot possibly satisfy.
The fact that there is literally not a single important thing about Hitler (up to and including the circumstances in which he came to power) that is not DIRECTLY equated by the Trump campaign can't have anything to do with that though, right ?
Not by much either - his approach to dealing with the soviets damn near DID achieve exactly that. He took a calculated risk that frankly was unjustifiably risky, it paid off - but it was a very real risk. The difference is - he actually had a chance at NOT causing world war 3 with his policies, and he was living in a different time - when the room for risk was significantly larger. The world powers right now are itching for a fight, every one of them is making moves that threaten peace and stability - and all it takes is one wrong move and we are in world war 3. It took just one dead guy at the wrong time to start the first one, and in fact that same dead guy started the second one since it was directly caused by the first one. We are, now, for the first time since 1914 in a situation as precarious as we were then. This is the time for a cautious leader if there ever was one.
Interestingly - at the time Americans thought they could keep themselves out of the threatening war by electing an isolationist leader. It didn't work well then and there is no reason to believe it would work this time (not that Trump actually IS an isolationist - he just says he is when speaking to people who want one, and is a complete hawk when speaking to hawks).
Reagan isn't THAT yesteryear, like most voters in this election - I lived through his presidency. Anyway the REASONS Rod gives why his dad can't be elected in today's republican party is because the party itself has lost the plot: 1) He expanded medicare and medicaid due to a real need (as opposed to destroying all social safety nets indiscriminately) 2) He dealt with an actual act of war against the united states by defusing the situation diplomatically (rather than call to bomb the country) 3) He raised taxes when the country was going bankrupt, and he raised them the most on the rich
In other words - he was sane enough to temper his ideology and not follow it religiously when the facts of the day required a different response. He was a bad president by every measure I hold - and the Iran/Contra scandal makes anything Hillary has done look downright innocuous (seriously - there is no way it was anything less than high treason and he should have been impeached AND court-martialed for it and gotten the death penalty which is exactly what would have happened if Oliver North hadn't agreed to be a fallguy). But terrible as he was - he was sane and there is no room for sanity in the republican party anymore. It's a party of froth-at-the-mouth insanity.
Oh and there has always been politically incorrect candidates and they often did well. What you think Goldwater was being politically correct shouting from the podium about how good white people shouldn't have to share a neighbourhood with n***rs ?
I never said *I* felt stifiled, but some people would - and smart politicians don't piss of potential voters, even ones who are currently voting for the other side.
Well if you're going to base your opinions on claims made by sites like breitbart which has been thoroughly debunked and disproven then there's no point talking since we live in two different universes and yours and mine have nothing in common. That dark dystopia where Obama has taken everybody's guns and Hillary Clinton is actually satan and there is something about Benghazi that isn't also true of the 11 embassies attacked while Colin Powel was secretary of state or something about her e-mail that Powel didn't ALSO do (and was not investigated for), where the land is overrun by crazy communists and ruled by a dark lord... yeah, I don't live in that universe, it doesn't really exist.
So the fact that the main driver of science denial messages is the SAME COMPANY who spent decades denying that smoking causes cancer and before that spent decades claiming that lead levels in the air were 'natural' (the natural number of lead atoms in Earth's atmosphere is zero and this was proven in 1965) and harmless doesn't matter ?
You consider scientists by a (completely unfounded) reputation - but you ignore the reputation of the people who say what you want to hear ?
Religion - which is, in fact, a major motivator for climate denial. Like a certain republican congressman who told the world climate science cannot be true because God promised Noah he wouldn't destroy the world again.*
*Which is ironic because you'd think a Bible-thumper would AT LEAST have read the bits they quote - according to Genesis the skydaddy actually did NOT promise that, in fact he promised he WOULD destroy earth again - with fire. If you're going to base your belief system on stone age myths, at LEAST get the myths right.
>We still have as many glaciers as ever. They didn't melt.
And all the glaciers that ALREADY MELTED ?! Oh... did you not know that ?
The Andes is filled with abandoned clusters of cottages... do you know what they were ? Ski-resorts, built in the 1980s, abandoned in the years since because the glaciers don't exist anymore !
>The overwhelming agreement, even to the 95% confidence level, was that temperatures would rise more than they did False the temperatures are on track with the best models and have shown no significant deviations - ever. Yes I know fox news said otherwise and you read some blog with a graph that said otherwise. They were lying to you - the deniers cherry-pick data to present false images, or when they are really eager, they flat out lie about what the data means. Much like claiming the medieval warm period was sooo hot and everybody was fine, while carefully not mentioning that it affected such a tiny area that the global average didn't even change. A global average change is a big deal.
>The overwhelming agreement was to delete original but inconvenient data False, and the people who told you that this is what happened were lying. Three tribunals in a row have investigated the allegations and all three found no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. But I suppose it's like Benghazi, no matter how many times it is investigated and found that the person being targetted did nothing wrong - there will always be another witchhunt and people will still believe there is guilt. Funny though how nobody wants to prosecute Colin Powel - after all 11 embassies were hit during his tenure and 6 diplomats killed, why is the ONE time one got killed under Hillary so much worse than his 11 ? And so it goes with this claim - it is devoid of any truth, but believed because it supports your personal ideology.
>The overwhelming agreement was to use temperature monitoring stations sited on concrete and asphalt pads, next to heat exchangers, near runways, and so forth, as proxies for temperatures in nearby wilderness and other less-developed areas Funny though - how when a group of denier scientists set out disprove climate change theory by building a data set with all those shady stations excluded - that set promptly became the GOTO set for the climate scientists and actually proved things were WORSE than previously thought. The so-called BEST set - created to try and disprove the theory, ended up being the strongest data FOR the theory. When people actively try to disprove a theory, and only end up making it stronger - that's a very good sign in science.
>In short, the point is whether climate science deserves to be called science at all. In short the point is whether climate denial is deliberate deception or the suckers who fell for the deliberate deception.
>So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong?
I keep seeing zealots on the other side shielding coal mines from responsibility for the millions of people they kill every year (it's totally coincidental that the highest rates of respiratory illness in the world always happen in towns with coal mines - and the highest worker death-toll of any energy source in the world is pure happenstance). I keep seeing them complain about Native Americans in North Dakota who don't want a pipeline built over their land.
You want to know what will happen if we're wrong ? Nothing of value will have been lost- there is literally not a single change being advocated that would harm your liberty in any way, all we're proposing is to replace archaic 19th century technology with the best 21st century technologies available. And what if we are wrong and did nothing ? You act like that's a non-effect situation. But we could end the suffering of billions of people around the world with the SAME actions that we need to fight climate change - and you would rather have their suffering persist.
You think you're the one defending liberty ? The Jackbooted Thugs are not shooting at the people wanting to build the pipelines, they are shooting at the people whose land is being ruined to build the pipeline against their wishes. The government overreach isn't acting against fossil fuels -it's defending them. If liberty/politics is a factor then it is, at the very least, a zero-effect change considering the actions of governments FOR fossil fuels are ALREADY as bad as they come, it will only be more of the same in this regard. But everything else ? Clean air to breath, clean water to drink - those things are hugely beneficial for everybody, even if we were wrong about climate change then so fucking what ? Would you turn down a guaranteed million dollars with a chance at a billion dollars because you may not get the billion ?
Why turn down clean air, clean water, safer vehicles, safer cities, reduced exploitation - because you fear something that is no better under the systems you defend ? If anything - renewable energy which naturally favours lots and lots of small businesses competing in an open market is a much better deal for consumers than fossil fuels which tend to require massive infrastructure investments that turn them into natural monopolies where no real competition has ever existed.
Slashdot Mirror
>It's not sexist to vote for Trump, but it is pretty clear that Trump himself is a sexist.
That's a huge stretch. At the very least, if you vote for a sexist, racist bigot then you are saying that the reasons you ARE voting for him, is much more important to you than sexism or racism... which pretty much makes you a dickhead all by itself. Because practically NOTHING should reach THAT bar. Seriously - for that to be okay Clinton would have needed to be running on a "sacrifice your first born children to satan" campaign.
There's one catch. Obama could legitimately claim he was hamstrung by republican majorities in both houses. Trump comes in with majorities in both houses - and an empty supreme court seat to fill - so he can swing that to his side as well.
What the hell exactly is going to constrain him ? He holds the levers of literally every check and balance.
It means he cannot claim to be hamstrung by anybody -at the same time, we're all fucked because he ISN'T hamstrung by anybody.
Here's a more interesting question. After 2008 - the republicans responded to a president they hated with the most obstructionist (and least productive) congress in history - by all measures (including their favourite 'laws repealed'). How will democrats respond now to a president they hate as much, or even more, than republicans hated Obama ? The "you lie !" shouts will be TRUE this time... will they behave the same ? Try to obstruct him at every turn - refuse to cooperate even on things they agree with ? Stand against him even when he pushes policies THEY WROTE ? Sure it will be largely symbolic -at least until the midterms when one of the houses might swing - but will they ?
Considering how the democrats complained of the obstructionist congress - will they take a higher road now ? Or will they take their revenge on Orange Hitler ?
It's going to be an interesting few years ahead. It can be argued that a huge chunk of the problems America faces today was directly caused by that obstructionism which effectively turned government into an 8-year vacation where people got paid millions to do squat. Would democrats subject America to 4 more years of that ? Or try to be pragmatic for the sake of the country and citizens ? And if they opt for the latter - how will the voters react ? The more reasonable republicans in 2008 got badly burned in the 2010 midterms - the tea-party kicked them all out for not hating on Obama enough. What would happen if democrats try to be pragmatic and bipartisan now ? Would the 2018 midterms see a large chunk of democratic incumbents lose their seats to Bernie-style politicians from the progressive wing in the same way ?
The last time the republicans held all three houses was in 1928. The great depression started just a few months later. The one definitely caused the other.
Yes ... because "I could not find a place to live at an affordable price because the ad company hid the offer from me" has NO impact whatsoever on anybody's life and is just an emotional annoyance right ?
These laws exist for a reason - to ensure that people who can afford the rent can rent the house.
Funny how you are applying the usual anti-millenial bullshit attack - against people complaining about violating a law passed by the greatest generation which was, at the time, mostly demanded by the then young boomers (who were all protesting student hippies then).
>What makes *this* perpetual motion machine different enough from all the others that it's worth a look?
The fact that we've had endless tests all apparently showing it working ? Don't get me wrong, I'm sceptical myself - it's entirely possible this will prove to be a measurement error in some subtle area we've never known to look for one - but if that is, that in itself would lead to new discoveries.
Figuring out WHY this appears to produce thrust is basically guaranteed to lead to an advancement of physics, whether that advancement is "a new type of space ship engine" is debateable, but it's something. If you have something that seems impossible, and has survived every test thrown at it - then only two conclusions are possible:
1) It is not, in fact, impossible and your assumptions are wrong
2) You are overlooking something in your tests - implying your assumptions are wrong.
Either way - correcting the assumption = breakthrough in science.
Not going to happen. No drive will do that. You can't get interplanetary by flying from one to the other. You have to set up an intersecting orbit, and travel along it. The engine doesn't change that.
Anyway, this engine isn't any good for that. It's thrust output is way too low. What it *is* good for, is making the small vessel you're putting into a mars intersect orbit a LOT lighter and cheaper to launch.
Assuming it actually does work...
>The media usually gets it wrong -- they want a uniform face on a group of people
I wasn't trying to suggest the stereotype is representative - but there is no doubt that a more promiscuous gay culture does exist (though I think it's been quite diminished in recent years) and I don't think it's a bad thing. I was merely trying to contemplate possible explanations for how it arose. That many gay people do not participate in that culture is a given. Just like many heterosexual women openly love sex and aggressively pursue it - despite all the social stigma attached to that- no culture is an accurate description of every member of a group. There are Americans who can't stand baseball, South Africans who find Rugby boring as hell - gay men who find sleeping around disgusting and everything in between. Whether it's a 'most' or 'some' thing is something I don't have data on and is also probably not a single answer everywhere. I'm pretty sure most gay men who choose to live in Castro in SF lives there because this culture is so prevalent there, but the numbers there may very well not apply to gay men living in say Portland and almost certainly not to those in Alabama. Here in Cape Town it's almost certainly a majority - but then this is by far the most liberal city in a very conservative country. Gay and Bi people actually move here to be able to live out their sexuality more freely. It is also more promiscuous a city for heterosexual on average. It's been said that you will never in Cape Town meet a person who hasn't slept with at least one person you know - and in my 7 years here, it's been true so far.
>No judgement from me here either, I'm a bisexual man married to another man. American society still has no clue what to think of bisexuals
Not just America. In most of the world it is still a case of straight people yelling at you for not being straight and gay people yelling at you for not being gay. It's interesting - I have met more bi men at polyamory meetups than fetish clubs (or anywhere else). My personal theory is they are just as prevalent elsewhere - but outside that particular context - they are cashing in on their pass-as-straight or pass-as-gay ability because it means not dealing with annoying questions. I know I do. I generally only come out to people I know would be comfortable with the idea - and quite a lot of people who are quite okay with gays are not in that category.
That is far rarer actually, and the reality is that roads are a shared resource. Without management they would be a disaster area - you have to have some sort of system to ensure that both directions at a crossing get a chance to cross safely - without lights you effectively turn every road into a tragedy of the commons, and the fatality rate would skyrocket.
You are committing a very basic fallacy by comparing the accidents from rear-endings with the accidents from running-lights and concluding that lights aren't great for safety but that's a false equivalence. To get the actual comparison you need to compare rear-endings with accidents if there WERE no lights... which would be millions of times higher.
Right now the vast majority of people survive the vast majority of times they come near a road-crossing. Without lights - the vast majority would die. Frankly that wouldn't last very long - but only because within a week nobody at all would drive or walk anywhere near a public road ever again
That's a possible explanation - but I don't think you're right, you're still ignoring the fact that they are told all their lives that pursuing all the sex you can get is the right and proper way to live. It's only who they pursue it from that's frowned upon - as soon as they stop caring about that frowning, the pursuits are unimpeded. That the people they are pursuing has the same attitude leads to a more promiscuous outcome (on average - many gay people choose monogamy too).
More people follow the things society drums into them than rebel in the opposite direction - that's why only a minority of people become murderers. To suggest that pure rage-rebellion is the sole explanation falls short of explaining the scale of the phenomenon.
And there is no judgement from me there - I'm bisexual, married to a bisexual woman and we are polyamorous, since both of us just sees sex as a fun thing you can enjoy sometimes, we see no reason to restrict whom the other one can have it with - especially since we both have desires the other one cannot possibly satisfy.
No, it really hasn't. The 'confirmation' was just more bullshit.
There is PROOF that it's a conspiracy theory which neither she nor any senior member of her campaign had any part in.
The fact that there is literally not a single important thing about Hitler (up to and including the circumstances in which he came to power) that is not DIRECTLY equated by the Trump campaign can't have anything to do with that though, right ?
Somebody in the family had to be the smart one. Too bad we couldn't get HIM elected instead of Bush's son.
With Reagan - they were exagerating.
Not by much either - his approach to dealing with the soviets damn near DID achieve exactly that. He took a calculated risk that frankly was unjustifiably risky, it paid off - but it was a very real risk.
The difference is - he actually had a chance at NOT causing world war 3 with his policies, and he was living in a different time - when the room for risk was significantly larger.
The world powers right now are itching for a fight, every one of them is making moves that threaten peace and stability - and all it takes is one wrong move and we are in world war 3. It took just one dead guy at the wrong time to start the first one, and in fact that same dead guy started the second one since it was directly caused by the first one.
We are, now, for the first time since 1914 in a situation as precarious as we were then. This is the time for a cautious leader if there ever was one.
Interestingly - at the time Americans thought they could keep themselves out of the threatening war by electing an isolationist leader. It didn't work well then and there is no reason to believe it would work this time (not that Trump actually IS an isolationist - he just says he is when speaking to people who want one, and is a complete hawk when speaking to hawks).
I am laughing and crying at the same time.
Well played sir.
Yeah, she's a terrible photographer. Who wants to see blurry nudes ?
Reagan isn't THAT yesteryear, like most voters in this election - I lived through his presidency. Anyway the REASONS Rod gives why his dad can't be elected in today's republican party is because the party itself has lost the plot:
1) He expanded medicare and medicaid due to a real need (as opposed to destroying all social safety nets indiscriminately)
2) He dealt with an actual act of war against the united states by defusing the situation diplomatically (rather than call to bomb the country)
3) He raised taxes when the country was going bankrupt, and he raised them the most on the rich
In other words - he was sane enough to temper his ideology and not follow it religiously when the facts of the day required a different response. He was a bad president by every measure I hold - and the Iran/Contra scandal makes anything Hillary has done look downright innocuous (seriously - there is no way it was anything less than high treason and he should have been impeached AND court-martialed for it and gotten the death penalty which is exactly what would have happened if Oliver North hadn't agreed to be a fallguy). But terrible as he was - he was sane and there is no room for sanity in the republican party anymore. It's a party of froth-at-the-mouth insanity.
Oh and there has always been politically incorrect candidates and they often did well. What you think Goldwater was being politically correct shouting from the podium about how good white people shouldn't have to share a neighbourhood with n***rs ?
I never said *I* felt stifiled, but some people would - and smart politicians don't piss of potential voters, even ones who are currently voting for the other side.
Well if you're going to base your opinions on claims made by sites like breitbart which has been thoroughly debunked and disproven then there's no point talking since we live in two different universes and yours and mine have nothing in common.
That dark dystopia where Obama has taken everybody's guns and Hillary Clinton is actually satan and there is something about Benghazi that isn't also true of the 11 embassies attacked while Colin Powel was secretary of state or something about her e-mail that Powel didn't ALSO do (and was not investigated for), where the land is overrun by crazy communists and ruled by a dark lord... yeah, I don't live in that universe, it doesn't really exist.
>Nah, fuck it. Just vote for Trump. Bigtime!
What he said ! And remember to listen to your candidate and go vote on the 28th !
So the fact that the main driver of science denial messages is the SAME COMPANY who spent decades denying that smoking causes cancer and before that spent decades claiming that lead levels in the air were 'natural' (the natural number of lead atoms in Earth's atmosphere is zero and this was proven in 1965) and harmless doesn't matter ?
You consider scientists by a (completely unfounded) reputation - but you ignore the reputation of the people who say what you want to hear ?
Religion - which is, in fact, a major motivator for climate denial.
Like a certain republican congressman who told the world climate science cannot be true because God promised Noah he wouldn't destroy the world again.*
*Which is ironic because you'd think a Bible-thumper would AT LEAST have read the bits they quote - according to Genesis the skydaddy actually did NOT promise that, in fact he promised he WOULD destroy earth again - with fire. If you're going to base your belief system on stone age myths, at LEAST get the myths right.
>We still have as many glaciers as ever. They didn't melt.
And all the glaciers that ALREADY MELTED ?! ... did you not know that ?
Oh
The Andes is filled with abandoned clusters of cottages... do you know what they were ? Ski-resorts, built in the 1980s, abandoned in the years since because the glaciers don't exist anymore !
>The overwhelming agreement, even to the 95% confidence level, was that temperatures would rise more than they did
False the temperatures are on track with the best models and have shown no significant deviations - ever. Yes I know fox news said otherwise and you read some blog with a graph that said otherwise. They were lying to you - the deniers cherry-pick data to present false images, or when they are really eager, they flat out lie about what the data means.
Much like claiming the medieval warm period was sooo hot and everybody was fine, while carefully not mentioning that it affected such a tiny area that the global average didn't even change. A global average change is a big deal.
>The overwhelming agreement was to delete original but inconvenient data
False, and the people who told you that this is what happened were lying. Three tribunals in a row have investigated the allegations and all three found no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. But I suppose it's like Benghazi, no matter how many times it is investigated and found that the person being targetted did nothing wrong - there will always be another witchhunt and people will still believe there is guilt. Funny though how nobody wants to prosecute Colin Powel - after all 11 embassies were hit during his tenure and 6 diplomats killed, why is the ONE time one got killed under Hillary so much worse than his 11 ? And so it goes with this claim - it is devoid of any truth, but believed because it supports your personal ideology.
>The overwhelming agreement was to use temperature monitoring stations sited on concrete and asphalt pads, next to heat exchangers, near runways, and so forth, as proxies for temperatures in nearby wilderness and other less-developed areas
Funny though - how when a group of denier scientists set out disprove climate change theory by building a data set with all those shady stations excluded - that set promptly became the GOTO set for the climate scientists and actually proved things were WORSE than previously thought. The so-called BEST set - created to try and disprove the theory, ended up being the strongest data FOR the theory.
When people actively try to disprove a theory, and only end up making it stronger - that's a very good sign in science.
>In short, the point is whether climate science deserves to be called science at all.
In short the point is whether climate denial is deliberate deception or the suckers who fell for the deliberate deception.
Then present some new evidence.
Oh there is NO evidence against the theory ? Then until that changes - the science is settled, and that's the meaning of the word in this context.
>So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong?
I keep seeing zealots on the other side shielding coal mines from responsibility for the millions of people they kill every year (it's totally coincidental that the highest rates of respiratory illness in the world always happen in towns with coal mines - and the highest worker death-toll of any energy source in the world is pure happenstance). I keep seeing them complain about Native Americans in North Dakota who don't want a pipeline built over their land.
You want to know what will happen if we're wrong ? Nothing of value will have been lost- there is literally not a single change being advocated that would harm your liberty in any way, all we're proposing is to replace archaic 19th century technology with the best 21st century technologies available. And what if we are wrong and did nothing ? You act like that's a non-effect situation. But we could end the suffering of billions of people around the world with the SAME actions that we need to fight climate change - and you would rather have their suffering persist.
You think you're the one defending liberty ? The Jackbooted Thugs are not shooting at the people wanting to build the pipelines, they are shooting at the people whose land is being ruined to build the pipeline against their wishes. The government overreach isn't acting against fossil fuels -it's defending them. If liberty/politics is a factor then it is, at the very least, a zero-effect change considering the actions of governments FOR fossil fuels are ALREADY as bad as they come, it will only be more of the same in this regard.
But everything else ? Clean air to breath, clean water to drink - those things are hugely beneficial for everybody, even if we were wrong about climate change then so fucking what ? Would you turn down a guaranteed million dollars with a chance at a billion dollars because you may not get the billion ?
Why turn down clean air, clean water, safer vehicles, safer cities, reduced exploitation - because you fear something that is no better under the systems you defend ?
If anything - renewable energy which naturally favours lots and lots of small businesses competing in an open market is a much better deal for consumers than fossil fuels which tend to require massive infrastructure investments that turn them into natural monopolies where no real competition has ever existed.