And for a long time it was the working classes that usually had to retool every generation or two from the start of the Industrial Revolution. The big change of the last few decades is that it is those middle income earners whose jobs are increasingly at risk.
The problem here is that the dykes wouldn't be built now. They'd built once storm inundations meant lowlying areas of New York City spent large amounts of time underwater. In other words, it wouldn't be the 2016 taxpayer paying for it, it would be the 2036 taxpayer paying for it.
Anyone with even a bit of knowledge of the history of major migrations knows that it is often the sedentary populations who suffer the most. The Western Roman Empire fell in no small part due to the first wave of migrations from the Asian Steppe, and the Eastern Empire's collapse occurred in no small part because of later Turkic migrations from the Asian interior.
But more to the point, you're a fucking monster, and I hope you die of the most horrible disease one can imagine, so awful that your family literally prays to God every night that you die quickly... but you won't. I also hope the nurses and doctors who treat you are Muslims, and they are nice to you until your dying breath, so you can know fully what a disgusting subhuman you really are, you monstrous ugly piece of excrement.
So, in other words, a very large fraction of the population of the United States of America is looking at either moving, or paying vast amounts of money to build levees and dykes. Yeah, no big deal.
There hasn't been a serious claim of global cooling in nearly half a century. This is like saying "Well, you know, up until relatively recently lots of people believed the sun circled the Earth."
It's hard to tell with some of the ACs whether one is reading a complete idiot's rant, or a satirical post. I'm assuming in this case that this is satire, because otherwise this would require such an extraordinary ignorance of basic geography that I'd have to assume the poster is likely a low-IQ halfwit.
A lot of the people living in low lying areas, particular in Asia, don't exactly have the resources to pick up and leave, and if you bothered to read the article you would realize this is exactly what these people are talking about, large numbers of people living in areas that climate change will make relatively uninhabitable, or at least considerably more unpleasant to live in, getting up and leaving. You know... migrations.
Models predict temperature rises, temperature rises are observed. What you're doing is moving the goal posts so you can make it sound like your childish denial has any basis in fact.
Ah yes, some oil company-funded think tanks and a couple of climatologists who have never published any of their AGW-crushing research must be speaking the truth, whereas the overwhelming majority of experts in the field are faking it.
Oh, and I think at this juncture useful to remind this AC that those aforementioned oil companies knew about AGW forty years ago.
I think there should be someone a family can call when they feel a family member is going over the edge, whatever edge that might be. But I agree, law enforcement is a pretty blunt instrument to deal with someone who demonstrating severely abnormal behavior. I can't imagine what throwing a would-be Jihadist into a prison cell is going to do when it comes to deal with radicalization.
That might work in a perfect world. In the real world, even the good politicians still need to fudge it, because, ultimately, voters want their hopes, fears, aspirations and paranoia confirmed or soothed in some equal measure.
And Clinton did try to campaign on the fact that America is not doing that bad, that while some regions and some demographics have serious problems, all in all, the last decade has been fairly positive in most areas. But Trump understood some key demographics a lot better, in part because these demographics have not enjoyed in equal measure the growth in other areas, or in some cases, because while they are in fact doing well, they are deeply fearful that bad times will return.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to sell hope of better times or fear of worse times than it is to actually sell what is actually happening at the time.
You do have to have some command of the research, and so far as I can see the vast majority of pseudo-skeptics here have no such knowledge, and most just simply regurgitate things they've read on denier sites. As I observed many years ago with debating Creationists, you have some extraordinarily arrogant people who think they're objections, often based on ignorance of both the theories and the data, somehow constitute a complete rebuttal of the science. You see this often with solar output and cloud cover claims, with people here thinking, out of what I can only see as completely misguided delusions of grandeur, that they've considered something that two or three generations of climatologists have not.
I think, in 50 years, history will look very kindly on Obama. Was he one of the great presidents? No, that he wasn't. But he certainly is in the second tier, and, so far as I can see, eight years on from the financial crash, he basically saved the world from a global credit meltdown that would have lead to an incredibly deep recession, if not an outright depression. That he's leaving office with an economy that's in reasonably good shape, with decent employment numbers, is a great credit to him. Even the ACA, while there's no doubt that the Republicans will dismember it, will still survive in the pre-existing condition rules, and I suspect that whatever the Republicans ultimately come up with won't be that different from Obamacare anyways.
No, what you're saying is that people with no expertise in a field feel that they have an ability to critique a rather specialized field they have no expertise in.
So what you're saying is that a lot of people who have no expertise in a given field believe that they're unrelated qualifications make them an expert.
There's a name for that, it's called a "fallacious appeal to authority", and as you make pretty clear unintentionally, having a higher education does not confer some special ability to make declarations on a field for which you have no particular expertise.
I can speak to any story on AGW, where every pseudo-skeptic poster shows up en masse to attack climatologists, so yes, the Libertarians and Conservatives here are a significant fraction of the posters. Perhaps the next time a story like that comes out, I'll do a hand count after a day or so and we'll see if this is indeed a "liberal shithole", or as I suspect, a pretty evenly divided shithole.
Slashdot Mirror
And for a long time it was the working classes that usually had to retool every generation or two from the start of the Industrial Revolution. The big change of the last few decades is that it is those middle income earners whose jobs are increasingly at risk.
So your definition of a "sane party" is a party that ignores mountains of research and data?
The problem here is that the dykes wouldn't be built now. They'd built once storm inundations meant lowlying areas of New York City spent large amounts of time underwater. In other words, it wouldn't be the 2016 taxpayer paying for it, it would be the 2036 taxpayer paying for it.
Reducing CO2 emissions is a lot cheaper than building vast dykes around New York City.
Anyone with even a bit of knowledge of the history of major migrations knows that it is often the sedentary populations who suffer the most. The Western Roman Empire fell in no small part due to the first wave of migrations from the Asian Steppe, and the Eastern Empire's collapse occurred in no small part because of later Turkic migrations from the Asian interior.
But more to the point, you're a fucking monster, and I hope you die of the most horrible disease one can imagine, so awful that your family literally prays to God every night that you die quickly... but you won't. I also hope the nurses and doctors who treat you are Muslims, and they are nice to you until your dying breath, so you can know fully what a disgusting subhuman you really are, you monstrous ugly piece of excrement.
Translation: I have no evidence.
So, in other words, a very large fraction of the population of the United States of America is looking at either moving, or paying vast amounts of money to build levees and dykes. Yeah, no big deal.
There hasn't been a serious claim of global cooling in nearly half a century. This is like saying "Well, you know, up until relatively recently lots of people believed the sun circled the Earth."
It's hard to tell with some of the ACs whether one is reading a complete idiot's rant, or a satirical post. I'm assuming in this case that this is satire, because otherwise this would require such an extraordinary ignorance of basic geography that I'd have to assume the poster is likely a low-IQ halfwit.
A lot of the people living in low lying areas, particular in Asia, don't exactly have the resources to pick up and leave, and if you bothered to read the article you would realize this is exactly what these people are talking about, large numbers of people living in areas that climate change will make relatively uninhabitable, or at least considerably more unpleasant to live in, getting up and leaving. You know... migrations.
And where is your evidence for that claim?
Models predict temperature rises, temperature rises are observed. What you're doing is moving the goal posts so you can make it sound like your childish denial has any basis in fact.
The amount of money in AGW is a fraction of the amount of money oil companies pump out of the ground every week.
Ah yes, some oil company-funded think tanks and a couple of climatologists who have never published any of their AGW-crushing research must be speaking the truth, whereas the overwhelming majority of experts in the field are faking it.
Oh, and I think at this juncture useful to remind this AC that those aforementioned oil companies knew about AGW forty years ago.
I think there should be someone a family can call when they feel a family member is going over the edge, whatever edge that might be. But I agree, law enforcement is a pretty blunt instrument to deal with someone who demonstrating severely abnormal behavior. I can't imagine what throwing a would-be Jihadist into a prison cell is going to do when it comes to deal with radicalization.
That might work in a perfect world. In the real world, even the good politicians still need to fudge it, because, ultimately, voters want their hopes, fears, aspirations and paranoia confirmed or soothed in some equal measure.
And Clinton did try to campaign on the fact that America is not doing that bad, that while some regions and some demographics have serious problems, all in all, the last decade has been fairly positive in most areas. But Trump understood some key demographics a lot better, in part because these demographics have not enjoyed in equal measure the growth in other areas, or in some cases, because while they are in fact doing well, they are deeply fearful that bad times will return.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to sell hope of better times or fear of worse times than it is to actually sell what is actually happening at the time.
Do you have any actual statistics to much where anecdotal claims?
A lie is a lie, whether the person saying it is sincere or not. A person repeating a falsehood is still telling a falsehood.
You do have to have some command of the research, and so far as I can see the vast majority of pseudo-skeptics here have no such knowledge, and most just simply regurgitate things they've read on denier sites. As I observed many years ago with debating Creationists, you have some extraordinarily arrogant people who think they're objections, often based on ignorance of both the theories and the data, somehow constitute a complete rebuttal of the science. You see this often with solar output and cloud cover claims, with people here thinking, out of what I can only see as completely misguided delusions of grandeur, that they've considered something that two or three generations of climatologists have not.
I think, in 50 years, history will look very kindly on Obama. Was he one of the great presidents? No, that he wasn't. But he certainly is in the second tier, and, so far as I can see, eight years on from the financial crash, he basically saved the world from a global credit meltdown that would have lead to an incredibly deep recession, if not an outright depression. That he's leaving office with an economy that's in reasonably good shape, with decent employment numbers, is a great credit to him. Even the ACA, while there's no doubt that the Republicans will dismember it, will still survive in the pre-existing condition rules, and I suspect that whatever the Republicans ultimately come up with won't be that different from Obamacare anyways.
Translation: The statistics don't support my point of view, therefore the only possibility is that the statistics are lies.
No, what you're saying is that people with no expertise in a field feel that they have an ability to critique a rather specialized field they have no expertise in.
It's a fallacious appeal to authority, full stop.
So what you're saying is that a lot of people who have no expertise in a given field believe that they're unrelated qualifications make them an expert.
There's a name for that, it's called a "fallacious appeal to authority", and as you make pretty clear unintentionally, having a higher education does not confer some special ability to make declarations on a field for which you have no particular expertise.
I can speak to any story on AGW, where every pseudo-skeptic poster shows up en masse to attack climatologists, so yes, the Libertarians and Conservatives here are a significant fraction of the posters. Perhaps the next time a story like that comes out, I'll do a hand count after a day or so and we'll see if this is indeed a "liberal shithole", or as I suspect, a pretty evenly divided shithole.
Bunch of goddamn slackers! Trump is going to put those freeloading adolescents to work!