|
Femur posted:For people who think we give a poo poo about what we say. Ah, that list includes individual representatives. So yeah, it makes sense that DuPont will donate to Republicans committee chairs even if they disagree about climate.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
No sacrifice needs be made amirite?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Femur posted:No sacrifice needs be made amirite? That is course not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that in American politics it isn't that strange for big companies to donate to the campaign of the chairperson on congressional committees that regulate them. That doesn't mean the companies are being untruthful in their climate pledges and commitments. Some obviously are, but donating to the House Science Committee Chair isn't proof of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
gently caress Republicans Vox went with a different headline, but that's basically the gist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That is course not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that in American politics it isn't that strange for big companies to donate to the campaign of the chairperson on congressional committees that regulate them. So they care, as long as it doesn't affect them negatively in any other way? That's why i said what you say don't mean poo poo, what you want is always the same, getting your way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Femur posted:So they care, as long as it doesn't affect them negatively in any other way? Or that they can still care, but they still have to pay their dues to be able to access politicians? Also that in democracy, yes we will not be able to use powerful companies to unseat elected representatives and must use the ballot box to get rid of those fools instead. The problem is that the House Chairman on Science is anti-science not that companies donate to gain access to him. For example, Pepsi's PAC spend $56K total on anti-science politicians. Now that's a lot to you or me, but that's nothing to them and certainly isn't the kind of money that sways politicians' opinions and is instead the kind of money that buys access. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or that they can still care, but they still have to pay their dues to be able to access politicians? You're being naive about this because your argument goes both ways. The money and actions related to climate change might be the bullshit bribery to fools. And by might, I mean is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:You're being naive about this because your argument goes both ways. The money and actions related to climate change might be the bullshit bribery to fools. And by might, I mean is. Are you aware how expensive American elections are or how much time our elected officials spend calling PACs asking for money? I'm quite aware that spending $40k on 19 different campaigns (DuPont) is just the price of access. So you're assuming that if they want access to these nutjob Republicans they must be anti-climate, but that's just not true. For example, a massive new toxic chemical regulation just recently passed in the US, praised by mainstream environmentalists and even a lot of business. Now, DuPont has a stake in that regulation, since DuPont makes a bunch of those. How can those donations be proof of a secret anti-climate agenda when those same legislators have power over so much else? Then you take a look at their total PAC spend: $150k so in a world where 30% of the House is on this anti-science list, those anti-science nutjobs are in control, it means nothing that a PAC spent 26% of their contributions on those same nutjobs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Are you aware how expensive American elections are or how much time our elected officials spend calling PACs asking for money? In the same way it means nothing that PAC spent 26% on 30% of congress, it also means nothing that they spent 74% on the side that did support climate change. They want a seat at the table, as you've said, and to have a say in those regulations you reference. Might those regulations been more stringent if they weren't there? Will they not try to get around it by contracting out to companies not covered by the regulation for reason x? So I don't know why you think your argument about real politik addresses my point, that what you say doesn't matter? What you do is always about you. In that way corporations are just proxy for people. So I don't expect corporations to save us, and neither do I expect us to save us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
The Crystal Serenity is now south of Greenland, having completed a transit of the Northwest Passage. This voyage had escort(s), but to my knowledge didn't need any icebreaker work to transit. The previously mentioned storms in August that greatly fractured arctic sea ice had predictably led to a rapid melt, but there have been some ice gains elsewhere. NSIDC: quote:With about two weeks of seasonal melt yet to go, it is unlikely that a new record low will be reached. However, since August 26, total sea ice extent is already lower than at the same time in 2007 and is currently tracking as the second lowest daily extent on record. In addition, during the first five days of September the ice cover has retreated an additional 288,000 square kilometers (111,000 square miles) as the tongue of sea ice in the Chukchi Sea has started to disintegrate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
La Niņa appears dead this winter - neutral winter is going to suck for a lot of places that had hopes for precipitation. Also I guess the blob is back: https://twitter.com/EricBlake12/status/775031461967650816 Which is um... interesting to say the least. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
On perhaps a good note, it appears that the melt season might well have ended in the arctic. Sea ice seems to be forming more than it's melting, but a lot of multiyear ice looks to have melted or could still melt due to its location.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Sixteen consecutive months of it being the hottest month on record, and the climate change thread isn't even on the first page of D&D. Seriously though, has it gotten to the point where everyone either (a) accepts how messed up things are and are biting their tongue about it, or (b) are completely through the looking glass of cognitive dissonance and are blaming it all on the (((NASA JEWISH SCIENCE CONSPIRACY)))?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
It's depressing so nobody wants to talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Really? Were people on the Titanic so depressed that nobody mentioned the iceberg after it struck? To my mind we should all be beyond the stage of depression and into the stage of acceptance. Hell, what if Guy McPherson is right and we've only got 15 years? What then? At least it'll be interesting. At least we got to see the end of the play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
Not sure why you're mad at us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
That's fairly damning. 3/5 Republicans do not have access to or respect for truth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Republican voters tend to skew considerably older, so it's not surprising that they're not too worried about the effects of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Cool so I guess it's just coincidence that they also literally don't believe in anthropogenic climate change then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Not sure why you're mad at us. Tell me about your career in science journalism. No, seriously, I just spent this week working on the nation's foremost science television program and everything I did was vetted by scientists for accuracy, and then on my Friday night I see this pile of dogshit you posted pretending that it has any relation to empirical fact. Please. Indulge me. With facts. schmuckfeatures fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
I feel as if you can just read the last ten or twenty pages of this thread and whatever arguments or discussion we would be having right now are pretty much covered already. Reality worse than forecasts, things are bad, nobody is doing enough. No solutions. You can go round and round but it's kind of preaching to the choir and feeling more and more bleak.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Tell me about your career in science journalism. What's your point?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Tell me about your career in science journalism.  I literally don't understand your point here, your vitriol, or what I think is an attempt to brag (though I assure you I'm quite comfortable with science writing), but the source of that survey is here (direct link to pdf) if that's what you're asking. But I for one hope you tell us more about how famous you are. 
Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
I also want to hear about this guy's experience in atmospheric science
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Sixteen consecutive months of it being the hottest month on record, and the climate change thread isn't even on the first page of D&D. I think a lot of us view the most important thing we can do, in the immediate future, to help the climate is to keep Trump out of the White House. I know I've been spending much more time reading those threads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:
I interpreted your post to be one of those "well it's only something DUMBOCRATS believe in" whataboutery shitfests. Do you think that anthropogenic climate change is something that exists? If not, why not?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Farchanter posted:I think a lot of us view the most important thing we can do, in the immediate future, to help the climate is to keep Trump out of the White House. I know I've been spending much more time reading those threads. Yeah probably this. On topic, here is a lovely "Gary Johnson on Climate Change" clip that was recently unearthed and retweeted by Krugman. https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/779003555067879424
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
edit: I am pulling the parachute release and getting outta here. christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:I interpreted your post to be one of those "well it's only something DUMBOCRATS believe in" whataboutery shitfests. Do you think that anthropogenic climate change is something that exists? If not, why not? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Not sure why you're mad at us. schmuckfeatures posted:Tell me about your career in science journalism. You're a science journalist, so you go off yelling about...something? that you haven't explained yet. All because someone posted a screenshot of a gallup poll and a single short sentence of not-even-commentary. You're talking about empiricism and facts having literally just assumed (1) Forever Peace is implying the screenshot is anything more than just a poll (2) that he's presenting it with any kind of confidence beyond what level of confidence can come from a gallup poll (3) that he is trying to force something down your throat without foundation (4) that there's some point that he has to make at all to you (5) about Dumbocrats? (you have yet to explain your point, I'd like to reiterate) being (6) the source of the "problem" he was talking about, which itself isn't quite clear and could probably be cleared up if you engaged him in a normal loving discussion. gently caress right the gently caress off or at least acknowledge that you just did the worst that I find in science journalism -- instant assumptions without foundation -- and explain your point in a way that helps Forever Peace explain his.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You're a science journalist, so you go off yelling about...something? that you haven't explained yet. All because someone posted a screenshot of a gallup poll and a single short sentence of not-even-commentary. You might need a massage and/or some chai tea. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Ad homenim attack, one of the cornerstones of scientific journalism  You know what, schmuckfeatures, I have to admit that I am making some assumptions here. Maybe you're not completely off base. Maybe you did some research on Forever_Peace and were able to imply his point based on past posting. His post history perhaps? Hmmm, let's see. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3750508&userid=116285 Let's see....PhD, respect for data and scientific method, relatively measured (especially for this thread) posting....regularly asserts he's not an absolute authority on climate change subject matter... Yeah he's definitely not the kind to try to shotgun some theory down your throat. What was your original point?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
And while we're at it, can you tell me who you write for so I can make sure it's not in my stack of subscriptions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
It's OK kind Potato. Maybe schmuckfeatures just had a tough day and is usually a good guy. I appreciate the vote of confidence but there's no need to twist the knife. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Ad homenim attack, one of the cornerstones of scientific journalism Jesus christ dude. The guy posted a major talking point for conservative denialism of anthropogenic climate change (i.e. facts are negotiable depending on which political party you subscribe to). I may have jumped the gun in assuming that he was a climate change denialist. Happy now? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Can we all be friends? This is why political polarization exists 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Jesus christ dude. The guy posted a major talking point for conservative denialism of anthropogenic climate change (i.e. facts are negotiable depending on which political party you subscribe to). I may have jumped the gun in assuming that he was a climate change denialist. Happy now? Yes, schmuckfeatures posted:Can we all be friends? This is why political polarization exists and yes. Calming down now 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
All else aside, it actually is an interesting case study for how these kinds of discussions become hopelessly polarized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Jesus christ dude. The guy posted a major talking point for conservative denialism of anthropogenic climate change (i.e. facts are negotiable depending on which political party you subscribe to). I may have jumped the gun in assuming that he was a climate change denialist. Happy now? My point was that we, the liberal-skewing members of SA and followers of the
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:42
|
|