POLITICS: what have you done for us lately?

[Chankgeez]

Definitely ultra-ambitious.

In principle, I'm all for it.

As you've said, it needs to be something that'll pass. Compromise is, as always, key. Not sure there's much compromise going on lately though.

[Benn Roe]

It needs to pass, but it also needs to work. We are on a twelve-year collision course with environmental catastrophe. Every second matters.

[Chankgeez]

Good luck trying to convince climate change deniers of that.

[Benn Roe]

They don't get to have an opinion. That's the only solution to the problem. Compromise is simply not an option here.

[Chankgeez]

I like your eco-warrior attitude.

[Blackened Soul]

They don't get to have an opinion. That's the only solution to the problem. Compromise is simply not an option here.

No. The baby Jesus is going to get you and smite your ass for even thinking this way.

[Benn Roe]

If you're not an eco-warrior right now, you're doing it wrong. Look, I'm not at all a fan of shouting people down or taking militant stances about the things I believe. It doesn't do any good, just makes people double down. But these aren't things I believe, they're terrifying facts, and we don't really have the luxury of holding people's hands and treating their reckless opinions with respect on this one singular issue. Calling for compromise on this issue legitimizes a dangerous fringe belief at a time when we can't afford not to take action.

[repoman]

Do you guys ever actually consider the points from scientists that have the position that AGW is overblown/not real/fabricated/not enough data to make a decision and consider there are political motivations behind people pushing it that would have skewed their position/made it a thing that should be treated with skepticism?

Do you ever legitimately critique positions from pro AGW people and listen to its critics with an open mind?
(There are plenty of legitimate critiques, you just never see them in mainstream news/press/media, they are in long, boring papers/studies and academic lectures on places like youtube).

Do you know the "father of CO2 driven climate change" (Roger Revelle) spent the last 10 years of his life writing about how his science had been hijacked by the UN and that people were rushing to conclusion, the press then labeled him as senile despite continuing to write papers until his death? These people then had the gall to create an award in his name to people doing the most combat climate change, first person being Al Gore. Al Gore said Roger Revelle was his greatest mentor, Roger Revelle said he had no recollection of knowing Al Gore, only that Gore had taken one of his classes at BU, which showed Gore was almost never in attendance and received a D in the class.

[Chankgeez]

Oh, certainly, scientists have agendas. Lots of theorems need to be proved, before there's a consensus. If you take a look at the history of science, I doubt anyone's gotten it 100% correct on their first try. Science isn't an exact science.

I'd rather err on the side of caution. What do we have to lose?

[Bassist_Diver]

If you're not an eco-warrior right now, you're doing it wrong. Look, I'm not at all a fan of shouting people down or taking militant stances about the things I believe. It doesn't do any good, just makes people double down. But these aren't things I believe, they're terrifying facts, and we don't really have the luxury of holding people's hands and treating their reckless opinions with respect on this one singular issue. Calling for compromise on this issue legitimizes a dangerous fringe belief at a time when we can't afford not to take action.

Compromise on the timeline and the social welfare programs is going to have to happen. I’d rather have more green energy plants in 12 years and expanded Medicare-for-all than absolutely nothing.

[Paul_C]

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[Blackened Soul]

Do you guys ever actually consider the points from scientists that have the position that AGW is overblown/not real/fabricated/not enough data to make a decision and consider there are political motivations behind people pushing it that would have skewed their position/made it a thing that should be treated with skepticism?

Do you ever legitimately critique positions from pro AGW people and listen to its critics with an open mind?
(There are plenty of legitimate critiques, you just never see them in mainstream news/press/media, they are in long, boring papers/studies and academic lectures on places like youtube).

Do you know the "father of CO2 driven climate change" (Roger Revelle) spent the last 10 years of his life writing about how his science had been hijacked by the UN and that people were rushing to conclusion, the press then labeled him as senile despite continuing to write papers until his death? These people then had the gall to create an award in his name to people doing the most combat climate change, first person being Al Gore. Al Gore said Roger Revelle was his greatest mentor, Roger Revelle said he had no recollection of knowing Al Gore, only that Gore had taken one of his classes at BU, which showed Gore was almost never in attendance and received a D in the class.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure the earth is round.

[Sonaboy]

That's nice that the "father of CO2 driven climate change" thought his work was being misused, but since his initial work, there have been plenty more studies done and lots of people in different fields of natural sciences are comparing notes and uhhhh, they aren't too happy about what kind of numbers are coming back.

Who the fuck talks about Al Gore as an influence leader anymore? What is this - 2002?

[Chankgeez]

Not sure you could ask for a more political topic than this:

https://www.eater.com/2019/2/13/1821241 ... ate-change

[Benn Roe]

Do you guys ever actually consider the points from scientists that have the position that AGW is overblown/not real/fabricated/not enough data to make a decision and consider there are political motivations behind people pushing it that would have skewed their position/made it a thing that should be treated with skepticism?

Do you ever legitimately critique positions from pro AGW people and listen to its critics with an open mind?
(There are plenty of legitimate critiques, you just never see them in mainstream news/press/media, they are in long, boring papers/studies and academic lectures on places like youtube).

Do you know the "father of CO2 driven climate change" (Roger Revelle) spent the last 10 years of his life writing about how his science had been hijacked by the UN and that people were rushing to conclusion, the press then labeled him as senile despite continuing to write papers until his death? These people then had the gall to create an award in his name to people doing the most combat climate change, first person being Al Gore. Al Gore said Roger Revelle was his greatest mentor, Roger Revelle said he had no recollection of knowing Al Gore, only that Gore had taken one of his classes at BU, which showed Gore was almost never in attendance and received a D in the class.

No. Around 97% of climate scientists agree on the cause and general timeline of global warming. In the overwhelmingly likely scenario where they're right, we don't have time to indulge fringe alternatives. If it turns out that the most universally accepted consensus of experts of all time is wrong, the world can bear the slight inconvenience. It's actually astounding how seriously the 3% is being taken on this issue, purely because of politics fueled by the obvious economic interests of a handful of industries.