Climate Change - what to expect for cruising life

[CatNewBee]

Well, the answer is simple, because I do not want to...

I do not want an electric car, i prefer a diesel, I prefer a steak over a vegane diet and many other things.

I hate uniformity and I cold not care less about warming, I prefer warmer climates.

[senormechanico]

I think I'll go around my waterfront neighborhood and offer to pay for their homeowner fees and property taxes for the next 12 years in exchange for title to their paid off homes.
Then, if the world doesn't end in that 12 years, they have got to go or repurchase their house at the going prices.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm hoping/assuming you've seen the whole interview, or most of it, and looked at other links, such as the Hill one I posted initially.

Did not choose to endure the further loss of brain cells by watching the entire interview, but I did read your link from The Hill.

So, please answer this question honestly: yes or no - did AOC predict/claim/assert that the world will end in 12 years (if we don't do something about CC)?

Yes. Quite clearly actually, and I'm not seeing how the FN coverage of it is any different from the one in The Hill. Is your point that this was mere hyperbole to stress the urgency of the UN report about irreversibility of warming temps? Or maybe just an inarticulate attempt at alarmism that we so often see from smoother & more polished politicians? While I'm having trouble taking this congresswoman seriously, I do take seriously her office (and her constituents) and would prefer not thinking she's as unqualified as it thus far appears. I guess you'll need to explain further when you're done entertaining the cat.

This is textbook partisan bias, if you're still concerned about that. And it stands out a mile if you compare the Faux story and the Hill one. And if you search on "the world will end in 12 years", you see all the conservative usual suspects lining up behind variants of "AOC claims the world will end in 12 years...".

I don't need further convincing about political bias, from whatever side. But how do the two stories "stand out a mile?" Did I miss something from the interview(s)?

You would be reasonable to opine that she's being alarmist because she's repeating the IPCC warning about dire harm if more serious action isn't commenced within the next 12 years (if that's your opinion)... but that's just not as juicy or fun as decontextualizing something else and hoisting that up the flagpole, is it?

What was the IPCC warning that you appear to claim she merely repeated? All I heard & read was that we wouldn't be able to reduce emissions enough to prevent exceeding the IPCC's temperature thresholds if we didn't do so within 12 years. I've read other scientific opinions that say we've already crossed the point of no return as I'm sure you have. Others say, of course, that it's all a crock. But there's hardly any sort of strong scientific consensus on impacts after these temps are exceeded, and I've yet to read, hear or see anything that talks about "the end of the world." Stop jumping up & down & kindly explain your defense of these comments please.

So again - textbook case - we are at the birth of a new fake meme, likely to live on in the pantheon of right-wing catechisms. Distortion then transmission by the faithful.

I'm not an old white guy so I must be automatically exempt from those accused of "transmitting fake news." Isn't that how identity politics works? Doncha just love simplicity?!

It's also funny/sad to watch the partisan pile-on on AOC. People decry the state of US politics, then when some young people step up... smother-em in the crib. Can you blame the young for being so cynical and disappointed?

Yes, if their otherwise justified cynicism & disappointment translates into support for young leaders who appear to have no sense of their country's own history, body politic, culture, diversity, or economic system, and are naive & sheltered enough to believe that one's own personal morality applies universally. At least Bernie served an important function in exposing the corruption of a major political candidate & party, a corruption that is obviously not limited to one side.

Those who disagree with most policy positions of far-left legislators like Bernie and OAC should be able to speak out against irresponsible & grossly uninformed statements. In fact, those most closely aligned with her policies should be the first to do so. (better to look stupid once than stay stupid forever). Just like those who agree with many policy positions of the President of the US should also be encouraged to speak out against his irresponsible & divisive statements so that his policies have the best chance of working. Not everyone sees the world in as partisan a manner as you, and it's probably fair to say that most look askance at pure partisanship for its superficial oversimplification of complex matters.

[Steve_C]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The topic has been discussed here ad nauseam with each thread eventually being closed due to bickering and political discourse. Climate change is a politics/religion issue.

Do a site search and see for yourself.

"What to expect?" Answer: More bickering, arguing and insults.

Maybe the "Marble Machine" will solve the problem.....

That machine is Awsome!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes. Quite clearly actually

I guess we saw different videos then.

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?” Ocasio-Cortez asked Coates. “This is the war — this is our World War II.”

The "words" are there, sure... but in that context it's obviously hyperbole ("we're like:" - do you know any young people?), not a claim. And there's lots more in that interview that sets the perspective.

Anyway, in this partisan world, I'm just hairsplitting. But if this is the new standard for parsing statements, I'd hate to be a White House reporter.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I guess we saw different videos then.


Anyway, in this partisan world, I'm just hairsplitting. But if this is the new standard for parsing statements, I'd hate to be a White House reporter.

but you and Jim would get along so nicely together.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I guess we saw different videos then.

The "words" are there, sure... but in that context it's obviously hyperbole ("we're like:" - do you know any young people?), not a claim. And there's lots more in that interview that sets the perspective.

Anyway, in this partisan world, I'm just hairsplitting. But if this is the new standard for parsing statements, I'd hate to be a White House reporter.

I know plenty of young people, and even a few who talk like that. It's just that none of them are members of the U.S. Congress. But more substantively than a bunch of quotes, I'm not seeing anything new except catchy slogans & more identity-politics divisiveness. Her district includes a good chunk of the Bronx so I'm sure they're counting on her for more tangible needs than whether she thinks abandoning fossil fuels "at any cost" is the "right" thing to do. It may be for her but meanwhile they need to afford to heat their homes & run their cars. But it's all too easy to moralize when you have a high salary, non-ACA healthcare, and a guaranteed govt. pension that is not available for most of your constituents.

[Tetepare]

Another thread on climate change, now run 428 posts. One would have thought everything was covered last week.


You know...where do guns fit into this? With some 265 million guns in American hands (113 million being handguns in the waistband), roughly a half-million unregistered illegal guns in Australia [before you ask where I got that from, go look up the number of guns surrendered, the number of just SKS rifles imported, and start doing some math], and a whole bunch in Canada...how do they impact global warming?


I mean, that's millions of guns absorbing sun or body heat all day, then release that heat at night. Millions of BTUs released when that region of the earth is cooling. Does that impact global warming?

[picklesandjesse]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Is that when the turtle is expected to dive to feed on jellyfish next..???

Strawberry flavour ( flavor for US people ) I hope. Big orange ones in Sydney at the moment.

[mud bug]

J know a great way to get away with fossil fuels. USE THE WIND and GO SAILING! Then tell yourself and others how much better you are than all of the evil deniers.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by boatman61 View Post
Is that when the turtle is expected to dive to feed on jellyfish next..???

Originally Posted by picklesandjesse

Strawberry flavour ( flavor for US people ) I hope. Big orange ones in Sydney at the moment.

the reference is part on the native American creation mythology.

Native American Indian Turtle Legends, Meaning and Symbolism from the Myths of Many Tribes

Turtles play positive roles in the folklore of many Native American tribes. In the creation myths of some East Coast tribes (such as the Iroquois and Lenape), the Great Spirit created their homeland by placing earth on the back of a giant turtle. This is why some contemporary Native Americans refer to North America by the name "Turtle Island." Turtles are a symbol of the earth in many different Native cultures. To Plains Indians, turtles are associated with long life, protection, and fertility. In some Plains tribes, a newborn girl's umbilical cord was sewn into a figure in the shape of a turtle to ensure her health and safety. In other tribes, turtles are often associated with healing, wisdom, and spirituality

[Orson]

Originally Posted by myocean

I see from this discussion, Big Oil has done a great job in educating people (probably most of them in the US?) about nobody is causing any climate change. Unfortunately, the ongoing law suits against those businesses are too late and too slow.
In combination with unwillingness or lack of capability to follow scientific arguments (like sea level change is mostly from volumetric expansion of the seas, not melting ice) these people are hopeless cases.

I just wonder why they still participate in this discussion and can't leave us allone.
Is the fear they will need to change life style so massive?

[Emphasis mine]

Actually, this stereotype - perhaps the result of imagination and projection - is certainly wrong.

First, more than half (THINK over 60%) of World Oil is state-owned, ie, socialized (eg, Saudi, Venezuela, Mexico, Iran....). In theory, they don't serve private interests, but the public.

Secondly, but more revealingly, have you actually checked who funds climate change alarm? I looked at the online pages of the Climate Institute in Wash, DC, and their list of funders: Toyota, the Ford Foundation (the automaker philanthropy), Shell, BP, and on and on! Big Oil supports the UNs causes, too. ("Little Oil" - which is the engine behind the fracking revolution - - not so much. Perhaps rarely - or perhaps only supports the environmentally correct stances in public. But then the US leads this segment of the oil industry and no one else really follows.)

It would be nice for people to learn that this "cuo bono" rebuke (ABOVE) is flat out wrong...but I guess no... Not yet.

If this were an example from errors of informal logic, this would be the Argument from Convenience - would it not?

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Exile

... Just like those who agree with many policy positions of the President of the US should also be encouraged to speak out against his irresponsible & divisive statements so that his policies have the best chance of working. Not everyone sees the world in as partisan a manner as you, and it's probably fair to say that most look askance at pure partisanship for its superficial oversimplification of complex matters.

It depends on your point of view, if it is divisive or inclusive. I see the left as the divisive force that is unable to compromise, or even accept a different point of view, while the GOP is inclusive to all with individual goals and individual ideas, it is the "american dream" of a land of the free vs. communist block of a uniform society with a nanny state and no free speach. And yes, countries are made of borders, there is a reason for this.

And partisanship is intrinsic, because this two visions of a society are antagonistic, you cant have both the same time. You have to chose either individual freedom or submission.

[franksingleton]

The actions, or lack of them, by politicians are deeply disturbing. The facts are clear. Compared to the 800,000 years before man began burning significant amounts of fossil fuel, we are in uncharted waters. In that period, CO2 concentrations never reached 300 ppm. Now they are over 400 ppm and continuing to rise. Man is affecting the climate in a way that could, some say will, become dangerous for mankind. We are already seeing -

· Rising sea levels.

· More wildfires

· Hurricanes becoming more intense (but not necessarily more frequent.)

· More heatwaves and resulting deaths.

· Adverse effects on human, animal and plant welfare.

· Changes in growing seasons.

· Changes in insect and bird migration – malaria becoming more widespread.

· More extreme weather events, more volatile weather.

It would be a brave person, or a foolhardy one, to say that recent events under these headings are evidence of climate change effects. All that can be said is that they are consistent with expectation.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by franksingleton

· More heatwaves and resulting deaths.

·

Far more people die from cold than from heat.