Voters send another warning shot to Democrats

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

'We are out of time'

Is this not *extreme* language?  Of course it is, its fear mongering, not a serious conversation.

[homersapien 11,440]

43 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is this not *extreme* language?  Of course it is, its fear mongering, not a serious conversation.

Possibly a little exaggerated if taken literally, but no, I don't think it is "fear mongering".  

Reference:

"Without major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by 2.5 °C to 4.5 °C (4.5 °F to 8 °F) by 2100, according to the latest estimate.

But it may not be too late to avoid or limit some of the worst effects of climate change. Responding to climate change will involve a two-tier approach:

• “Mitigation” – reducing the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
• “Adaptation” – learning to live with, and adapt to, the climate change that has already been set in motion. The key question is, what will our emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants be in the years to come?"

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

Anytime this subject comes up, many posters like to pound the point we will literally destroy our existing economy by limiting consumption of fossil fuels and converting to "green" sources of energy.  (Ironically, the longer we wait the more likely that becomes.)

So at what point do we "run out of time" to make the changes required without literally destroying our economy or way of life?  

And how long will such a transition take?

A very good case can be made that we should start immediately with serious steps to provide the longest amount of time to enact the required transition, thereby avoiding the worst economic and social effects of that transition.  

In other words, depending on many important but unknown and unpredictable variables, we really could be "out of time". 

The conservative approach would assume that we are much closer to being "out of time" that people would prefer to believe. Another way of looking at it, is that it is impossible to start too soon. 

In fact, a lot of the damage has already been done and is irreversible.  The best we can hope for at this point is reducing the slope of temperature increase (which may not be linear.)

These are very real and valid concerns for younger people.  It is not "extremist fear mongering". It's the sort of common sense we don't normally hear from our political establishment.

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,060]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Possibly a little exaggerated if taken literally, but no, I don't think it is "fear mongering".  

Reference:

"Without major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by 2.5 °C to 4.5 °C (4.5 °F to 8 °F) by 2100, according to the latest estimate.

But it may not be too late to avoid or limit some of the worst effects of climate change. Responding to climate change will involve a two-tier approach:

• “Mitigation” – reducing the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
• “Adaptation” – learning to live with, and adapt to, the climate change that has already been set in motion. The key question is, what will our emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants be in the years to come?"

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

Anytime this subject comes up, many posters like to pound the point we will literally destroy our existing economy by limiting consumption of fossil fuels and converting to "green" sources of energy.  (Ironically, the longer we wait the more likely that becomes.)

So at what point do we "run out of time" to make the changes required without literally destroying our economy or way of life?  

And how long will such a transition take?

A very good case can be made that we should start immediately with serious steps to provide the longest amount of time to enact the required transition, thereby avoiding the worst economic and social effects of that transition.  

In other words, depending on many important but unknown and unpredictable variables, we really could be "out of time". 

The conservative approach would assume that we are much closer to being "out of time" that people would prefer to believe. Another way of looking at it, is that it is impossible to start too soon. 

In fact, a lot of the damage has already been done and is irreversible.  The best we can hope for at this point is reducing the slope of temperature increase (which may not be linear.)

These are very real and valid concerns for younger people.  It is not "extremist fear mongering". It's the sort of common sense we don't normally hear from our political establishment.

 

 

 

This whole thing is an exaggeration.  There is no proof at all except from "modeling" that any of this will stop or slow any kind of warming or cooling which may be occurring. Faked data, adjusted readings, selected reporting all create this narrative that the world is ending. 12 years? Really?  They said that in the 70s 80s 90s. We are still here and not that bad off. Yes homer it IS fear mongering. Nobody with half a brain wants to destroy economies, impoverish entire societies, and set the world BACK decades by eliminating fossil fuels with NO I repeat NO substitute.  And then, ONLY then, we MIGHT see the earth's temperature rise a tenth of a degree less than another number that was predicted with ZERO data to support it. Only models.  Who writes the models? Well, leftists with an agenda to prove their model.

SUPERSTORM SANDY!!! Uh, no. Sandy was a small category 1 hurricane that happened to hit New Jersey. But it destroyed thousands of houses!! Well when you build plywood clapboard houses on a pier what do you think will happen??? Those people up there truly think that global warming caused SUPERSTORM SANDY to destroy them.  No it didn't. 

[AUwent 3,768]

How much is the rent at the rock some of you live under?

There is NOTHING "extreme" about BBB. Nothing. No one bats an eye when we spend $750B a year on our military. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by AUwent

[bigbird 60,580]

16 minutes ago, AUwent said:

How much is the rent at the rock some of you live under?

 

A lot more expensive than where you seem to keep your head, but it isn't so dark and smelly. Really just paying for the better view

[AUwent 3,768]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

A lot more expensive than where you seem to keep your head, but it isn't so dark and smelly. Really just paying for the better view

Get back to me the next time Houston gets flooded ^{(should that happen, I hope you are able to stay safe!)}.

Edited December 20, 2021 by AUwent

[bigbird 60,580]

Just now, AUwent said:

Get back to me the next time Houston gets flooded.

What a weird response. Why would I? 

[AUwent 3,768]

2 minutes ago, bigbird said:

What a weird response. Why would I? 

Because it's going to happen a lot more often as climate change gets worse. We have seen record floods, hurricane seasons, tornadoes and wildfires. Oh, and pandemics are much more likely to happen.

But hey, at least we owned the libs and stopped the big bad Critical Race Theory, right?

Edited December 20, 2021 by AUwent

[bigbird 60,580]

Just now, AUwent said:

Because it's going to happen a lot more often as climate change gets worse.

Oh my. 

Bless your heart

[AUwent 3,768]

53 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Oh my. 

Bless your heart

LOL. That's your response? Climate change is going to cause crop shortages, too. But sure, go ahead and blame BIG GUMINT SPENDING (except on our precious military of course) when grocery prices rise.

I apologize if my response was aggressive (and I hope all of you remain safe if anything does happen) I am just incredibly frightened by all of this.

Edited December 20, 2021 by AUwent

[bigbird 60,580]

2 minutes ago, AUwent said:

LOL. That's your response? Climate change is going to cause crop shortages, too. But sure, go ahead and blame BIG GUMINT when grocery prices rise.

So applicable to the OP...

[wdefromtx 3,159]

46 minutes ago, bigbird said:

So applicable to the OP...

Hook, line and sinker. lol 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

[AUwent 3,768]

4 minutes ago, SLAG-91 said:

I'd love to believe you're right. But all of the hottest years on record have come in the last decade!

Genuinely curious. What would it take for you all to change your minds on this issue?

Edited December 20, 2021 by AUwent

[wdefromtx 3,159]

24 minutes ago, AUwent said:

I'd love to believe you're right. But all of the hottest years on record have come in the last decade!

Genuinely curious. What would it take for you all to change your minds on this issue?

Except we’ve had higher yearly temperatures in the past before we started recording them….

[AUwent 3,768]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

Except we’ve had higher yearly temperatures in the past before we started recording them….

[wdefromtx 3,159]

9 minutes ago, AUwent said:

I forgot, y’all like to disregard that…

[AUwent 3,768]

10 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I forgot, y’all like to disregard that…

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/

Yeah, and those time periods literally led to mass extinctions.

Edited December 20, 2021 by AUwent

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 minutes ago, AUwent said:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/

Yeah, and those time periods literally led to mass extinctions.

So show me where scientists can definitively prove that our temperature change is totally caused by global warming and not part of a natural cycle of the earth…..

They can’t, all they know is we’ve had many cycles over history and the various levels in the atmosphere have varied throughout time. As far as we know we are just along for the ride and the earth will adjust accordingly like it has for thousands and thousands of years. 
 

When I was a kid the sky was falling because of the ozone, now it’s global warming caused by carbon. Once things reach equilibrium and we start swinging back to another ice age I’m sure there will be something else to blame it on. 

[AUwent 3,768]

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So show me where scientists can definitively prove that our temperature change is totally caused by global warming and not part of a natural cycle of the earth…..

They can’t, all they know is we’ve had many cycles over history and the various levels in the atmosphere have varied throughout time. As far as we know we are just along for the ride and the earth will adjust accordingly like it has for thousands and thousands of years. 
 

When I was a kid the sky was falling because of the ozone, now it’s global warming caused by carbon. Once things reach equilibrium and we start swinging back to another ice age I’m sure there will be something else to blame it on. 

Oh, the *Earth* will be fine. Many of its inhabitants?

Carbon traps heat. We have a higher concentration of carbon than ever (and before you say it, yes, the US is faaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrr from the only one to blame).

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ 

Edited December 20, 2021 by AUwent

[homersapien 11,440]

On 12/18/2021 at 2:05 PM, I_M4_AU said:

We are talking citizenship, not *parole* status.

The fact that he tried to put citizenship in the BBB bill is a cram down of his policy which is *extreme* by not letting the process work itself out.  Gridlock is part of the constitutional system.  Debate it, don’t put it in some bill when you have the majority in congress.  Where has bipartisanship gone?

But the process is not working out.  You admit it yourself.  Our system doesn't work. You can't debate a bill if it's prevented from even being considered.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/policy/immigration/article250041969.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/steep-obstacles-us-congress-effort-legalize-dreamer-immigrants-2021-08-06/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-under-pressure-to-act-alone-on-immigration-if-senate-republicans-dont-sign-on

 

Again, what would you do with these people?  Deny them citizenship?

I submit that is the extremist position.

Edited December 20, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

This thread has turned into an embarrassment for Auburn University.

MAGA!

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

First, you didn't cite your source.  I'd like to know from which kooky, anti-science, denialist site you get your information from.

Second, which of those claims were supported by the actual scientific community  - i.e.: any of the various academy's  of science and professional sciences world-wide? 

Nevermind that many of these statements have absolutely nothing to do with AGW (that's "anthropogenic global warming" in case you didn't know.)

You are apparently trying to equate whatever shows up in the popular press - from whatever source - as the opinion of "science".  This is typical of someone who hasn't a clue about how science actually works and what is meant by scientific consensus.

Bottom line, you reject science.  (Good luck with that.)

And if you'd like to pick any given statement out and argue it in detail, let's go.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

14 hours ago, AUwent said:

I'd love to believe you're right. But all of the hottest years on record have come in the last decade!

Genuinely curious. What would it take for you all to change your minds on this issue?

They already have subtly changed their views over the past few decades. Back in the early 2000's the prevailing opinion of the right wing anti-climate change crowd was that either the entire thing is a hoax and nothing at all is happening, or that there are slight variations in temp and atmosphere, but humans aren't the cause of it and the entire thing in naturally occurring no matter what humankind does. 

Nowadays Im finding more that they've dropped that previous rhetoric and are readily willing to admit that the climate and temperature IS changing and that humans MAY have something to do with it, but they are still resistant to the idea that the changing climate will cause anything bad to happen and the earth will just re-regulate itself like it's done in the past. Some do still contend that this climate change is 100% naturally occurring though.

 

So there is some changes in views, and eventually I think most right wingers will get to a point where they do believe humans are contributing to climate change and that it is negatively affecting our world and we need to do something about it, but the big worry is that by that point it might be too late. 

You see the same thought process with COVID too...it starts off as covid is a made up hoax ...then it evolves to, okay covid is real but its just the common cold...then it's, okay covid is more serious than that, but it's not serious enough to shut down the economy or to mandate vaccines or masks.

Conservatives will pick a position from the start and will generally stick with it come hell or high water until the facts and evidence indisputably prove them 100% wrong, then they'll just create a variation of the original belief to account for the new facts in someway while still keeping the intent of their original belief intact so they never have to admit they were wrong.  

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

But the process is not working out.  You admit it yourself.  Our system doesn't work. You can't debate a bill if it's prevented from even being considered.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/policy/immigration/article250041969.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/steep-obstacles-us-congress-effort-legalize-dreamer-immigrants-2021-08-06/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-under-pressure-to-act-alone-on-immigration-if-senate-republicans-dont-sign-on

 

Again, what would you do with these people?  Deny them citizenship?

I submit that is the extremist position.

Our system works quite well, thank you.  The system has always worked, it is just right now the system is overwhelmed by putting out fires that are only smoldering.  America is now going after dragons (windmills) that have been deemed more important than immigration at this point.  The flash point is not DACA and a pathway to citizenship, it is illegal border crossings.  How do you give DACA a pathway to citizenship while more and more illegals are entering the country with no deterrent?  What is decided now in a rush will have dire consequences for the future of our nation. 

The incentive is to cross illegally and Uncle Joe will make you a citizen.  Now is not the time to address this crisis.  All calamities can’t be solved at the same time.  The progressives would like that to happen, but the reason there are conservatives is to moderate the more progressive in the world.  It doesn’t mean progress doesn’t happen, it just means it needs to be thought out and move at a slower pace.