Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Pouncey wrote:


What are Trump's environmental policies like?

He'll be the US President for the next 4-8 years.

From what I've seen, with little time to verify/check on it, it seems they are putting forward a bill/idea to outright nix the EPA next year. Like, they'd have this year to close up shop, put up their "everything must go" sale signs, and GFTO.


And, if some videos from REPUBLICAN town hall meetings are anything to go by, I think we're looking at a one and done president.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

There's this fething bonkers idea that because Russia is no longer nominally communist, it is no longer an enemy or something.

The actual bonkers thing is wanting a nuclear power to escalate into war with another nuclear power. Russia isn't going to simply roll over because all the US liberals have decided that the smartest thing to do when faced with surging fascism is to hoot and holler about an insidious and infiltrating eternal enemy. All this talk about containing and weakening Russia is precisely why they do stuff like claim Crimea to keep their base there. Any strategy of action will be responded to in some way. If you don't respect this then you can never understand why your carefully laid plans don't do what they say on paper.

I don't want Trump guiding millions of people through current events but I sure don't want the people claiming Russia as their god damned enemy to do so either.

The Russian federal government just hacked into a US federal political party's computers to steal and distribute specific information with the intent to influence the outcome of a US federal election toward a candidate they have a much better relationship with... and they succeeded.

Yeah... so... obviously you can't go to war with Russia over this, because human civilization is more important to keep running. And now their preferred candidate is in the Presidential Office and his political party has majority control of all three branches of the US government.

You need to do something, obviously... but what do you do in this situation? I am drawing a blank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


What are Trump's environmental policies like?

He'll be the US President for the next 4-8 years.

From what I've seen, with little time to verify/check on it, it seems they are putting forward a bill/idea to outright nix the EPA next year. Like, they'd have this year to close up shop, put up their "everything must go" sale signs, and GFTO.


And, if some videos from REPUBLICAN town hall meetings are anything to go by, I think we're looking at a one and done president.

Well, um. Okay. Yeah, Trump being a one-termer I guess is acceptable.

Do you have a way to make his Presidency shorter than one term? I don't mean anything illegal or violent, but surely your political system has a way to get him out of office before his term is up?

Shutting down the EPA in the USA is probably the most harmful thing he is going to do in his entire Presidency.

What the US could do is have a plan for what to do in case any of the things the US has regularly done to other countries was ever done to it and keep a cool head about it. If they had no plan that was arrogant of them and if they panic that is stupid of them.

The Democrats could for example have picked a candidate and/or ran a campaign that didn't lose to literally Donald Trump and they could have spent money and effort on keeping enough popular support to not be thrown out of government by the people who picked literally Donald Trump as their presidential candidate.

 Pouncey wrote:
Guys?

I have a question.

What are Trump's environmental policies like?

He'll be the US President for the next 4-8 years.

We have no idea what Trump's policies are on anything. On the environment he's said some vague words about lots of things, for instance he believes climate change isn't real and he wants CFCs back because hairspray isn't as good as it used to be. So we might assume he's going to push for reduced environmental regs, but then he made a lot of noise about lots of issues only to flip flop back and forth ever since. He promised repeal of ACA on day one, now he says they're looking to get an alternative ready in a year or two. Trump got a lot of his positive press by railing against TPP, and now Abe is saying that Trump started to appreciate it's value after their meetings so maybe he'll end up signing that.

So by the time Trump gets his administration in order, if he ever gets his administration in order, then who knows what he will be thinking about the environment and what he will try and do.

 Pouncey wrote:
Do you have a way to make his Presidency shorter than one term? I don't mean anything illegal or violent, but surely your political system has a way to get him out of office before his term is up?

Shutting down the EPA in the USA is probably the most harmful thing he is going to do in his entire Presidency.

Well... if we went through the impeachment process, we'd probably be worse off, because we'd be stuck with Pence, a religious loon who knows what he's doing (an argument can be made that Trumpo has no fething clue whats going on)

Rosebuddy wrote:
The actual bonkers thing is wanting a nuclear power to escalate into war with another nuclear power.

Here you go again making gak up out of the blue. No-one talked about escalating to nuclear conflict with Russia. Please stop making gak up, it wastes your time and the time of anyone who reads your posts. Please start responding to the actual statements people make.

Russia isn't going to simply roll over because all the US liberals have decided that the smartest thing to do when faced with surging fascism is to hoot and holler about an insidious and infiltrating eternal enemy. All this talk about containing and weakening Russia is precisely why they do stuff like claim Crimea to keep their base there. Any strategy of action will be responded to in some way. If you don't respect this then you can never understand why your carefully laid plans don't do what they say on paper.

This is word salad, with no internal meaning and no relationship to the argument presented, or the position of any country in regards to Russia.

Reducing sanctions down to 'hooting and hollering' is particularly ridiculous, when you've previously cried crocodile tears over the Russian citizens impacted. Either the sanctions are destroying Russians, or its just hooting and hollering, you can't have both.

And your argument that containment of Russia is denied by the Crimean occupation is very confused. The sanctions were applied in response to Russian occupation of Crimea. Your complaint is that is that if the sanctions were so great, how come they didn't go back in time and change history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
What the US could do is have a plan for what to do in case any of the things the US has regularly done to other countries was ever done to it and keep a cool head about it. If they had no plan that was arrogant of them and if they panic that is stupid of them.

It would be nice if the US suffered some kind of penalty for Iraq or any of its bs in South America or South East Asia over time. But this is the real world, and that ain't gonna happen.

What we don't do in response is contrive moralistic nonsense in which a stupid and illegal invasion of Iraq means that no-one should do anything about other illegal, unwarranted, destructive wars. Just because someone got away with murder doesn't mean we should stop punishing anyone who commits murder.

And yes, there is a heaping dose of hypocrisy when the US is the primary lead in Russia's illegal occupation, but again, that's life. That hypocrisy is the price of a world that respects sovereignty.

 sebster wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Guys?

I have a question.

What are Trump's environmental policies like?

He'll be the US President for the next 4-8 years.

We have no idea what Trump's policies are on anything. On the environment he's said some vague words about lots of things, for instance he believes climate change isn't real and he wants CFCs back because hairspray isn't as good as it used to be. So we might assume he's going to push for reduced environmental regs, but then he made a lot of noise about lots of issues only to flip flop back and forth ever since. He promised repeal of ACA on day one, now he says they're looking to get an alternative ready in a year or two. Trump got a lot of his positive press by railing against TPP, and now Abe is saying that Trump started to appreciate it's value after their meetings so maybe he'll end up signing that.

So by the time Trump gets his administration in order, if he ever gets his administration in order, then who knows what he will be thinking about the environment and what he will try and do.

Well... hopefully they get it across to him how important it is.

Honestly, the environment is the most important thing to protect right now. Hopefully they can get the message across to Trump what the consequences of having a US government that rejects things like climate change, the EPA, environmentalism, etc. are.

I'll just come right out and say it.

Our species is facing extinction. Not our civilization ending, our species ending.

We have decades left until then. Not centuries, decades.

We have technologies our best scientists and engineers are working on that will save us if we invent them quickly enough. They know the stakes. They're working on it as hard as they can.

But we need to buy them as much time as we can give them to invent those technologies. Protecting the environment is what will buy us that time, push the point of no return further into the future.

When Trump does things like shut down the EPA in the USA, that's a decision that shortens the amount of time we have, because of the huge increase in damage to the environment.

If you live to the 2050s, and we still haven't invented that tech and started using it enough, you'll start to see the beginnings of the really bad stuff.

By the 2070s, if you want to remember what a tree with green leaves looked like, you're going to have to consult a photograph taken at least twenty years earlier.

You called Russia an enemy. What does one do with enemies? Seek to defeat them. What is the logical next step when one plan is insufficient? Escalation. What is an inevitable result of escalation?

The glaring flaw in your suggestions regarding Russia is that you don't consider how they could respond and what the consequences of continued action and response between the US and Russia could be. This is what I refer to as hooting and hollering about sanctions, not that the sanctions themselves are mere noise. Additionally, containment of Russia has been a goal since before the Ukrainian affair and the sentiment been growing for a while now. I mention this to show that Russia has already been reacting to a containment policy and will continue to do so, thus proving that anything that doesn't consider how a course of action would be resisted and contribute to escalating tensions is a failure.

So, I came across this headline on the Internet.

"After Likening Trump to Hitler, Journalists Upset They're Not Getting Called on for Questions"

I don't care about the article but I thought the headline itself was amusing.

Rosebuddy wrote:
You called Russia an enemy. What does one do with enemies? Seek to defeat them. What is the logical next step when one plan is insufficient? Escalation. What is an inevitable result of escalation?

The glaring flaw in your suggestions regarding Russia is that you don't consider how they could respond and what the consequences of continued action and response between the US and Russia could be. This is what I refer to as hooting and hollering about sanctions, not that the sanctions themselves are mere noise. Additionally, containment of Russia has been a goal since before the Ukrainian affair and the sentiment been growing for a while now. I mention this to show that Russia has already been reacting to a containment policy and will continue to do so, thus proving that anything that doesn't consider how a course of action would be resisted and contribute to escalating tensions is a failure.

I thought Sun Tzu said that defeating your enemy without fighting was best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
So, I came across this headline on the Internet.

"After Likening Trump to Hitler, Journalists Upset They're Not Getting Called on for Questions"

I don't care about the article but I thought the headline itself was amusing.

There are some parallels, but I think there are enough differences that it's valuable to avoid invoking Godwin's Law as a reporter talking about the US President.

 Pouncey wrote:
Guys?

I have a question.

What are Trump's environmental policies like?

He'll be the US President for the next 4-8 years.

That's a significant chunk of time that we'll never get back.

The guy he's just appointed to head the EPA is a climate change sceptic, with a history of suing the EPA, and whose own website describes him as "a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda."

So, yeah...

Crispy78 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Guys?

I have a question.

What are Trump's environmental policies like?

He'll be the US President for the next 4-8 years.

That's a significant chunk of time that we'll never get back.

The guy he's just appointed to head the EPA is a climate change sceptic, with a history of suing the EPA, and whose own website describes him as "a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda."

So, yeah...

Hm.

I thought I saw an interview with that guy pretty recently where he was saying that after talking to experts, he turned those views around because he realized he was wrong, and came to understand how important the EPA is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think maybe actually seeing the science about what we're in for this century, and having access to actual experts with every possible reason to find a way to convince him, just spend pretty much all their time and effort into explaining every single detail of it to him, anything he has questions about...

Well... The fact he's kept his mouth shut about what he learned speaks pretty highly to the fact that he clearly understands the reality of the situation.

Undoubtedly, one of his questions might've been, "For God's sake, why are you not telling everyone about this?"

And those scientists would've told him that they don't need the public to know about it. The technology research projects are very well-funded because they, frankly, will be enormously profitable too. They can get the public on their side about environmentalism without telling them the whole truth (but without lying, either). And most importantly, they don't want to create a public panic.

 Pouncey wrote:
I'll just come right out and say it.

Our species is facing extinction. Not our civilization ending, our species ending.

We have decades left until then. Not centuries, decades.

Okay, I think environmental protection is the biggest challenge of th next century, but what you've said above isn't true. We aren't facing imminent extinction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
You called Russia an enemy. What does one do with enemies? Seek to defeat them. What is the logical next step when one plan is insufficient? Escalation. What is an inevitable result of escalation?

Yeah, see you're making more stuff up. There's is nothing anywhere that says the only response to an enemy is seeking their defeat and accepting any escalation that comes with that. That assumption of yours is particularly ridiculous when you consider that there is an existing containment strategy in place.

The glaring flaw in your suggestions regarding Russia is that you don't consider how they could respond and what the consequences of continued action and response between the US and Russia could be.

Whereas you continue to completely ignore the inevitable consequences of just letting a big country invade littler countries when it pleases.

Additionally, containment of Russia has been a goal since before the Ukrainian affair and the sentiment been growing for a while now.

That's quite inaccurate. When Russia first reformed there was help western governments and multinational agencies, and piles of investment cash on top of that. As Russia slid into oligarchy/kleptocracy and begin to pressure neighbours then containment developed, which then moved in to sanctions as Russia ignored sovereign boundaries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
So, I came across this headline on the Internet.

"After Likening Trump to Hitler, Journalists Upset They're Not Getting Called on for Questions"

I don't care about the article but I thought the headline itself was amusing.

That's pretty good actually

sidebar :

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/15/us/mike-ilitch-rosa-parks-trnd/index.html?sr=fbCNN021517mike-ilitch-rosa-parks-trnd0601PMStoryLink&linkId=34537288

Those who knew Mike Ilitch, the Little Caesars founder and Detroit Tigers owner who died last Friday, have spent the past few days fondly remembering his impact on friends, on Detroit residents, and on the sports community.

Ilitch also had an impact on the daily life of one of the most iconic figures from the civil rights movement.
For more than a decade, Ilitch had quietly paid for Rosa Parks' apartment in downtown Detroit, according to CNN affiliate WXYZ.
That story came to light thanks to Damon Keith, a Detroit native and federal judge.
"They don't go around saying it, but I want to, at this point, let them know, how much the Ilitches not only meant to the city, but they meant so much for Rosa Parks, who was the mother of the civil rights movement," Keith told WXYZ.

Shortly after her famed defiance of segregation sparked the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott, Parks moved to Detroit and became an important presence in the city for years afterward.
But in 1994, Parks was robbed and assaulted in her home at the age of 81.
Keith, himself an important legal figure in the civil rights movement, worked to find Parks a new, safer apartment at the Riverfront Apartments in Detroit, according to the Sports Business Daily.
Ilitch read the story in the newspaper and called Keith, offering to pay for Parks' housing indefinitely. With no fanfare, Ilitch continued paying for the apartment until Parks died in 2005, Keith said.
The entire episode was made public in 2014 in a story from Sports Business Daily. Keith even showed the reporter a copy of a 1994 check for $2,000 from Little Caesars Enterprises to Riverfront Apartments.
It has taken on a new life in light of Ilitch's death on Friday at the age of 87.
Michigan Lt. Gov. Brian Calley posted on Facebook a link to an article on the subject on Friday. "It will give you a sense of the kind of man Mike Ilitch was," he wrote.
The Parks' donation further shows Ilitch's commitment to Detroit, where he was born and raised. Ilitch established Little Caesars headquarters there, owned the Detroit Tigers and Red Wings, and helped usher in a new era for the city, Keith told WXYZ.
"You'll never discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore. Mike and (his wife) Marian had the courage to lose sight of the shore and discover new oceans," Keith said.
"They kept pushing Detroit, and had it not been for them, I am saying, Detroit would not be in the renaissance that they're in now."

. ...ahh.. fair play

 sebster wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I'll just come right out and say it.

Our species is facing extinction. Not our civilization ending, our species ending.

We have decades left until then. Not centuries, decades.

Okay, I think environmental protection is the biggest challenge of th next century, but what you've said above isn't true. We aren't facing imminent extinction.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

 Pouncey wrote:
Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Is this your new argument strategy? Post hyperbolic and/or factually inaccurate claims, then make rude and dismissive comments when anyone disagrees with you while ignoring the substance of their criticism?

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not saying theyre working 40 hours a week all of those weeks, but they arent getting 14 weeks off either, and many weeks during the schoolyear they are working 60 or 80 hour weeks as well. The idea that they get 14 weeks of vacation a year, for most trachers, is simply not true. They may have several weeks of fewer hours and a couple extra truly free weeks, but I dont know any that have 14 weeks of actual free vacation time.

That said, aside from teaching summer school, I have never known a teacher to have a summer side job that wasnt school related. Coaching is a part of school activities and often these teachers have lighter class loads or less departmental responsibility (often a sore spot with other teachers, but thats another topic).

The teachers I know have such a ridiculous work hours that frankly wouldn't be jealous of them even if they DID have 14 weeks off...But they don't. Lots of that 14 weeks is spent on working.

Haven't met teacher yet who doesn't have tons more work per year than I and salary isn't that superb either. I'm seriously impressed on their willingness to work on those conditions.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Is this your new argument strategy? Post hyperbolic and/or factually inaccurate claims, then make rude and dismissive comments when anyone disagrees with you while ignoring the substance of their criticism?

Erm... No, I came across horribly wrong.

What I was trying to do was express the idea that I still believe that I am correct, but I don't wish to try to argue it because I am content to simply leave the difference of opinion be.

My particular choice of words was because, well, from my perspective, that's kinda what it looks like you're doing. Denying the truth to allow yourself to sleep easier at night. Because from my perspective this is a much more immediate thing that would actually keep people up at night. From yours, it's obviously not since you believe this is centuries away, so you don't view it as something people should lose sleep over. So that's why you interpreted it the way you did - as a rude dismissal.

I mean, really, if you go back and read what I said I believe, you'll find numerous references to how I believe that people who know are keeping it quiet because there's no need to let the world know. This is something I believe is a good way to deal with it. So this means that I don't actually believe I have any reason to convince you see my side of it, because not convincing people of the truth is valuable for my point of view.

So I wasn't being dismissive.

I was just taking the correct path as I see it.

And not trying to convince you to see it my way.

Because that's something I value too.

Science is conducted in the open. Researchers publish papers all the time containing data and results. These are available to anyone interested in the topic. Climate scientists have been banging on for years about climate change.

How does all this add up to "science" making a secret conspiracy to prevent ordinary people from noticing that the weather is changing?

 Pouncey wrote:
What I was trying to do was express the idea that I still believe that I am correct, but I don't wish to try to argue it because I am content to simply leave the difference of opinion be.

This isn't a difference of opinion like favorite sports teams or what GW should do for 8th edition 40k, it's more of your hyperbolic and inaccurate scientific claims. There is no credible evidence for climate change being an extinction-level threat, period. Even the worst-case models are limited to mass deaths and a significant reduction in sustainable population limits, but not total extinction. We're simply too resilient and technologically skilled as a species, and there will still be habitable regions to live in.

I mean, really, if you go back and read what I said I believe, you'll find numerous references to how I believe that people who know are keeping it quiet because there's no need to let the world know.

This is tinfoil hat paranoia, not a reasonable thing to believe. Vast amounts of climate change data and analysis are available to anyone who wants to see them, and that work is done by a vast number of people all over the planet. There is no way anyone is going to keep a "we're doomed" interpretation secret for long. Even if nobody outside the conspiracy is clever enough to figure it out it's almost inevitable that someone would reveal the secret for the fame and fortune that would follow.

And, aside from the absurdity of trying to keep the hypothetical extinction threat secret, there's really no point to it. The worst-case models for climate change, which are openly discussed, are bad enough that moving up the minor additional step to possible extinction isn't a big deal. We're talking about billions dead from flooding/crop failures/etc, probably billions dead in wars over the surviving habitable land and resources, and the total destruction of the world as we know it. Whether or not a few survivors manage to exist in this dystopian future (which all of us will almost certainly die in, if we aren't dead already by the time it happens) is hardly a significant enough question that it needs a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.

(Now, before you start with the hyperbolic claims about the worst-case scenarios, they are just that: worst-case scenarios, not most likely scenarios. The most likely scenario is that life gets inconvenient for wealthy and powerful nations like the US and our allies, and life sucks (or even ends) for people in poorer regions. And, just like we ignore things like mass starvation in places we don't care about, life will continue on.)

To be honest, I never said they were concealing anything. I never said they were trying to cover up the truth, prevent anyone from looking it up, hiding any data, making any attempt to conceal any part of it.

I said they weren't telling everyone.

The difference is... They keep all that data public for anyone who wants to see it... Then they just never go on a talk show and explain it to a TV audience.

They're not hiding a single scrap of it.

They're just not publicizing any of it.

I mean, think about it. If they were actively concealing all this from the public, how the hell would I know about it?

 Pouncey wrote:
I mean, think about it. If they were actively concealing all this from the public, how the hell would I know about it?

Ok, now let's ask a similar question: if the extinction threat is so obvious that you, someone with no training or experience in the relevant field, can look at the data and see it, how the hell does everyone else not know about it? As you said, the data is public, so where are all the (credible) sources talking about the threat?

 Pouncey wrote:
To be honest, I never said they were concealing anything. I never said they were trying to cover up the truth, prevent anyone from looking it up, hiding any data, making any attempt to conceal any part of it.

I said they weren't telling everyone.

The difference is... They keep all that data public for anyone who wants to see it... Then they just never go on a talk show and explain it to a TV audience.

They're not hiding a single scrap of it.

They're just not publicizing any of it.

I mean, think about it. If they were actively concealing all this from the public, how the hell would I know about it?

The way you use "They" makes it sound like a scientists and all people involved are one homogenous entity with a unified, clear stance. That's simply not a very realistic concept, concerning how many people from different nations and places are involved in research like this.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
What I was trying to do was express the idea that I still believe that I am correct, but I don't wish to try to argue it because I am content to simply leave the difference of opinion be.

This isn't a difference of opinion like favorite sports teams or what GW should do for 8th edition 40k, it's more of your hyperbolic and inaccurate scientific claims. There is no credible evidence for climate change being an extinction-level threat, period. Even the worst-case models are limited to mass deaths and a significant reduction in sustainable population limits, but not total extinction. We're simply too resilient and technologically skilled as a species, and there will still be habitable regions to live in.

I mean, really, if you go back and read what I said I believe, you'll find numerous references to how I believe that people who know are keeping it quiet because there's no need to let the world know.

This is tinfoil hat paranoia, not a reasonable thing to believe. Vast amounts of climate change data and analysis are available to anyone who wants to see them, and that work is done by a vast number of people all over the planet. There is no way anyone is going to keep a "we're doomed" interpretation secret for long. Even if nobody outside the conspiracy is clever enough to figure it out it's almost inevitable that someone would reveal the secret for the fame and fortune that would follow.

And, aside from the absurdity of trying to keep the hypothetical extinction threat secret, there's really no point to it. The worst-case models for climate change, which are openly discussed, are bad enough that moving up the minor additional step to possible extinction isn't a big deal. We're talking about billions dead from flooding/crop failures/etc, probably billions dead in wars over the surviving habitable land and resources, and the total destruction of the world as we know it. Whether or not a few survivors manage to exist in this dystopian future (which all of us will almost certainly die in, if we aren't dead already by the time it happens) is hardly a significant enough question that it needs a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.

(Now, before you start with the hyperbolic claims about the worst-case scenarios, they are just that: worst-case scenarios, not most likely scenarios. The most likely scenario is that life gets inconvenient for wealthy and powerful nations like the US and our allies, and life sucks (or even ends) for people in poorer regions. And, just like we ignore things like mass starvation in places we don't care about, life will continue on.)

Climate change is only one factor. There are others that will combine.

Climate change is the result of the Earth as a whole getting warmer. The climate change models show the results that will come from that.

The increasing pollution we're flooding our planet with is another.

The Holocene Extinction is a third.

The expansion of human territory requiring the clearing of wilderness is another.

All told, by 2066, our planet will not be blue-green from space anymore.

It will be black-grey-brown.

The earliest orbital photographs from space show Earth as blue-green.

If you look at the photographs of those same green areas from orbit now. They're not green anymore. They're tan.

This is the kind of thing you don't need to shut anyone up.

Anyone who understands it, well, they know that telling people about it on TV will only cause a mass panic. And so no one talks about it. There's no point in talking about it. I probably shouldn't be typing this, but, well, I'm schizophrenic so it's easy to write me off as a nutjob. I have no credibility. No one will believe me so why shouldn't I say all about it I want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I mean, think about it. If they were actively concealing all this from the public, how the hell would I know about it?

Ok, now let's ask a similar question: if the extinction threat is so obvious that you, someone with no training or experience in the relevant field, can look at the data and see it, how the hell does everyone else not know about it? As you said, the data is public, so where are all the (credible) sources talking about the threat?

Why would anyone make a credible source talking about this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
To be honest, I never said they were concealing anything. I never said they were trying to cover up the truth, prevent anyone from looking it up, hiding any data, making any attempt to conceal any part of it.

I said they weren't telling everyone.

The difference is... They keep all that data public for anyone who wants to see it... Then they just never go on a talk show and explain it to a TV audience.

They're not hiding a single scrap of it.

They're just not publicizing any of it.

I mean, think about it. If they were actively concealing all this from the public, how the hell would I know about it?

The way you use "They" makes it sound like a scientists and all people involved are one homogenous entity with a unified, clear stance. That's simply not a very realistic concept, concerning how many people from different nations and places are involved in research like this.

No.

I say they because they is the standard sixth-person pronoun in the English language which refers to multiple other people.

No.

I say they because they is the standard sixth-person pronoun in the English language which refers to multiple other people.

And why would all these people come to the same conclusion about "not talking about" the global extinction if they are the ones actually producing and peer-reviewing all these credible sources you mention? They would be the most credible source, they would have a stake in avoiding imminent doom in 2070, why is not a single one breaking from the herd and showing that evidence to media and talkshows?

And since we are talking about sources - and I'm genuinely curious here - could you link to one of those papers predicting the extinction of the human race before 2100?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

But hey, I hear if she takes a second job her life will improve exponentially. Seriously. Did no one think that through before saying it?

Who are you typing that too, because I never espoused teachers getting second jobs. Frankly if you have to get a second job to make ends meet you need to find another job and pronto where your skills are properly recompensed.

You should not ever be a financial planner for someone else. Second, essentially you are requiring more education for people to be qualified for another job. Thanks. I'll take that as a bit of respect. Thanks again. Now pay them. Or not. You can't just wave your wand and make it so though.

Now you're in addition to being insulting, just kind of babbling.

*Second, essentially you are requiring more education for people to be qualified for another job.

How? By saying if your job sucks for you, you should pursue getting a better job? You had to have a brain aneurysm to get from "dude get out of a bad job and get a better one with the skills you have" to "you need to get more education to qualify for another job." Go home Gordon, you're drunk.

You should not ever be a financial planner for someone else.

Thanks for the career advice. I was thinking more along the lines of "bank heists with a van and a getaway monkey" myself.

Now pay them. Or not. You can't just wave your wand and make it so though.

There you go, drunk posting again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

But hey, I hear if she takes a second job her life will improve exponentially. Seriously. Did no one think that through before saying it?

Who are you typing that too, because I never espoused teachers getting second jobs. Frankly if you have to get a second job to make ends meet you need to find another job and pronto where your skills are properly recompensed.

You should not ever be a financial planner for someone else. Second, essentially you are requiring more education for people to be qualified for another job. Thanks. I'll take that as a bit of respect. Thanks again. Now pay them. Or not. You can't just wave your wand and make it so though.

My younger brother quit teaching as of last school year, and was able to find employment with a much better salary with little to no effort. And he was an English & Lit teacher. So if a degree in the proper use of articles can get you better employment anywhere else, there's no need for someone to retrain unless they are chasing one specific job.

And I honestly think that a raise wouldn't have kept him, he wanted his evenings back more than anything. The increase in pay he has now is just icing on the cake.

Exactly.

Its a double benefit. He has a better life, and it puts upward pressure on the wages/benefits to start improving those job conditions.

 Witzkatz wrote:

No.

I say they because they is the standard sixth-person pronoun in the English language which refers to multiple other people.

And why would all these people come to the same conclusion about "not talking about" the global extinction if they are the ones actually producing and peer-reviewing all these credible sources you mention? They would be the most credible source, they would have a stake in avoiding imminent doom in 2070, why is not a single one breaking from the herd and showing that evidence to media and talkshows?

And since we are talking about sources - and I'm genuinely curious here - could you link to one of those papers predicting the extinction of the human race before 2100?

Because everyone who knows, doesn't want to.

Because the work that could save us from it is already being done.

Showing this to the media and talk shows would only create a mass panic.

Why would someone who knew this create a mass panic over it?

 Sarouan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Frankly if you have to get a second job to make ends meet you need to find another job and pronto where your skills are properly recompensed.

If it was that easy for everyone around the world, there would be no problems.

But I guess you never heard/know what it means to be forced to do a job you don't want to, because you litterally don't have any other choice.

People having no jobs or forced to do crappy jobs don't do that because they like their situation.

Are you saying teachers literally do not have another choice? Thats a pretty low opinion of teachers.

And you'll have to talk into my left ear. My right ear's deaf from steam forge hammers in a plant I worked at, because I never knew what it meant to do a job I didn't want.

Never mind, the amount of insults being thrown is enough. I'm done with this thread and maybe the OT.

 Pouncey wrote:
Climate change is the result of the Earth as a whole getting warmer. The climate change models show the results that will come from that.

The increasing pollution we're flooding our planet with is another.

The Holocene Extinction is a third.

The expansion of human territory requiring the clearing of wilderness is another.

{citation needed}

Obviously these things are happening, but I don't see any proof for your theory that they will lead to complete human extinction.

The earliest orbital photographs from space show Earth as blue-green.

If you look at the photographs of those same green areas from orbit now. They're not green anymore. They're tan.

{citation needed}

When you provide the pictures please remember that color photography is an art, not a science. Scientific pictures are often false-color images, with a human assigning arbitrary colors to various parts of the image to convey a particular message or highlight relevant data. And even when you're talking about "what the eye sees" photographs things like white balance, lighting conditions, etc, can make huge differences in colors. I could show you two pictures, taken minutes apart, of a landscape going from bright green to gray-brown.

Anyone who understands it, well, they know that telling people about it on TV will only cause a mass panic. And so no one talks about it. There's no point in talking about it. I probably shouldn't be typing this, but, well, I'm schizophrenic so it's easy to write me off as a nutjob. I have no credibility. No one will believe me so why shouldn't I say all about it I want.

I don't think you understand how attention-whoring works. Even if many people say "we shouldn't cause a mass panic" there will be people who look at it and see an opportunity to get fame and fortune by bringing the greatest story of the modern era to everyone's attention. Someone with more credibility than you will inevitably see that being the first to endorse the imminent-extinction theory will make them wealthy and famous, regardless of the consequences.

The more likely explanation here is that, as you said, you have no credibility. You don't have any real understanding of the subject, and you're simply wrong about your interpretations.

Why would anyone make a credible source talking about this?

Because publishing "HUMANITY IS GOING TO BE EXTINCT IN 50 YEARS" with credible evidence behind it will make them wealthy and famous. Or because they feel a moral duty to let the truth be known, and let people make informed decisions about the future instead of living in ignorance. Or because the threat of extinction would add more weight to arguments about the need for immediate efforts to stop/slow climate change, potentially avoiding that fate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
Because the work that could save us from it is already being done.

And this is simply false, as even your own comments about the Trump administration's environmental policies admit. If all possible work is already being done then how can Trump's policies be relevant?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Climate change is the result of the Earth as a whole getting warmer. The climate change models show the results that will come from that.

The increasing pollution we're flooding our planet with is another.

The Holocene Extinction is a third.

The expansion of human territory requiring the clearing of wilderness is another.

{citation needed}

Obviously these things are happening, but I don't see any proof for your theory that they will lead to complete human extinction.

The earliest orbital photographs from space show Earth as blue-green.

If you look at the photographs of those same green areas from orbit now. They're not green anymore. They're tan.

{citation needed}

When you provide the pictures please remember that color photography is an art, not a science. Scientific pictures are often false-color images, with a human assigning arbitrary colors to various parts of the image to convey a particular message or highlight relevant data. And even when you're talking about "what the eye sees" photographs things like white balance, lighting conditions, etc, can make huge differences in colors. I could show you two pictures, taken minutes apart, of a landscape going from bright green to gray-brown.

Anyone who understands it, well, they know that telling people about it on TV will only cause a mass panic. And so no one talks about it. There's no point in talking about it. I probably shouldn't be typing this, but, well, I'm schizophrenic so it's easy to write me off as a nutjob. I have no credibility. No one will believe me so why shouldn't I say all about it I want.

I don't think you understand how attention-whoring works. Even if many people say "we shouldn't cause a mass panic" there will be people who look at it and see an opportunity to get fame and fortune by bringing the greatest story of the modern era to everyone's attention. Someone with more credibility than you will inevitably see that being the first to endorse the imminent-extinction theory will make them wealthy and famous, regardless of the consequences.

The more likely explanation here is that, as you said, you have no credibility. You don't have any real understanding of the subject, and you're simply wrong about your interpretations.

Why would anyone make a credible source talking about this?

Because publishing "HUMANITY IS GOING TO BE EXTINCT IN 50 YEARS" with credible evidence behind it will make them wealthy and famous. Or because they feel a moral duty to let the truth be known, and let people make informed decisions about the future instead of living in ignorance. Or because the threat of extinction would add more weight to arguments about the need for immediate efforts to stop/slow climate change, potentially avoiding that fate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
Because the work that could save us from it is already being done.

And this is simply false, as even your own comments about the Trump administration's environmental policies admit. If all possible work is already being done then how can Trump's policies be relevant?

I never claimed I figured this out myself, you know.

I never claimed I looked at any of the data.

I never claimed I read any scientific studies.

I never claimed to understand the science.

What I have seen is the following:

-A projection of what Earth will be like in the year 2066 and a brief explanation of why it will be like that.
-A chance encounter with someone who knew more than I did and filled in some details, hence the detail about the 2050s being the beginning of the bad stuff.

I'll be a bit more detailed.

We're all going to die because we will destroy enough life on Earth through our pollution, climate change, expansion of territory, and other unprecedentedly deadly threats to life on Earth, that the planet's ecosystem will collapse. We will die with it, because we cannot survive without the other life forms on Earth.

This didn't happen during the meteorite impact that wiped out the dinosaurs. This didn't happen during the gamma ray burst that killed 75% of species on Earth. Or any of the other dozen-or so Extinction events that wiped out most species on Earth.

It will happen during the Holocene Extinction because the mass extinction humans are causing by a wide variety of means is 10 times deadlier than any others.

And by that, I mean that the rate at which species are going extinct every year is 10 times higher than it was at any previous point in Earth's history, including when that meteorite killed all the dinosaurs.

You can go look up Holocene Extinction on Wikipedia if you want. It's a very thorough and detailed article you've probably never known about before.

Protecting the environment preserves life a little longer. This buys us more time.

More time for the scientists and engineers working on fusion reactors to get them working to a point we can replace our power plants with them.

Fusion power plants are the most environmentally-friendly means of power generation we have ever seen. And by that, I mean that yes, we have these, but we can't save our planet with them because it takes more energy to do the fusion reaction than we can get out of the reaction, so they don't actually generate more power than they take to run.

Once... if we get those working to a point we can power our civilization with them, we can start replacing all of our other power plants with them. All of them.

And once we do that, all the death we are causing to produce electricity stops.

Which will save us, if we do it before it's too late.

Fusion power plants will save life on Earth if we can get them working right quickly enough.