2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Revan said:
Many smart people are working on the issue, I think that the solution will be technological (if there will be a solution in the first place).
Click to expand...
I thought so.

Are you a positive kinda person who believes the best in all circumstances and so in the face of all scientists telling you otherwise you're sure a magic button is out there?

Or do you just personally hate the realities of the change that the scientists are recommending and desperately hope for any alternative, despite being aware of the reality?
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I thought so.

Are you a positive kinda person who believes the best in all circumstances and so in the face of all scientists telling you otherwise you're sure a magic button is out there?

Or do you just personally hate the realities of the change that the scientists are recommending and desperately hope for any alternative, despite being aware of the reality?
Click to expand...
I am quite sceptical in most things, and I think that the chances for an apocalyptic world cause of climate change are very high.

I also think that the only solution which might happen is a technological one (go green energy, fission, fusion if we manage to crack it, etc). Simply reducing carbon while would be a solution, I just cannot see it happening (unfortunately so).
 
Revan said:
I am quite sceptical in most things, and I think that the chances for an apocalyptic world cause of climate change are very high.

I also think that the only solution which might happen is a technological one (go green energy, fission, fusion if we manage to crack it, etc). Simply reducing carbon while would be a solution, I just cannot see it happening (unfortunately so).
Click to expand...
And what makes you believe this? What makes you think you know better than all the scientists who are adamant that our only hope is immediate reduction of carbon emissions?

Do you imagine yourself a great thinker of the age, above these meager nerds? Are you yourself close to cracking free energy? Or are you just trying to deflect from the reality that your politics is a death sentence to the planet?
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
And what makes you believe this? What makes you think you know better than all the scientists who are adamant that our only hope is immediate reduction of carbon emissions?

Do you imagine yourself a great thinker of the age, above these meager nerds? Are you yourself close to cracking free energy? Or are you just trying to deflect from the reality that your politics is a death sentence to the planet?
Click to expand...
I know a lot of scientists who are actually working on that. The scientists are a large and diverse community. Pretty much everyone agrees that climate change is real and we are fecked. Some think that the solution might be technological, some say that our only hope is to spend less energy.

It is not that I am a great thinker of the age, just that my opinion is that unless being forced, the vast majority of people won't take a decrease in their quality of living, even theoretically knowing that is the right thing to do. Otherwise, the number of vegetarians and those who don't use aeroplanes will be higher than it is.

So yep, my opinion (which might be totally wrong) is that if there is a hope to survive, it will be by finding alternative means of energy which will be economically viable.

NB: No, I don't work on green energy.
 
Revan said:
I know a lot of scientists who are actually working on that. The scientists are a large and diverse community. Pretty much everyone agrees that climate change is real and we are fecked. Some think that the solution might be technological, some say that our only hope is to spend less energy.
Click to expand...
This is not a serious debate in the scientific community. The vast majority of scientists do not engage in climate denial. This is fantasy.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
This is not a serious debate in the scientific community. The vast majority of scientists do not engage in climate denial. This is fantasy.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about climate denial? I literally said that the majority of them think that we are fecked, and every scientist who is working on the field is extremely worried.

For example, one of the concrete things I am talking about: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05433.pdf which is more like a manifesto and was attached to a workshop in the top ML conference with the goal of leading more scientists to join the fight.

Again, it does not mean that I am right, but I think it is more likely that we will find ways of reducing the carbon footprint, without reducing the quality of living (aka, without spending less energy) than just deciding as humanity to use less energy.
 
Revan said:
Who said anything about climate denial? I literally said that the majority of them think that we are fecked, and every scientist who is working on the field is extremely worried.

For example, one of the concrete things I am talking about: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05433.pdf which is more like a manifesto and was attached to a workshop in the top ML conference with the goal of leading more scientists to join the fight.

Again, it does not mean that I am right, but I think it is more likely that we will find ways of reducing the carbon footprint, without reducing the quality of living (aka, without spending less energy) than just deciding as humanity to use less energy.
Click to expand...
I'm saying you're engaging in climate denial. You are either pretending or deluded in to thinking that their is any reason to believe that we can avoid catastrophic climate change without severe systemic change and that is obviously a denial of what climate scientists are telling us.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I'm saying you're engaging in climate denial. You are either pretending or deluded in to thinking that their is any reason to believe that we can avoid catastrophic climate change without severe systemic change and that is obviously a denial of what climate scientists are telling us.
Click to expand...

I don't see how does this come from. I literally said that I think we are fecked. I am not claiming that there is a global conspiracy and that everything is fine, in fact, I said that I think there is a high chance of an apocalyptic scenario. And personally, I am strongly considering to never have kids because of this reason. In any case, I am giving a very dark scenario.

How on Earth is this climate denial when I totally agree that the chances of a collapse of civilization if not worse - because of climate change - are very high?
 
Revan said:
I don't see how does this come from. I literally said that I think we are fecked. I am not claiming that there is a global conspiracy and that everything is fine, in fact, I said that I think there is a high chance of an apocalyptic scenario. And personally, I am strongly considering to never have kids because of this reason. In any case, I am giving a very dark scenario.

How on Earth is this climate denial when I totally agree that the chances of a collapse of civilization if not worse - because of climate change - are very high?
Click to expand...
Because you are choosing to deny what climate scientists are saying is the only answer. It's not complicated.

We're ruining this thread, btw. I can't be arsed to find an appropriate one but if you do want to continue it, then that's probably the way we should go.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Because you are choosing to deny what climate scientists are saying is the only answer. It's not complicated.
Click to expand...
I am not denying that reducing the amount of energy we spent is a solution. I just don't see us as a species doing so. The discussion has been going for two decades, the projections have been getting worse and worse, and yet, there is no indication that we are going to change in that aspect. In fact, it is arguably getting worse.

For that, I think that the only hope is a technological/scientific solution.
 
Revan said:
I am not denying that reducing the amount of energy we spent is a solution. I just don't see us as a species doing so. The discussion has been going for two decades, the projections have been getting worse and worse, and yet, there is no indication that we are going to change in that aspect. In fact, it is arguably getting worse.

For that, I think that the only hope is a technological/scientific solution.
Click to expand...
See the second paragraph I edited in.
 


How can anyone think Bloomberg is good at "burning trump" when you have this dude spitting Magma.

remember when democrats had a backbone?

 
This is apparently where the dust up started - Johnson attempting to conflate Sanders being a millionaire with Bloomberg.

 
Raoul said:
This is apparently where the dust up started - Johnson attempting to conflate Sanders being a millionaire with Bloomberg.

Click to expand...


in his interview on Sirius that i showed the clip above, he touches on Turner calling Bloomberg an Oligarch then says because Sanders has a net worth of $2m that means he's an oligarch and he influences government and policy.

What a bizarre distortion of an oligarch. Sanders has political power.....because he's an elected representative. His personal wealth does not shape policy. Sanders doesn't/can't use his money to buy votes or policy. :wenger::wenger:
 
Last edited:
WPMUFC said:
in his interview on Sirius that i showed the clip above, he touches on Turner calling Bloomberg an Oligarch then says because Sanders has a net worth of $2m that means he's an oligarch and he influences government and policy.

What a bizarre distortion of an oligarch. Sanders has political power.....because he's an elected representative. His personal wealth does not shape policy. Sanders doesn't/can't use his money to by votes or policy. :wenger::wenger:
Click to expand...

It also illustrates how the "intersectionality" / identity politics crowd feel aggrieved that the new Dem standard bearer doesn't see the world through their lens, which means they are going to have to adapt in order to have a seat at the table - or else find themselves on the outside looking in.
 
Raoul said:
It also illustrates how the "intersectionality" / identity politics crowd feel aggrieved that the new Dem standard bearer doesn't see the world through their lens, which means they are going to have to adapt in order to have a seat at the table - or else find themselves on the outside looking in.
Click to expand...

Mr Johnson seems very happy to throw Class Structure out of the "intersectionality" window as long as it benefits his argument it would seem.

The Firestarter said:
2M - oligarch
60B - philantropist

:lol:
Click to expand...

I actually cannot believe that man is a professor of political science. In what academic textbook or journal is a democratically elected member of congress, which only had a net worth of $2 million by his late 70's (of which $1 million came from book sales only 2 years ago :lol:) falls under the definition of an oligarch? If i was an academic journal, i'd seriously consider re-examining any contributions Johnson made.
 
I feel this wealth tax is going to be used as a bargaining chip later on. It's going to rattle quite a few cages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.