We seem to be suffering through a time when using insults is almost a knee jerk, default tactic. How casually you call another an idiot. please stop doing this. Grow up a bit. Use words that convey real concerns. Leave the food fights for the children. — Varnaj42

Given the amount of attention your posts have received and the number of substantive responses pointing out the errors in your arguments, I think people have been more than patient with you.

Also given that people have been debating this issue for decades with the science on manmade climate change only becoming more clear, the urgency to act only becoming more prominent due to the wasted time spent, and the constant moving of the goal posts by likely bad faith actors (like those paid by the fossil fuel lobby) in order to prevent such action I don't blame people for being a little frustrated either.

Yeah I'm well aware of the grandfather paradox and whatnot, but this thread is about physics and implied time travel.

Not sure if this experiment is old news, but has anyone explained it? — TiredThinker

It's been around for decades and as far as I can tell most physicists still don't believe in time travel. A quick google search and look at the Wiki page gave me that information so I'm not sure why this is being asked here.

Now we see your true colors. — Wayfarer

Alot of climate denialism often boils down to dumb politics. Oh, and rich oil lobbyists who profit off nothing being done (for very obvious reasons) who manage to dupe the former into fighting for their interests.

Sadly things being worse than expected is becoming an incresingly common phrase among alot of climate headlines today so I've learned to factor that into my predictions as well.

I can't think of anyone who thought that getting temperatures below 1.5 C would be achieved, given how sluggish progress has been. Sad but not surprising.

That's why I'm concerned about the infiltration of AI. Not that there won't be real art but that no one will care. Art may become (even more) socially devalued. — Baden

The opposite could also happen too. People have learned to appreciate handcrafted products in the wake of the industrial revolution and mass manufacturing and even now we see people starting to appreciate human made art more now that AI art exists. Of course it's hard to predict how people will react here, but that's just my hope.

Personally I'm more concerned about how corporations will treat the new technology. They may see the technology as being "good enough" and lay off their artists in order to cut costs. In the worst case scenario, we may be heading towards a situation where AI art is worse than human made art but "good enough" for companies to not care about replacing their workers, leading to a media landscape that's more soulless and derivative overall.

Race does not exist in any biological sense, though. So it’s a superstition. — NOS4A2

Either this is sophistry or your statement is completely wrong. If you're trying to make some other point then just make it.

The hyphen was to differentiate between the root word and the suffix in order to illustrate what I think is the definition. “Race” means the taxonomy of race. “-ism” means ideology or doctrine. So I intend race-ism to be racism. — NOS4A2

Doesn't really tell me what doctrine is being referred to here. If it simply means acknowledging the existence of different races then that's not what most people mean by "racism".

He mentioned moving to a neighborhood with mostly white people and how it's much better citing Don Lemon:

So that’s what I did, I went to a neighbourhood where, you know, they have a very low black population, because unfortunately, you know, there’s a high correlation between the density, and this is according to Don Lemon, by the way. So here, I’m just quoting Don Lemon when he notes that the, when he lived in a mostly black neighbourhood, there are a bunch of problems that he didn’t see in white neighbourhoods. So even Don Lemon sees a big difference in your own quality of living, based on where he lives and who is there.

That's the part I think is more damning.

Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is the fundamental idea motivating every racially discriminatory act. — NOS4A2

This doesn't tell me anything. What is this "ideology" or "idea" that you're talking about? I don't even know if you intend "race-ism" to be racism.

Have to define what "racism" means here. I usually understand it as the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. Obviously the Nazis were racist by that definition, and so is Adams based on his comments (and no I'm not trying to compare Hitler to the Dilbert guy in case you're wondering). Simply asking a question in a poll about race doesn't qualify as racist from my view.

If that black person also brags about moving to a non-white neighborhood, implying some link between race and societal problems then... well personally I don't believe in cancellation no matter what people say (though private businesses and individuals are free to associate or disassociate with whomever for whatever reason) but that sure is racist by any technical definition.

With how the youth vote turned out to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, I hope that this will cause the Republicans to reevaluate their stances on issues such as climate change so as to appeal to the increasing concerns of that demographic. I mean I don't think it will happen (they're already calling for raising the age limit for voting), but one can hope.

Even though this bucked the trend for midterms, it’s still depressing that so many were so close, and the Republicans get the house regardless. — Mikie

Funny to think that they're gonna win the House purely due to gerrymandering given what the final margins are likely gonna be.

All those Bolzonaro's, Viktor Orban's etc. show that too much left liberal push might create a counterpush (and vice versa, of course). — ssu

I don't disagree with that, but when it comes to figures like Trump, I think he came into power more because he was a populist (or at least pretended to be, he ultimately just governed like a standard Republican) when people were sick of the establishment.

The Brazilians were an inch away from reelecting Bolsonaro just last week. The US may be insane, but it's not the only country we need to worry about.

Voting for conservative will not change the economy for the marginal income groups (which are composed of quite a few million people). Voting for the Democrats will not change the economy for the marginal income groups either. Our political system (like some others) repeatedly offers empty choices to the electorate. — Bitter Crank

Pretty much. Voting is mostly just a way for people to vent their current frustration at the status quo and they're dissatisfied with that the majority of the time. Rarely is it about long term policy or ideology which is unfortunate since the current GOP's ideology is atrocious.

I don't think that the Dems will hold on to power for this years midterms, but I'm honestly mostly content that the Dems were able to get something done this time around on climate, drug prices, and healthcare, even if it's not much. The IRA is a popular bill (as is the larger BBB which didn't pass) regardless of people's opinions about the Democratic party, but people will forget it by next month and vote for the Republicans and their tax cuts anyways, which people will forget about too.

The millions of extremely rich, very rich, and merely rich income groups will be well taken care of. — Bitter Crank

Don't forget the military.

Do you think that there was anything that could've been done diplomatically during the immediate moments leading up to the war to prevent it or do you think that Putin had already made up his mind at that point?

The GOP are gonna do it anyways the next time they get power and it may likely be the only thing they do like during the Trump years. It's sort of their answer to everything (that and cutting social programs but that's more of a means to fund their tax breaks).

On the bright side at least in the UK it doesn't look like the conservatives have much of a chance the next time a general election happens. Though who knows since voters have very short attention spans and 2025 is some ways away.

They'll try again the next time they get the chance. The only reason why they couldn't this time was because of that meddling UK economy.

Before then though, I expect the GOP in the US to ride into power through inflation-concerned voters and try to pull off the exact same thing, perhaps more successfully.

So I guess DeSantis will be the GOP nominee then in 2024?

According to Manchin, reducing the deficit is the "best way" to fight inflation. Why else do you think the bill has $300 billion in net deficit reduction instead of literally anything else?

I mean, there are some aspects of the bill like the drug price negotiation stuff that would help reduce costs. Also the bill is tied to more oil and gas drilling so if you're one of those people who think a pipeline will slash gas prices then that may do something for you. There are some people who say that this will reduce pressure on the Fed in raising rates, but I'm not an economist.

The GOP have to face reality at some point about the unpopularity of their policies. — Xtrix

No they don't. They've gotten away with it for decades by making people focus on the culture war.

Just call abortions "woke" and the self described libertarians will line up to vote away their freedoms.

I kind of knew that already going in since Manchin was calling for it for months. Progressives have largely accepted the poison pill in favor of the long term goal. Plus they may be more okay with the oil and gas leasing given the current situation with global gas supplies. Everyone knew that they were dealing with a coal baron from West Virginia, which was why they killed the CEPP. If there's anyone who you should thank for the clean energy tax provisions it's Ron Wyden who's been so on top of this whole thing that he approached Manchin about this very deal 8 years ago when Obama was still president. He's even keeping regular conversations with Sinema on taxes since he's probably aware of the current situation regarding getting her support.

Alot of experts still think that this will significantly cut down climate emissions so I'll take it.

No it was way more complicated than that. Manchin killed the last bill because he had concerns about the fact that it didn't tax the rich enough and that he didn't like the temporary programs (in particular the Child Tax Credit, which was only extended for 1 year because of a compromise deal with him because he didn't like it). At least that what he told a WV radio show host back in December.

Then after months of saying he's willing to continue talking and ignoring people's requests to restart negotiations to instead tell people that those negotiations aren't happening, he laid out a climate, drug price, and deficit reduction bill that he said he wanted to pass. This would be funded by tax increases, and according to him the deficit reduction was the "best way" to fight inflation. This was what he urged the Democrats to do in response to inflation.

Then two more months pass and when it looked like talks were restarting in May on that very bill Manchin wanted everyone to pass, Manchin out of the blue sidelined those talks for bipartisan climate talks with people who don't believe in climate change. The only thing bipartisan agreement he managed to get was for both sides, Democrats and Republicans, to come into the same room and agree that this was all pointless. That shaved off an entire month off the clock when Democrats were urging Manchin that there wasn't much time left, and set the stage for the time crunch we saw in July.

And just when it looked like things were finally about to come to an agreement, Manchin suddenly had a realization that because of concerns about inflation he cannot do the tax increases in the bill which would've hindered the deficit reduction funding in the bill which would've, according to Manchin's own metrics, hindered fighting inflation. In exchange he was willing to do a temporary health care bill instead, because if the BBB bill negotiations taught us anything, he was perfectly fine with that.

And now he's kind of reversed that last position. I suppose somebody came up to him and told him that it was his own inflation fighting bill and he came to his senses. Either that or because the Democrats played the Republicans (a rare instance) because they threatened to block the CHIPs bill from passing if they realized that the Democrats were trying to cut the deficit. I mean, they just blocked veteran's aid because of it so yeah.

All in all, Manchin is a fucking nightmare to negotiate with. But he was the reason why the bill was kept up for so long and given the state of most of the congressional Democrats, then I imagine they're willing to just take what he's offering them. The only wildcard is Sinema who seems to love holding corrupt shitty positions and not telling anyone about it. Then again the bill was designed around her strict tax demands, she's stated she won't change her position in this new round of negotiations months ago, and she apparently seems to genuinely care about the climate stuff in BBB. Then again she's also a diva so who knows.

Actually it's more of a reversal of a reversal (since Manchin blocked his very own bill two weeks ago), but whatever, I'll take it.

Finally, some good fucking news. I can't wait to never hear the name Manchin ever again.

Global warming was a common theme in science fiction in the 1980s. The 1982 movie Blade Runner was typical. So no, the news wasn't broken to Americans by Al Gore. He was just unusually successful in raising alarm. — Tate

Given how polarized US politics was becoming at the time, I'm starting to wonder if Gore being the face of climate change activism in the country made Americans LESS likely to address it. Not that that was his fault, of course (more society's), but we all know how politics ruins literally everything.

Technically they weren't even talking about BBB. He killed that bill because he had problems with it's temporary programs (which were there because he restricted the topline number), and also because it didn't do enough to reverse the Trump tax cuts. The bill Manchin just killed was his very own deficit reduction bill funded by tax increases, which he said was the "best way" to fight inflation. Fast forward several grueling months of bad faith negotiations and then Manchin suddenly "found out" that the tax increases were inflationary and that he was suddenly okay with a bill that consists solely in drug prices and a (temporary) ACA extension instead. At least, he's okay with it now (but given his track record, he'd probably have some last minute "revelation" that drug prices are inflationary or something leaving us with literally nothing).

Now if only American politicians would care, they could try and apply these solutions and save civilization as we know it. That'd be nice. Any moment now.... — Olivier5

According to the senator from West Virginia, whether or not civilization as we know it is saved solely depends on next month's CPI report.

They're also not gonna furiously defend coal either like your last post implied. Like you said, they care about employment, and they're perfectly fine with clean jobs just so long as they have them, which was why they wanted the manufacturers creating new jobs in their coalfields.

The point of labour unions is to defend their membership in collective bargaining with capitalists. It is not to save the human race. A coal miners union will defend the use of coal. There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming. — Olivier5

Not so sure about that. At the very least with regards to the legislation Manchin just killed, it seemed like union workers were pretty excited about the bill, in particular for it's legislation to help the miners transition to new cleaner jobs on the coalfields they used to work on: Coal miners want Joe Manchin to reverse opposition to Build Back Better.

Apparently Manchin was really buddy buddy with the coal miners, or at least trying to be, seeing as he's a coal baron and all. Kind of wonder how they feel about him now that he's shown himself to be playing games for the past year and a half over legislation that would've helped them transition to other jobs. Those coal jobs aren't coming back, and the coal industry in the US is dying, no matter who is in charge of the White House. They seem to understand that but I guess that's just Manchin looking out for his constituents.

We are living through the greatest tragic comedy of our time.

Like I've been saying, the "let's do nothing" crowd continues to say that we should do nothing at all.

I mean good luck with that, but there are a lot of people out there who are dead set on making sure that we don't do anything at all. At first the line was that climate change wasn't happening, so we shouldn't do anything at all. Then they accepted the existence of climate change but now deny that it was manmade, so again, let's do nothing at all. Now it's a combination of "renewables bad", "China should do something first", or "some climate people fly in private jets", all with the implication that we should, you guessed it, not do anything at all.

I mean, it'd be nice if all sides acknowledged the problem and just had differing approaches to solving it. In a world that made sense that would've been the case. I'd love it if both the right and the left had debates over whether we should decarbonize using nuclear or renewables for example. Unfortunately that isn't the world that we live in, and I don't know how much longer we all are gonna live in this world anyways if this is how we're gonna act.

I wish people would stop pretending science will solve everything, which is something other people do, after all, so they have an excuse not to make the necessary sacrifices themselves, which we're all going to have to do. — Benkei

While I don't necessarily think science will solve everything, it's a better option than expecting everyone to suddenly come to a realization that they're destroying the environment and doing the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. We tried the latter for 40 years and that got us nowhere. People just aren't gonna make the necessary sacrifices because it involves them doing something inconvenient. It's why NIMBYism is a thing.

At least technological advances are immune to inconsistency of governments. If renewables and EVs are made more affordable and economically competitive (which fortunately it seems to be getting to in recent years) then it doesn't matter what kind of science denying buffoon the voters decide to elect into office. Businesses will decide to decarbonize of their own accord.

Indeed, the oligarchs know that when the people unite against them they can't win, which is why they try to break people apart whenever they can by sowing discord. In fact, I think that that is part of the reason why today's politics is so divisive.

But the fact that people can be so easily manipulated like this is also part of reason why I said I've lost faith in humanity. The rise of Nazi Germany has shown us all that people can be duped into hating and committing heinous atrocities against one another with just the right amount of persuasion, and the fact that people can just let someone like Hitler come into power terrifies the hell out of me. Hitler may be gone, but what made him so powerful in the first place is still with us, likely leading to the rise of similar figures.

I mean, out of all of the problems humanity is facing right now, it seems like people are more interested in talking about culture war nonsense than anything else, all while the wealthy make off. Some billionaire just bought one of the biggest social media websites out there (well not anymore) and people actually celebrated.

But look: there are 7+ billion pretty much powerless consumers in the world. We tend to blame ourselves for the climate disaster. Maybe we are all complicit, but none of us are guilty of being prime movers in energy production, manufacturing or consumption. We are small cogs in a great wheel, but we do not turn the wheel. We do not grind; we are ground up. — Bitter Crank

Sure you can say we're not the primary cause of alot of our problems, but we aren't entirely blameless. Alot of the corrupt politicians are there because we are duped into voting for them and against our own interests. In addition, the people who do want to do something are successfully demonized into obscurity by the media. We can easily topple over the oligarchs if we actually unite together, but instead we're more interested in fighting amongst ourselves. Alot of people are actually celebrating the death of the US climate bill right now, primarily because the issue has been so politicized.

This is still achievable from an engineering point of view, and even on an apocalyptic landscape with 50-90% of the currently inhabitable earth no longer liveable, humans can likely survive on the poles. There are pathways to full extinction but these seem unlikely edge cases in terms of environmental collapse (such as oxygen depletion or turning the atmosphere toxic). — boethius

Oh I have no doubt that humans will survive this in some form. They will start taking climate change seriously when it becomes an immediate concern (one can argue that it really is in some cases). Unfortunately it'd be too late in large part to stop the damage. In addition the failure to act will open up a whole host of other issues on which society will divide itself such as fights over natural resources, migration, and more pandemics (and judging by the way COVID was handled, it's not looking very good).

It's safe to say that this year has pretty much made me lose faith in humanity altogether. With all the recent events going on now, it's hard to be optimistic. Human nature is just inherently flawed and we probably deserve whatever is gonna come our way.