I'd question McKitrick's take on the matter, hence asking. — jorndoe

You’d be right to. McKitrick is a moron. Not only does he misrepresent the IPCC, notice that he also quotes from the 2013 report. Can’t even take the time to misrepresent the latest version.

Economic models are — and have been shown to be— complete garbage on this matter.

Again— We can listen to the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world, and feel great because we have “special knowledge” and are so very much “outside the mainstream” (thus conveniently relieved of actually learning about the subject), and then proudly proclaim it’s “No big deal”— or we can ask if maybe, just maybe, climatologists have thoughts on these arguments, and spend 30 minutes on their words.

Climate denial is much easier. Just “weather volatility,” after all. So we can rest our little heads about it.

Just what the world needs: more panic. That'll do it. — jgill

Yeah, you’re right. Being calm and collected has worked wonders so far.

The forecast for this century is increased weather volatility. Nothing drastic. — frank

:lol:

Again, for those truly interested: read climate scientists, not Internet buffoons.

For those not deluded by economists’ models and the “It’s a problem but nothing to panic about” attitude of the intellectual giants we find on Internet forums, I suggest reading several sources — written by climate scientists. You’ll get the facts, and decide for yourself whether “alarm” is warranted.

Spoiler alert: it definitely, definitely is. We’re not panicked enough, in fact.

Yeah, because both of you have shown a real understanding of climatology. :roll:

Keep reading the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world.

You sound remarkably complacent. — Isaac

There's always something we can do. Protest. Kick up a fuss. Make a noise. Same as always. — Isaac

No kidding. Not once did I suggest we remain complacent.

Yet more evidence to abolish capitalism. — Mikie

That's what's needed, and there's plenty we can do to bring it about. The censorship issue is secondary.

We can't just let that go with a shrug. — Isaac

Great, so go do something about it.

The OP is in response to Elon Musk's removal of censorship from Twitter. — Isaac

He's still censoring just as much as before, it's just getting more publicity because he's allowing Trump and Kenya back on and liberals don't like it. There are still plenty of things you can't say, and rightfully so.

What's more interesting is the idea of subscriptions. If he goes forward with that idea, then it truly does change things because it's changing the business model.

I can see the argument that social media algorithms lead to ever more divisive and inflammatory views, but on the subject of censorship, it's the human CEOs and management who are making decisions, and they're making them against what would make good click-bait (though presumably still for monetary gain). — Isaac

Rarely, and only when there's political pressure to do so. It doesn't change the basic technology underlying social media, optimized for views.

But yes, these private owners have always been allowed to dictate terms of service. That's what we accept when we click "agree" to them. They can censor anything they'd like, because they own it. I don't necessarily like that, of course, but it's always been that way.

Ignorance has been around forever, including in the internet age. I remember plenty of ignorance on AOL message boards, blogs, and various websites.

The issue now is social media. But since the major sites are owned by huge corporations (or one individual) -- Google (YouTube), Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Twitter (Musk) -- you'd think we're in the same situation. What's changed?

What's changed is the business model that social media companies follow. It's quite different from newspapers, television, and radio. Tristan Harris has done good work on this. The issue is that what is more likely to go viral, get views or clicks is often the most outrageous, inflammatory, and divisive. This isn't suppressed because clicks, shares, and likes is exactly what is being sold.

So it's not that we should censor ignorance and stupidity -- it's that we shouldn't be promoting them, which is what these companies are doing. For money, as always. Yet more evidence to abolish capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLfr7sU5W2E

So the criminal degenerate is back on Twitter. He's pretty old news at this point, so...does it even matter?

Trump should he serving time already for his uncountable crimes.

Imagine looking at this guy and thinking he’s an honest man, a victim of persecution. :lol:

I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that. — Hanover

:lol:

At this point, I would place a light wager on DeSantis winning the primary — Maw

Let's do it. I put my money on Trump. I bet you $1.

He's already got a cult following, and he'll embarrass DeSantis just as he did Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush -- and everyone else who's gotten in his way. But we'll see....

Yeah. And the center-left has also a quite familiar agenda too. We have the left and the right in politics, you see. — ssu

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Trump at least railed against the donor class and their puppets like Jeb Bush.
— Mikie
Really? Lol. — ssu

Yeah, really. It's fairly well documented.

I would say people pinned hopes on Obama with all that talk of change and so on. On Trump they pinned fantasies. — ssu

No kidding.

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

Their positions are so unpopular that they have to do something. They know they're a minority party. You have to hand it to them though, it's always very close. The move to stack the courts has paid off for them, and the wave of state legislators in 2010 continues to give dividends.

The fearmongering and demonization only gets you so far, however. People in the US may be wising up to the fact that the Republicans have no ideas, no plans, no solutions. They love to attack the liberal elite, and all the problems of the country, but they fail to mention that it is their party and its policies that are most responsible for them, and that they obstruct any measures to help.

See their stances on the environment: the reality is that we need less fossil fuels, not more. Their stance? They want to drill more. We need to tax the wealthy and large corporations. They want tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Etc.

Their only plan:

(1) Make the country ungovernable.
(2) Blame the Democrats for why things are so crappy.
(3) Have the electorate blame the party in power, ride the wave.
(4) Do nothing but posture, cut taxes for the rich, privatize education, de-regulate businesses, and give the country away to corporate America by any means necessary.

Didn't quite work this time. Maybe it's Trump...or maybe people have woken up to the predictable pattern.

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. — Mr Bee

The fossil fuel industry supports Republicans far more than Democrats. As long as that remains true, and the owners of media (like Murdoch) and think tanks (Koch) continue to support Republicans, this won't change.

I think finally the GOP can come back to it's senses. Trump is a losing card. — ssu

What "senses" would that be? They have basically one thought: minimize government (i.e., for the people). Cut taxes (for the wealthy), deregulate industry so that businesses are unfettered by rules, de-fund public goods (schools, public lands, etc). Getting back to that is an even worse message. Trump at least railed against the donor class and their puppets like Jeb Bush.

Is there a risk that the end of Trump might bring with it more astute and cunning demagoguery by people like Ron DeSantis who might actually know what they are doing? — Tom Storm

DeSantis would be far worse, since he'd be far more focused on implementing even more failed neoliberal policies.



I believe you predictable a blue wave, no? Didn't really materialize, but you were closer than what the media was saying.

It's a mistake to think that conservatives are all better now, having gotten Trump out of their system. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties. — NOS4A2

Yeah, they're definitely both the same. One party believes in climate change, the other says it's a hoax. Minor differences.

Yes. Very happy to see Lake lose.

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.

Climate scientists are unequivocal: time is running out to transition away from fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal and instead power our cars, heat our homes and grow our food using renewable energy sources and sustainable farming practices. Most voters agree: two thirds of Americans want the federal government to do more to tackle the climate crisis, according to one recent poll.

Despite this urgency, the climate crisis has not been a campaigning focal point for Democrats or Republicans ahead of next week’s midterm elections, with inflation, abortion and immigration gaining far more attention from candidates. Worryingly for Joe Biden and the Democrats, who are forecast to lose control of both Houses, 60% of voters know nothing or little about the historical climate bill (the Inflation Reduction Act) passed this summer. And 139 fossil fuel friendly members of the current (117th) Congress still refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change, accounting for more than half of Republicans.

https://apple.news/ArATBcdxqSPehBvMuMbGwGg

“I don’t understand it that well, but they have to intervene and hold new elections,” said Andrea Vaz, 51, a computer-hardware seller holding a sign that said, “Fraud in the voting machines!” at a large protest outside the Brazilian Army’s national headquarters in Brasília. “We saw various videos. People giving out money, buying votes,” she added. “There’s proof.”

Mass delusion at its best.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/world/americas/bolsonaro-election-protests.html

A coup is unlikely. I’m guessing he’ll simply do what Trump did: scream fraud with zero evidence and energize his base, so that perhaps they do the dirty work for him, a la January 6th. — Mikie

So far this hasn’t been the case. He’s been much more subtle about it than Trump. He’s not conceded, but not yelled about fraud (yet). He’s also not told his supporters to stop blocking the streets, of course. Still, not what I was suspecting.

Apparently many of his top officials and allies in the senate have already congratulated Lula— which makes things harder.

Isn’t it something that Brazil is handling things better than the US. January 1st can’t come soon enough.

Then what you said really is laughable.

There weren’t native peoples of Brazil because “Brazil” is a creation of Portugal and the only official language of Brazil is Portuguese. — javi2541997

Are you serious? Is this a serious response or is it supposed to be satirizing modem academic relativism?

They do seem ill-served by their leaders on all sides though. — Baden

Rings a bell in the US.

These elections were not about the right or the left, but about freedom of expression or authoritarianism inspired by Stalinism. — Gus Lamarch

Yes, and Bolsonaro is the most authoritarian leader Brazil has had in decades, looking back fondly as he does of the military dictatorship — not to mention nearly everything he’s done over the last four years.

Anyway — you’re wrong. The most significant factor is the Amazon. The Amazon’s fate affects all of us, all over the world. Electing a climate denier who’s hellbent on destroying it isn’t a smart move, and no amount of “It’s my country, so I know better” posturing can possibly justify it. (A tired, lame argument if I ever heard one, by the way.)

Very glad to see at least half of Brazil agrees and didn’t vote for suicide. Take it up with them.

am not doubt he would be ready Coup d'état. — javi2541997

A coup is unlikely. I’m guessing he’ll simply do what Trump did: scream fraud with zero evidence and energize his base, so that perhaps they do the dirty work for him, a la January 6th.

He already said he's not denying climate change. — Matt E

Climate denial takes many forms.

But who are you and why are you commenting on something written a year ago? Very strange.

No relation to any of his points. A clear sign of plugging your ears and serving only as a mouthpiece for your echo chamber. — Matt E

What a bizarre thing to say.

First, he had no points to respond to besides the following:

Climate change can be good and open up new opportunities.
— Kasperanza

To which YOUR response was:

Okay, this is sort of delusional, lol. Can you find a single fact to back that up? — Matt E

I suppose this wasn’t “plugging your ears”, eh? Calling someone delusional?

Not a great way to begin on this forum.

No— and who knows what Bolsonaro is going to do. He’s yet to concede.

Lula pulls it off. But how pathetic the margin was. Irrationality never disappoints

Excellent article on Republicans and the working class:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/29/opinion/election-workers-republican-oz-vance.html

but only in a couple of countries, Brazil doesn't matter that much. — ChatteringMonkey

Then you’re really not paying attention.

October 30th— tomorrow — will largely determine the fate of life as we know it. Why? Because the Brazilian people vote for a president tomorrow, and the fate of the planet’s lungs — the Amazon — will be decided with it. This isn’t hyperbole.

Fingers crossed that people don’t opt for suicide.

Regarding the antinatalism claims:

If you are unable to change the world, then you ought to frustrate your desire to introduce new sentient life into it. Yes?

This was yet another antinatalist argument dressed up in different clothes from someone who posts almost nothing except antinatalist arguments. So it was merged with the life sucks thread. It doesn’t mean the argument was that life sucks — that’s simply the name of the thread.

I even extended the courtesy of messaging both of the individuals affected by the merge. The conversation can continue either way. Mostly a housekeeping move. Not a great injustice, fairly straightforward.

Are you really saying that Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic all joined NATO in order to benefit from humanitarian assistance? — Olivier5

No.

Again, for the third time, what kind of statements and actions would demonstrate to you an “imperialistic bent”? — neomac

Whatever it is that’s convinced you of it prior to the NATO summit. I’m not interested in surmise and gut feelings.

But nobody underestimated the “imperialistic bent” of Russia, — neomac

Prior to 2008? Who?

If Russia stays within its borders and recognizes that Austria, Singapore, Japan and Israel all developed huge economies with no resources and in small territories, they, with a vast territory and vast resources, could do enormous things for their people. Then there is no security problem. — neomac

Which they did…

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, ``We should not be shy in saying that NATO expansion will help a democratic Russia and hurt an imperialistic Russia.'' — neomac

That’s nice. That’s not Russia’s attitude.

`Fear of a new wave of Russian imperialism . . . should not be seen as the driving force behind NATO enlargement,'' says Mr. Talbott. — neomac

Right…

It does seem to me that whatever residual imperialistic tendencies, which, indeed, can be a problem, can best be contained by methods other than adding members to NATO. — neomac

Right…

Still not seeing anything that demonstrates imperialist ambitions, beyond speculation about the possibility of it in the 1997, before Putin came to power. The article seems pretty slanted— with no evidence whatsoever given to justify it beyond “it’s happened in the past”.

Regardless, I asked about the threat of imperialism prior to the NATO summit because the claim was that NATO expansion was due to the threat of Putin’s imperialist ambitions. No one was claiming that prior to the summit, as you’ve now demonstrated by failing to produce anything that shows it.

There was no imperialist threat. As Mearsheimer notes — who isn’t an “average dude” but who, unlike you and I, has studied this for decades and is considered a foremost expert on it— this claim is an invention, started especially after 2014. It’s useful as a deflection of what actually transpired. A nice story to tell now— but ultimately untrue.

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

I'm asking you what constitutes evidence for "an imperialist bent on expanding". What would prove that concept? — neomac

If there were both statements and actions that demonstrate it. There were neither before the 2008 summit -- which is why "imperialist ambitions" weren't once mentioned.

That NATO needed to expand to ward off Putin's "imperialist ambitions" is nonsense. It's always been nonsense.

Relatedly, it is important to note that NATO expansion before February 2014 was not aimed at containing Russia. Given the sad state of Russian military power, Moscow was in no position to pursue revanchist policies in eastern Europe. Tellingly, former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul notes that Putin’s seizure of the Crimea was not planned before the crisis broke out in 2014; it was an impulsive move in response to the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader. In short NATO enlargement was not intended to contain a Russian threat but was instead part of a broader policy to spread the liberal international order into eastern Europe and make the entire continent look like western Europe.

It was only when the Ukraine crisis broke out in February 2014 that the United States and its allies suddenly began describing Putin as a dangerous leader with imperial ambitions and Russia as a serious military threat that had to be contained. What caused this shift? This new rhetoric was designed to serve one essential purpose: to enable the West to blame Putin for the outbreak of trouble in Ukraine. And now that the crisis has turned into a full-scale war, it is imperative to make sure he alone is blamed for this disastrous turn of events. This blame game explains why Putin is now widely portrayed as an imperialist here in the West, even though there is hardly any evidence to support that perspective.

That's exactly right.

why was that not stated as a reason for NATO membership in 2008?
— Mikie

NATO (very well aware of Russian elites’ anti-NATO dispositions) never planned to take a confrontational attitude toward Russia. — neomac

Ah, so that's what everyone was secretly thinking, but it was never stated explicitly. And the evidence that would lend them to secretly believe this was what, exactly?

Anyway -- you admit it was never stated as a reason. That's a good start, I suppose. Feel free to cite any sources at or before the 2008 summit that support your other claim.

There is no evidence that the was an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. The answer given is about Crimea as evidence. This has been addressed before as well.
— Mikie

No it doesn't help. What is an "imperialist bent"? What kind of evidence proves an "imperialist bent"? — neomac

What doesn't help?

"imperialist bent" is meaningless. I said "an imperialist bent on expanding...". So do you mean, "What is an imperialist?" I think you know very well what that means.

If Putin was an imperialist, or had imperialist ambitions, as is now claimed -- why was that not stated as a reason for NATO membership in 2008? Where is the evidence of that prior to that summit? Can you cite any source whatsoever -- even a weak one -- where this was being claimed?

Please give ONE. — Olivier5

"The benefits of NATO membership include more than just security benefits and collective defense but also disaster relief, humanitarian aid, and scientific collaboration through the NATO Science for Peace and Security Program."

But we don't have to guess. All we have to do is look at what Ukraine and NATO were saying in 2008. There were all kinds of claims -- about "stability," etc. There was no one claiming Russian imperialism as a reason. Neither the US, nor NATO, nor Ukraine. Putin was invited to the Bucharest summit, in fact -- an odd move for an imperialist threat.

There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that.
— Mikie

I quite precisely claimed that, otherwise you would not be arguing against it. Logic, anyone? — Olivier5

Yes, you are claiming that now. Notice the past tense in the statement above. I'm referring to the 2008 summit. Note also that by "no one" I don't mean "no person on planet earth," but none of the relevant players: the US, NATO, and Ukraine. I will also be generous and include any expert on the subject or even credible journalists at that time -- feel free to cite any.

So yes, you've made the claim that Russia was an imperialist threat before 2008. That claim is incorrect.

Funny that no one -- not the US, not NATO, not Ukraine -- was giving that reason at the time. I'm interested in their opinions, not yours. But feel free to supply evidence. You haven't yet. To be fair, I imagine it'll be difficult to -- since there is none.

But if I'm wrong and there is evidence, I have yet to see it -- and you certainly haven't provided it.

Yes, I'm sure the war in Georgia, which occurred in August, was a big reason at the NATO summit.

Oh really? What were the reasons for Ukraine and Georgia and all the others to seek NATO membership, oh wise one?They wanted to visit Brussels? — Olivier5

There are all kinds of reasons for joining NATO. An imperialist threat from Russia was not one of them in 2008. Which is why you cannot provide one reference supporting such a claim.

There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that. That claim was made after 2014.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm