Good post. A lot of good resources to ignore— in favor of the latest from Steve Koonin or the CATO Institute.

where is this so-called information coming from? — Outlander

Is this a joke?

You can Google it— the history of these companies isn’t obscure.

Elon Musk is a fraud. I’m not surprised by the dupes who buy that he’s a genius.

For the record: he did not found Paypal. He wasn’t even the CEO of the crappy company he, and several others, founded — “x.com” — at the time of the merger. Guess Peter Thiel is the real genius?

He did not found Tesla either— he was an early investor. It’s true he acquired Twitter and turned it into a bigger cesspool than it already was, worth less now than when he bought it — hardly something to put on a genius resume. And generally he’s a simpleton who’s proven himself too stupid to even notice he’s a social media addict.

Maybe once he was a coder or something. But otherwise a guy in the right spot at the right time. I give him credit for investing his money in Tesla — how brave and inspiring.

As LA continues to burn due to climate change, it’s worth remembering this is global, and just the beginning:

Using data from researchers at the University of Maryland, recently updated to cover the years 2001 to 2023, we calculated that the area burned by forest fires increased by about 5.4% per year over that time period. Forest fires now result in nearly 6 million more hectares of tree cover loss per year than they did in 2001 — an area roughly the size of Croatia.

https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires

But have no fear — after 4 of the hottest years on record, remember what the Denier-in-Chief said, 4 years prior:



Still waiting. That’s so far turned out to be as accurate as “covid will be gone by easter [of 2020].”

because I am aware of his development regarding space and other engineering stuff — javi2541997

Like what? I’ve never been impressed by Elon. His engineers and developers are amazing people. The fact that he owns companies isn’t impressive.

Bring a billionaire doesn’t make you a genius.

Climate deniers have the intellect of a fruit fly, but consider that a compliment. :lol:

What I find hilarious is that it’s not just “alarmist,” which we’d all understand— he has to, each time, type out “climate change/global warming alarmist.” :lol:

When you have the intellect of a fruit fly…

Elon isn’t a Nazi and this whole thing is kind of silly, on the one hand. On the other hand, he’s got the intellectual capacity of a 10 year old, and has devolved into a Twitter addict — so who knows where it leads. I didn’t think Kanye “loved Hitler” years ago either.

These guys are so “open minded” that they can be convinced of anything. Maybe the earth is flat? Who knows. Look at how Rogan has become a Trumper and climate denier. A real 180 in just a few years. A lot of it is audience capture and opportunism, but still— anything is possible in social media land.

Let's say he ends the war in 100 days, as the Trump administration now says it intends, what then? — Tzeentch

Not going to happen, but if it did I’d praise the move.

I can’t see it happening because I don’t imagine Trump will agree to Russian terms regarding annexed territory, or NATO. Maybe there’s a 5% chance or so.

What if the person is a well-established idiot and the statement is tired, long-refuted, regurgitated denialist bullshit?

See above. We’re on (3)b.

So he cites the Cato Institute. :rofl:

Conversations with climate deniers:

(1) Stupid bullshit stated that you’ve heard a million times and that has been debunked a million times.

(2) You walk them through it.

(3) They move on to the next idiotic thing.

Or, after multiple times of going through this, (2) is skipped. Then: (3)b denier says “See! You can’t engage with the ‘argument’”. (The “argument” being searching the web for climate denial nonsense and AI summaries, copying them and pasting them.)

On we go. :yawn:



This was interesting, thanks.

Trump said he’d end this war on day 1. So already his stupid bullshit is becoming obvious.

Oh wait — we can’t take him seriously when he talks. It’s just “sarcasm.” Unless 1 out of the 1,000 things he promises actually happens, then he was serious all along and a very stable genius.

Just for some realism, for balance:

It isn’t uncommon for climate skeptics to claim climate predictions have been wrong. Many climate change predictions are based on modeling, which involves putting data into a computer program and having the program make predictions. It’s not a perfect science, as it’s difficult to account for all the relevant data about an entire planet.

One way to determine a model’s accuracy is to look at old models and see how well they withstood the test of time. A 2019 study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters showed that of 17 climate models published from 1970 to 2007, 10 closely matched the global average temperatures that occurred. That number increased to 14 after "accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate," according to a 2020 NASA article about the study.

Another 2012 study in the journal Nature Climate Change found that 1990 predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were fairly accurate. IPCC had suggested that by 2030, Earth would have warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius, which would amount to about 0.55 degrees Celsius by 2012. The warming that occurred was about 0.39 degrees Celsius.

Despite the difference in the projected and actual temperatures, the 1990 prediction is accurate, Penny Whetton, senior principal research scientist at the Australian government agency Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and a lead author for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, told the nonprofit news website The Conversation in 2012. The difference between the projected 0.55 degrees and the observed 0.39 degrees is because of natural fluctuations, Whetton said.

"This is good evidence to show that what the IPCC has been saying for a while is coming true," she added.

Or, as climate denying idiots would say: “No climate predictions have come true!”

Whenever Israel does anything beyond harsh language, it's a crime against humanity. — RogueAI

Yeah, everyone knows calling out a genocide is antisemitic.

No doubt. Granted, Biden sucked at communicating too, but that’s his age. I’ve looked at older videos of Trump talking — he was a little better, but basically the same. The mind of a 12 year old.

She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart — Relativist

:lol: God this guy has the communication skills of a 7th grader.

So we should take bets — when will the disgusting terrorist animals continue their genocide? The over/under is at 40 days. I’ll take the under.

Cool! Bye.

Now as I was saying about the genocide: glad it’s temporarily over, but figure the terrorists will break it. So goes Likud.

entire cities were razed — NOS4A2

:rofl:

We killed more Japanese in one night of firebombing — RogueAI

:lol:

Same stupid justifications, over and over. Maybe a learning disability; probably just willful ignorance.

“Impending doom” lol. Whatever it takes to deny what’s happening I guess. “They were saying the world will end decades ago and it never did!”

Climate deniers are nothing if not predictable. How many times must we go over the “global cooling in the 70s” type nonsense?

With Trump's victory, Israel's standing is the highest its been in a long time. — RogueAI

:lol:

Yes, keep up the good work of genocide apologetics.

The murderous savage terrorists finally agree to a ceasefire, after killing thousands of babies and reducing the region to rubble. They’ve achieved literally nothing, as far as their stated goals went — Hamas is just as powerful, and still in charge. Israel’s standing in the world has shrunk considerably— so that’s a good thing at least.

Well, it looks like the cease-fire is going to happen, and in my opinion this would clearly show that the Biden administration was simply reluctant to put any pressure on Israel whatsoever, likely in the hopes that stooging for the lobby would get the Dems re-elected. — Tzeentch

:100:

Sorry if my inference was wrong. — Relativist

Fair enough — no worries.

No, your point was that I overestimated popularity. I didn’t.

Your second point was how I underestimate how difficult it is to pass legislation. I didn’t— but that’s a different issue.

You want to shift (1) into (2), but that’s your own doing. Popularity for a public option and passing a public option in congress, where one may need GOP support (although that wasn’t necessary in 2021 or 22), are separate issues.

It’s like saying Trump isn’t unpopular because Republicans polled support him by 90+ %. Kind of a strange thing to do.

It showed that only 40% support of Republicans for a public option, and 25% supporting medicare for all. — Relativist

Republicans. Good try. Bye.

What makes you think it's nonsense? Is there some end-point in any liberalism, conservativism, or anything else? — Relativist

Something so general and so irrelevant is nonsense to me — but maybe vacuous is better.

You overestimate the popularity of the things you listed — Relativist

No, I don’t. Take a look at any reputable polling on the issue. Public option — child tax credit — taxing the wealthy — child tax credit — unions, emissions reduction, etc. All have majority support, some well over 2/3rds.

the ease with which they could be passed, — Relativist

Which I’ve discussed at length for several years. In fact I created a thread devoted to it. There’s plenty that could have been done, with democrat control of Congress. I mentioned Manchin and Sinema — but there ways around that, if the willingness was there.

and the negative consequences (real and perceived) of any specific proposal. — Relativist

No. I’ve discussed this at length as well. Plenty of negative consequences associated with these policies. See the climate change thread for examples, to name one issue.

A political problem for social liberalism is that there is no reachable goal. It can only ever be a direction. — Relativist

Eh, that’s kind of nonsense. Or one could say the same thing about conservatism, or anything really. Just an east slogan for those who like to talk in generalities— because the actual work of details is too time consuming.

The fact is there were plenty of concrete measures that could have been taken, that were very popular, and that would have helped the majority of Americans. Take a look at the first proposals of the reconciliation bill. Or the PRO act. The child tax credit— Medicare for all, or a public option. Raising taxes on the wealthy. Declaring a climate emergency. Cutting defense spending. Etc etc. To say nothing of disastrous foreign policy decisions.

Those are all very real and very popular policies. Not just a “direction.”

2) each positive step typically has some negative consequences for some. — Relativist

Yes, and the little that WAS done had some negative consequences, which the right wing will gladly hammer forever.

Trump’s crony achieved in a few hours what Biden kept pretending to want for 15 months. Not a great look for Democrats. Will Trump continue to defy the Israel lobby? Who knows.

Most of these executive orders are silly or performative. Some are outright ridiculous. The most stupid, and most damaging, are the environmental policies. But none of this was unexpected.

Here’s to shrinking the government (except for the parts that benefit the rich), cutting taxes for the rich, cutting regulations for the rich, having billionaires run agencies that oversee their industries, and new ways of denying climate change — for the next 4 years! Hazzah!

In this American political era, whoever has the best story (fiction or non-fiction) wins. Period. Facts, other than who's giving the most money to who, are irrelevant in politics. In 2020, the story of the overbearing rich taking advantage of middle America won. In 2024, the story of overbearing liberal progressives destroying America won. — alleybear

You’re right— but why some stupid stories and explanations are even accepted depends largely on evened people are afraid or unhappy. Biden and democrats could have done a lot more to help the majority of Americans instead of taking baby steps.

True, a lot of things were blocked by the reactionary courts or thwarted by Sinema and Manchin— but that’s only some of the story. He could have pushed as much as Trump is pushing now— and he didn’t. He half-assed it. So he lost.

The right is great at solving problems that they fabricated — like the emergency on the border that doesn’t exist, or the energy emergency that doesn’t exist, or guys playing in women sports that doesn’t exist. Maybe tomorrow jaywalking will be whipped up to be the problem of our time. Sounds ridiculous- but give it 3 months on Fox News, and we’ll all be talking about it. Like the “stolen election” bullshit.

So stories matter, but mostly vulnerable people fall for them. Social media have helped this process along.

Yeah, we knew about fossil fuel burning producing CO2 and that CO2 was a greenhouse gas back in the 19th century. By the 1950s, it was becoming obvious. By the 70s, it was very obvious — even by Exxon scientists, whose predictions have been remarkably accurate.

Reagan was the point at which most things turned around for the worse. We will be — and are — living with the consequences for decades.

With Trump now in office, we’ll be lucky to cap at 2.5 degrees— which is catastrophic for billions of people. It’s not wonder there’s as much denial about it as there is about death— or there was about cigarette smoke.

During the beginning of the second era of idiocy, this thread stuck out to me as perhaps worth revisiting.

My answer has increasingly become more solid: it’s not worth engaging. The area to attack is distribution of resources, education, and media.

What a surprise that the cybertruck guy was a MAGA nut. :rofl:

'Why is this warming period different and more concerning than all them other fluctuations?' — unenlightened

Well it isn’t, you see, because I’m super smart and skeptical and have spent 5 hours reading Bjorn Lomburg. Nothing to worry about because it gets hot sometimes and has been really hot in the past and the scientists are all part of a groupthink dilemma, or are shouted down if they disagree…or bought by whoever funds them. One of those anyway.

Also, carbon dioxide is actually good for plants. And what about water vapor? And what about the global cooling scare of the 70s? And what about Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore taking private jets around the world? And what about…

If you assume there’s no wrongdoing on the corporate side — which is obvious here — then there’s no need for nuance. It’s black and white: a business dude was murdered. Unacceptable.

Denying people medical coverage to further line your pocket— just fine. Why? Because it’s indirect. Or done with good intentions or something.

We should all be hoping that this man’s death leads to something as good as a radical change in the US healthcare system— this way his demise wouldn’t be in vain. Or maybe even better gun control laws.

As for Brian Thompson the man— who knows? Probably was a nice guy. May have even disagreed with the BS system we have in place, but was hamstrung by it. His murder is in many ways a result of the corrupt, morally vacuous system he was a leader in.

Cool. Hope you grow up eventually.

You're arguing that this instance of first degree murder was perhaps good? — Hanover

Yes, that’s exactly what we’re saying. If that’s too much for your delicate sensibilities and black-and-white “moral compass,” so be it.

As adults, however, it’s worth looking at the reasons why people do things. Even things we wouldn’t do and don’t agree with. Whether it’s the decisions of a leader of a business that is directly/indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths, or a man who is more directly responsible for one death. Whether it’s Hamas terrorists or Israeli terrorists. Or United States terrorists.

Or we can be children and only do so when it’s our “side” doing the killing. Then, suddenly, the killing is more nuanced and done with the best of intentions.

No thanks.