But Seriously...

Guys... we may have to ban election talk from the Serious Thread, because I refuse to believe this is serious.

 

It's a cool chart but what is the point of showing 22,000 years of climate change?

 

To illustrate the difference between "the climate has always changed" and "holy fucking fuck we are the ones causing this shit and it may well fuck our shit up if it hasn't already."

 

Considering we don't have actual climate data from more than a small sliver of Earth's existence, these charts all seem rather odd to me. But, in any case, I don't know, it seems a little misleading if you look at the same data on a larger timescale with more data. I'm not discounting the fact that man is having some effect on the climate but it seems strange to draw that conclusion at +1 degrees C, when the trend appears to roll over at +3 degrees C

 

Well your graph doesn't seem to go as far as NASA's

Spoiler: BIG NASA GRAPH

Serious question: NASA believes in man made climate change and all the bad shit it can cause; why should I not believe them?

 

Its impossible to prove anything right? You can only disprove other things and use that as evidence for what you're thinking. The climate is getting warmer, and that seems to correlate with our time here. I think thats pretty indisputable. I also think that us adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere probably isn't a good thing either. My favorite fact from all this is the biggest greenhouse gas contributor is methane I think and the biggest source of that is livestock.

So munch on that vegans. Love the world? Want to save it? Eat more cows and stop them from farting more and destroying the world.

 

I've found that this post is probably supposed to be in the advice thread for $100T2.

Well, these are the same people that faked the moon landing, so their credibility is a little sketchy.

Ha, kidding. I think when people question that, there are conversations - some of those do lean towards conspiracy, though - that have thought something like this: NASA's conclusions (or beliefs) may not be wrong, but the data they are using to back it up is either questionable, uncorrelated and uncorroborated, or based on too many broad assumptions about data we simply don't have. (Like, XKCD's cartoon is cool, but it's not like we've had the same thermometer hanging in NASA's garage for the last 20,000 years.)

Personally, I tend to be more skeptical, simply because the Earth has existing in various climatic conditions for LONG before man was ever here. In fact, there have been some dominant and eco-influencing species that aren't even around any more. What caused all those climate changes? Proximity to the sun, earth's axis tilt, heating /cooling of the planet influenced by volcanic and core activity, space debris impacts, orbital variations . . . all of those things are still present and influential. To think that "little ol' humans" could have that much bearing on global climate change doesn't really make sense to me. Not when the sun can fart and have more impact than a 1000 cars running around the interstate.

Here's an older article that mentions NASA a bit: http://www.technocracy.news/index.p...scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/
If you don't want to read the whole thing, here are a couple things he points out:

He also gives a lengthy discussion about CO2's necessity, availability and human's impact on it.

Sadly, Climate Change discussion are politicized and influenced by money. "It" used to be called Global Warming, because that was what scientists locked in with the politicians and funding streams could pitch. But, then when the actual warming wasn't as bad as predicted, or data suggested it might be reversed, the new name became Climate Change.

You might also read information from Dr. Richard Lindzen, a Harvard grad who retired after being a professor at MIT, who disagrees with the scientific consensus and calls it "climate alarmism."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/richard-s-lindzen-the-political-assault-on-climate-skeptics-1425513033

You can find 100 articles to refute the claims of the ones I linked, by the way, and I'm not trying to change your mind about what you believe on climate change. I just wanted to answer the question about why not everyone believes exactly what NASA is saying the way they're saying it. Much like arguments about religion, though, once ingrained, it is difficult to challenge the Church of Climate Change.

 

You bring up a good point, follow the money. As much as people want to think that science is a pure thing where people only do it for the good of humanity these researchers need to eat and many are looking at career incentives. You won't get very far or get very much money by trying to disprove climate change right now, however, if you the tallest one on the soapbox with the loudest voice you will get cash and you will get publicity.

Environmental scares come and go. Remember when it was the ozone layer was going away and we were all going to die? Before that is was a global food shortage because the earth couldn't sustain this many people and so on. There will always be a trendy alarmist claim that people will promote for financial and career gain.

 

Not that anyone would ever exploit people's concerns about the environment to make a fuck ton of money....

 

You see, Nett gets the flu and this plays turns into a disaster. Next thing you know, someone will be posting emojis.

I'm no fan of Al Gore, but that dude is smart. When he wrote Earth in the Balance, he knew exactly how he'd be able to profit from his positions. 'murica.

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. You cannot prove a negative. Or perhaps that is what you meant to say. All of modern civilization , science, and technology is based on proving things.

 

Well, to speak for all Democrats, I haven't heard of anything so far that's worth defending. I've been curious about it, and I've even been trying to keep an eye on things through places that would want there to be some huge scandal found in these emails just in case something I'd care about would get pushed to the side in the resources I usually get election news from. But every time I see The Other Side get all fired up about something, I go read the emails they're talking about...and read them over and over and over again trying to figure out what they're talking about and I just. Don't. Get it. Every single thing has either been founded in being woefully naive about how politics and/or the modern world works, wilfully ignorant about equivalent political strategies that happen across the aisle, or just...totally lacking in reading comprehension and not knowing what words mean.

Like just now I went to go look if something new had popped up recently to see if you were maybe reacting to something in particular and I found this guy (who is a total charmer*). This case is a perfect example. I put way too much effort into trying to comprehend how someone could view that as "manipulation" and I just can't even begin to guess. It's just like with the first big wave of reporting on the leak by actual press and not just alt-right randos on Twitter, where they were saying the DNC was "manipulating" the media. I went and read the emails everyone was talking about. Turns out a lot of people don't know what PR is. If that's "manipulating the media" then boy do I manipulate the media every damn day at my job.

Since there are so many of them, I'm going to keep paying attention and all, but so far the whole thing's just been met with a shrug at best and a "Well, I like to think the Democrats are better than that but that's politics for you" at worst.

(*By the way, just to show that I am prejudiced too, in my mind the entire neocon/altright movement looks exactly like him:
Like, that's so how I imagine the person behind every angry tweet and comment looking like that I giggled aloud when I saw him)

 

My self interest is showing slighly here: Mandatory paid parental leave. Childcare tax deductions. Childcare FSAs. Plans coming from both sides....I won't hold my breath for Presidential campaign promises but this sounds good to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/how-the-trump-and-clinton-child-care-plans-stack-up.html

 

To be positive for once about this election, I'm pretty hopeful that no matter what there's going to be some reform on maternity/parental leave and childcare under the next president, whether it's incremental under Trump or sweeping under Clinton. It seems to be one of the big talking points this year. Also, I can't believe it, but I found something I actually like about Trump:

I'm sure it can be critiqued by someone with a better understanding of economics and/or parenting, and from what I can tell wealthy families would get the much better deal, but I really like that idea.

 

I'm sure when Clinton heals up and hits the trail again she will have a lot to say about this topic as well but right now, Trump's plan is a huge savings for middle class folks. Having the ability to deduct childcare costs commensurate with the local average from your taxable income is huge. In addition, being able to put additional income away (if available) to further lower you taxable earnings is a big savings to people. I know I have said this before but I currently pay almost $25k annually between two kids for childcare costs, that hurts, and I would like to have that back. It looks like Trump's plan expands a little further as well. Stay at home parents would qualify for the tax deduction as well, that is really nice for parents who would prefer to spend more time with their children as well.

As far as it being unfairly skewed towards the rich, the problem with tax deductions is you only get what you give (with the exception of EITC, which looks to be included here as well). At the end of the day though, this is a benefit to anyone planning to have children or with children currently. This also would allow many people the opportunity to either go back to work to earn additional income or potentially stay home with their children if they choose because stay at home parents would qualify for the deductions. It seems that it would benefit each circumstance. Again, this is a campaign promise, we'll see what Congress delivers.

Trump is going to surprise a lot of people, if elected. The surprise will mostly come to Conservatives because they will quickly realize he is nowhere near as Conservative as they are.

 

Ignore that moron. That sociopath I've personally got into it with before, he thinks Brock Turner's rape victim is a whore who deserved what she got. He posts and writes shock value horseshoe like Ann Coulter. He a piece-of-shit nothing.

Plenty of the alt-right hates him. With a passion. That is a fact. See also: Vox Day.

 

Yeah, I was filled in about who he was. His name was the only one popping up when I was looking for conservative commentary on the actual content of the emails and not just the controversy surrounding them, and what he was saying was pretty much in line with what I'd read elsewhere before so it didn't strike me as something that would come from someone so, uh, fringe. So, if anyone has not-so-horrific people who are doing a similar kind of thing, I'd be interested.

 

I'm watching the press conference right now.

"We believe it was intentional, but we don't see any links to terrorism."

What. The. Fuck.

Someone set off a major explosion just for shits and giggles? Is that what they're suggesting?