Setting up the Global Warming lies to come

[birdog1960]

I'm sure it was just some of the right leaning Hollywood establishment investors.

an anti climate change theme is certainly out of character for the usual hollywood suspects. i'm betting they didn't suddenly realize they've been wrong all along on the issue. but are they above selling their principles for investors in a potential blockbuster?

 

then again, i can't understand the mass appeal of a silly concept franchise movie remake.

[KD in CA]

an anti climate change theme is certainly out of character for the usual hollywood suspects. i'm betting they didn't suddenly realize they've been wrong all along on the issue. but are they above selling their principles for investors in a potential blockbuster?

 

then again, i can't understand the mass appeal of a silly concept franchise movie remake.

The usual Hollywood suspects have principles?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

I highlighted the bolded section because it's one of the most common refrains I hear from conservatives and I do not understand it completely. Let me explain.

 

I take that statement (and I could be completely incorrect, if so please elaborate) to mean that while you concede CH is real and happening, you do not believe that anything can be done to stop it. And the concern that usually follows such sentiments are ones worrying about the economic costs of trying to fix an unfixable problem. Naturally, most of the jobs in the high polluting sector are blue collar jobs -- jobs that would be threatened with regulations or any sort of over-correction. I can get behind the economic concerns, I understand where they are coming from and respect them.

 

But doesn't that just side-step the bigger issue? It's the same thing with the camps who argue about the cause of CH. You have some who are absolutely convinced it's caused by man and those who are absolutely convinced the science on that matter is entirely unconvincing; which ends up in both sides arguing about the cause while ignoring the reality. Cause is a secondary concern. Arguing about the cause does not provide the leadership needed to deal with what seems to be inevitable changes to our climate.

 

Make no mistake, as expensive and damaging as the economic policies of the eco-left would be on the country, doing nothing is even more lethal. If the seas rise, which they already are and that's proven, even 10 feet (a conservative estimate) over the next 100 years, that's going to cause massive issues both economically and socially not just here but across the globe. The overwhelming majority of Earth's population lives along coastlines. If those population centers are submerged, even partially, you're looking at massive forced migrations, economic turmoil, not to mention the expense of relocating / rebuilding / buffering our current cities and towns against rising waters.

 

This doesn't even factor in the other environmental problems that CH already is causing -- from severe droughts (California -- literally America's breadbasket is the driest it has been in history) to severe flooding (most of western Europe over the past few springs) -- these things will hit our food supplies, not to mention create a constant drain on the economy across the globe.

 

While those things are decades, if not centuries, away from happening, I do think that arguing over the cause, or remedies to the point of paralysis (which we've reached) is as deadly and economically damaging as doing nothing will be. By doing something I am not talking about simply taking carbon cutting measures or preventive actions that have no realistic shot of helping -- but doing practical things like repairing and strengthening our coastal cities and infrastructure. Investing money now into preparing our country for a changing global climate is not an over-reaction, it's a necessity. Conservatives are always harping on the deficit and debt and how we aren't being responsible stewards for the future generations -- why can't that same thinking be applied to this issue?

 

Climate change is the biggest threat facing our species as a whole -- besides maybe the threat of hashtags. Not a threat to just our country -- a threat to our entire species. Arguing over the causes accomplishes nothing. Arguing over whether or not it's actually happening despite the mountains of evidence that prove it is, is lethal.

 

%My2Cents

 

I am as lib as it gets and you are wrong, totally wrong.

 

#RealLiberal2Cents

 

Edited May 20, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois

[TakeYouToTasker]

I highlighted the bolded section because it's one of the most common refrains I hear from conservatives and I do not understand it completely. Let me explain.

 

I take that statement (and I could be completely incorrect, if so please elaborate) to mean that while you concede CH is real and happening, you do not believe that anything can be done to stop it. And the concern that usually follows such sentiments are ones worrying about the economic costs of trying to fix an unfixable problem. Naturally, most of the jobs in the high polluting sector are blue collar jobs -- jobs that would be threatened with regulations or any sort of over-correction. I can get behind the economic concerns, I understand where they are coming from and respect them.

 

But doesn't that just side-step the bigger issue? It's the same thing with the camps who argue about the cause of CH. You have some who are absolutely convinced it's caused by man and those who are absolutely convinced the science on that matter is entirely unconvincing; which ends up in both sides arguing about the cause while ignoring the reality. Cause is a secondary concern. Arguing about the cause does not provide the leadership needed to deal with what seems to be inevitable changes to our climate.

 

Make no mistake, as expensive and damaging as the economic policies of the eco-left would be on the country, doing nothing is even more lethal. If the seas rise, which they already are and that's proven, even 10 feet (a conservative estimate) over the next 100 years, that's going to cause massive issues both economically and socially not just here but across the globe. The overwhelming majority of Earth's population lives along coastlines. If those population centers are submerged, even partially, you're looking at massive forced migrations, economic turmoil, not to mention the expense of relocating / rebuilding / buffering our current cities and towns against rising waters.

 

This doesn't even factor in the other environmental problems that CH already is causing -- from severe droughts (California -- literally America's breadbasket is the driest it has been in history) to severe flooding (most of western Europe over the past few springs) -- these things will hit our food supplies, not to mention create a constant drain on the economy across the globe.

 

While those things are decades, if not centuries, away from happening, I do think that arguing over the cause, or remedies to the point of paralysis (which we've reached) is as deadly and economically damaging as doing nothing will be. By doing something I am not talking about simply taking carbon cutting measures or preventive actions that have no realistic shot of helping -- but doing practical things like repairing and strengthening our coastal cities and infrastructure. Investing money now into preparing our country for a changing global climate is not an over-reaction, it's a necessity. Conservatives are always harping on the deficit and debt and how we aren't being responsible stewards for the future generations -- why can't that same thinking be applied to this issue?

 

Climate change is the biggest threat facing our species as a whole -- besides maybe the threat of hashtags. Not a threat to just our country -- a threat to our entire species. Arguing over the causes accomplishes nothing. Arguing over whether or not it's actually happening despite the mountains of evidence that prove it is, is lethal.

 

%My2Cents

I've said this before on these boards, and apparently it needs to be said again:

 

If Climate Change really is truly and issue that needs solving, then it must be given to society's problem solvers: our engineers; and once given to the engineers; the lawyers, politicians, and alarmist social activists need to back the !@#$ away and let the engineers do what they do.

 

But they won't.

 

And that's because the issue is purely political.

 

If it were anything other than political, it wouldn't be being used to advance the redistributive leftist agenda. It wouldn't be being solely addressed by those same lawyers and alarmist social activists who don't know how to address real problems or find real solutions.

 

These sorts aren't interested in economic advancement or technological evolution, they simply want to undermine the capitalist structure, dictate how others will live, and tell the west to stop procreating because children born in the west "leave larger carbon footprints".

 

If they really wanted to "solve a problem", they would take it to our society's problem solvers, as stated prior

 

But, alas, even if there was a problem, which they haven't demonstrated; they don't want to fix it. They instead want us to embrace global social change as gospel.

 

And Climate Change is only important to them in-so-far as it's a useful tool.

Edited May 20, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

I am as lib as it gets and you are wrong, totally wrong.

 

#RealLiberal2Cents

I wasn't aware I was making declarations... But of the questions I was posing, which do you object to?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

I wasn't aware I was making declarations... But of the questions I was posing, which do you object to?

 

All of it. It isn't a problem. There will always be change. Read what Tasker said above.

[Deranged Rhino]

All of it. It isn't a problem. There will always be change. Read what Tasker said above.

So rising ocean levels isn't a problem we should worry about.

 

Got it.

[meazza]

 

So rising ocean levels isn't a problem we should worry about.

 

Got it.

 

Everyone seemed to be fine in waterworld (except for the viewers)

[Chef Jim]

So rising ocean levels isn't a problem we should worry about.

 

Got it.

 

Worry? Yes. Solve?

[Deranged Rhino]

Worry? Yes. Solve?

I never said anything about solving anything in my post.

 

Everyone seemed to be fine in waterworld (except for the viewers)

:lol:

[John Adams]

So rising ocean levels isn't a problem we should worry about.

 

Got it.

 

I'm not a GW denier like some here. But the reality is that GW is happening (man made or not) and there's not much if anything we can do about, except act like the good humans we are and adapt.

 

Florida is not flooding tomorrow and no doubt as more and more storms ravage the coast, people will move further from it. As food doesn't grow in one region, it will grow in another.

 

It won't be an easy adaption but we'll do it.

[Chef Jim]

I never said anything about solving anything in my post.

 

Well then I'll change my post to:

 

Worry? !@#$ no!

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm not a GW denier like some here. But the reality is that GW is happening (man made or not) and there's not much if anything we can do about, except act like the good humans we are and adapt.

 

Florida is not flooding tomorrow and no doubt as more and more storms ravage the coast, people will move further from it. As food doesn't grow in one region, it will grow in another.

 

It won't be an easy adaption but we'll do it.

 

We're on the same page -- I guess my question is what can we do to make that adaptation easier and less expensive (in both monetary terms and terms of human life), mainly through repairing / upgrading our infrastructure.

 

Think of the jobs and new economic sectors that could be created by taking steps now to make our cities and towns stronger/more prepared for a changing climate. I'm not a civil engineer nor a city planner so I have no specific recommendations (and would love to hear if there are even any possible by those here who might know) but it seems like this is the national conversation we should be having on the issue rather than one that points fingers or just sticks our collective heads in the sand.

[TakeYouToTasker]

So rising ocean levels isn't a problem we should worry about.

 

Got it.

If it is, then give it to the engineers. That way we could learn to functionally control the global climate, which could be desirable for many reasons.

 

As long as it's being used as simply another tool to advance a leftist, redistributive agenda, then even the people advancing the cause aren't concerned with solving the problem.

[Deranged Rhino]

If it is, then give it to the engineers. That way we could learn to functionally control the global climate, which could be desirable for many reasons.

 

As long as it's being used as simply another tool to advance a leftist, redistributive agenda, then even the people advancing the cause aren't concerned with solving the problem.

How can you put it all on the left? That's where you lose me. I'm with you on your first sentiment, but then you turn around and do exactly what we shouldn't do -- argue about the wrong thing.

 

Cause cannot be the most important issue because it becomes too political. Pointing fingers at either side of the aisle also accomplishes nothing other than politicizing an already overly-politicized issue.

 

The issue should be, IF it's happening (which it is, and the science is there) what can and what should we do about it? I love your idea of bringing it to the engineers -- that's what we should be doing.

 

But that's a conversation we cannot even have unless we're willing to admit it's a real issue. And we cannot seem to agree on that because the issue has been hijacked by both sides -- the left in the ways you say and by the right who has just as much money vested in the issue. And pretending it's only the lefties that are making this issue political then you're playing favorites and not living in reality.

 

("You" is used in the general sense there, not you specifically Tasker)

Edited May 20, 2014 by GreggyT

[3rdnlng]

I've done my share in solving part of the issue:

Do-All.bmp

[TakeYouToTasker]

How can you put it all on the left? That's where you lose me. I'm with you on your first sentiment, but then you turn around and do exactly what we shouldn't do -- argue about the wrong thing.

 

Cause cannot be the most important issue because it becomes too political. Pointing fingers at either side of the aisle also accomplishes nothing other than politicizing an already overly-politicized issue.

 

The issue should be, IF it's happening (which it is, and the science is there) what can and what should we do about it? I love your idea of bringing it to the engineers -- that's what we should be doing.

 

But that's a conversation we cannot even have unless we're willing to admit it's a real issue. And we cannot seem to agree on that because the issue has been hijacked by both sides -- the left in the ways you say and by the right who has just as much money vested in the issue. And pretending it's only the lefties that are making this issue political then you're playing favorites and not living in reality.

 

("You" is used in the general sense there, not you specifically Tasker)

The reason the right can't have a "come to Jesus" moment about the issue, is because the entire reason the issue has been advanced is to promote an agenda of wealth redistribution. Any "solution" that would be politically allowed by the left, and it will be the "solution" of the left utilized, because this has been their issue; will not work to solve the problem, it will work only to promote a global social agenda. With that in mind, given that the action taken will not help solve the problem in any way, and will only harm capitalist constructs, there is no incentive for the right to move on the issue.

 

Once the left takes their issue, and says we should bring it to the capitalists to actually solve, rather than using it as a political tool, there can be headway. Until then, the left has made it politically impossible.

[Deranged Rhino]

The reason the right can't have a "come to Jesus" moment about the issue, is because the entire reason the issue has been advanced is to promote an agenda of wealth redistribution. Any "solution" that would be politically allowed by the left, and it will be the "solution" of the left utilized, because this has been their issue; will not work to solve the problem, it will work only to promote a global social agenda. With that in mind, given that the action taken will not help solve the problem in any way, and will only harm capitalist constructs, there is no incentive for the right to move on the issue.

 

Once the left takes their issue, and says we should bring it to the capitalists to actually solve, rather than using it as a political tool, there can be headway. Until then, the left has made it politically impossible.

I understand your point, I do. But what you're arguing is that because the left's solution(s)/methodology is harmful (and again, no disagreement from me on that point) the right's only response is to ignore the issue entirely. That's a lot like the kid who says he's taking his ball and going home when the other kids won't play his game. It doesn't accomplish anything other than a pissing match. Meanwhile, the issue of CC continues to go on unabated and we lose any opportunity we might have had to reinforce or protect ourselves from the coming changes.

 

People on the right complain about Obama's lack of leadership in general, well here's an issue that is crying out for leadership of any kind. Leadership that isn't mired in political infighting, leadership that can actually make an impact on a real issue. Isn't this an opportunity for people on the right to say, "you know what, you're right, this is an issue but here's what we should do about it," rather than just ignoring the situation?

 

What costs us more in the end? Doing nothing because we don't like the other side's positions on the matter? Or taking responsible measures to limit the economic and social turmoil CC will inevitably cause down the road? I understand that this requires a detente on the CC political warfare and that's probably more unrealistic than most of my fictional writing, but it's something we should strive for now while there's still time to act in a responsible manner.

Edited May 20, 2014 by GreggyT

[TakeYouToTasker]

I understand your point, I do. But what you're arguing is that because the left's solution(s)/methodology is harmful (and again, no disagreement from me on that point) the right's only response is to ignore the issue entirely. That's a lot like the kid who says he's taking his ball and going home when the other kids won't play his game. It doesn't accomplish anything other than a pissing match. Meanwhile, the issue of CC continues to go on unabated and we lose any opportunity we might have had to reinforce or protect ourselves from the coming changes.

 

People on the right complain about Obama's lack of leadership in general, well here's an issue that is crying out for leadership of any kind. Leadership that isn't mired in political infighting, leadership that can actually make an impact on a real issue. Isn't this an opportunity for people on the right to say, "you know what, you're right, this is an issue but here's what we should do about it," rather than just ignoring the situation?

 

What costs us more in the end? Doing nothing because we don't like the other side's positions on the matter? Or taking responsible measures to limit the economic and social turmoil CC will inevitably cause down the road? I understand that this requires a detente on the CC political warfare and that's probably more unrealistic than most of my fictional writing, but it's something we should strive for now while there's still time to act in a responsible manner.

The taking the ball and going home is a poor analogy here. A better analogy is that the kid decides not to show up at the field, because he knows there is no game; but rather is a bunch of !@#$s claiming there is a game in order to lure him to the field where they plan rub his face in dog ****.

 

As any "solution" won't be a solution, but instead will do massive damage to the economy on a global scale, I'm content to say que sera, sera, and buy inland properties in the hopes that they become beachfront (this last bit is a poor joke).

 

But, more seriously, I support the right on this because I won't come to the table and negotiate or come to terms with anyone who bargains in poor faith, which is what the left is doing here, as they are the ones advancing the issue.

Edited May 20, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

I'm not a GW denier like some here. But the reality is that GW is happening (man made or not) and there's not much if anything we can do about, except act like the good humans we are and adapt.

 

Florida is not flooding tomorrow and no doubt as more and more storms ravage the coast, people will move further from it. As food doesn't grow in one region, it will grow in another.

 

It won't be an easy adaption but we'll do it.

 

^^^This^^^