patrick.net

Which are the conservative Christians - idiots or villains?

YesYNot says

Which are the conservative Christians - idiots or villains?

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Hater says

this is why science is not a vote:

The weight of one valid argument is heavier than the (supposed) consensus of all of the true believers.

Hater is stealing from my threads and then lying about the content.

The paid off shill does not have "one valid argument". All his lies have been debunked, and the money trail from Exon to him has been thoroughly documented. Climate change deniers are the most dishonest and immoral people on the planet.

Dan8267 says

A disregard for human life and suffering in the pursuit of short-term profit.

What is a characteristic of climate alarmists?

Ohh, this isn't Jeopardy...

Dan8267 says

That's the same argument capitalists made against ending the slave trade.

Having lived in a country that has the shortest historical use of slaves in history, Your knowledge of this subject amounts to a Great Lakes surfer riding Pipe.

NuttBoxer says

Dan8267 says

That's the same argument capitalists made against ending the slave trade.

Having lived in a country that has the shortest historical use of slaves in history, Your knowledge of this subject amounts to a Great Lakes surfer riding Pipe.

Honey, the argument your bitching about was in the last video I posted in the original post. It does not come from my knowledge. So your ad hominem attack would not even hold merit if it were true.

NuttBoxer says

What is a characteristic of climate alarmists?

So completely disregarding the Constitution after 9/11 wasn't "terrorism alarmist" behavior, but doing anything about climate change or acknowledging its existence is alarmist? That's bullshit.

So I guess all those hippies at the Pentagon are climate change alarmists.

Climate Change Is the ‘Mother of All Risks' to National Security

Jon Powers, an Iraq Veteran, served as the Federal Chief Sustainability Officer and Special Advisor on Energy to the US Army in the Obama Administration, and is currently Managing Director of Public Sector Business Development with Bloom Energy.

Serving at Pentagon, I worked with leaders who studied threats ranging from insurgent groups to rogue states. One of the U.S. military’s less-noticed findings, however, is that there is clear consensus that climate change poses an immediate risk to national security.

To the military, climate change acts as a threat multiplier, exacerbating threats in already unstable regions of the world. Just as we act aggressively on information from the national security intelligence community, we must also act on the scientific evidence from our nation’s best climate scientists.

In the security world, decisions are made by a careful evaluation of risk. And climate change is the mother of all risks. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned last year, without action on climate change, our children and grandchildren will face “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts.”

The U.S. is already suffering from the impacts of climate change. In 2014 alone, there were eight extreme weather and climate events with losses of more than $1 billion. California is currently facing one of the worst droughts on record, and sea-level rise threatens some of the U.S.’ most critical military installations. Without a global agreement in Paris, the world—including the U.S.—is headed toward potentially catastrophic climate impacts.

DoD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Change, DoD News, Defense Media Activity

Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries, according to a report the Defense Department sent to Congress yesterday.

The report finds that climate change is a security risk, Pentagon officials said, because it degrades living conditions, human security and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that already are fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges, they added.

I'll take the analysis of the military and the Pentagon over some random guy speaking from ignorance any day.

Dan8267 says

It does not come from my knowledge.

Feel free to apply the context liberally to anyone from the US. Slavery was a blip on our radar, and no matter how many times you watch Roots, that won't change the fact that Africa practiced(and still practices it) centuries longer than the US did. How do you get the citizens to forget the atrocities of the Feds against states who merely exercised their Constitutional Rights? Blame the blacks.

Dan8267 says

but doing anything about climate change or acknowledging its existence is alarmist?

The day you DO anything about making our planet a better place to live, I'll shut up. Until then you're just a whining, impotent government stoole, waiting for people who only care about profit, to make your world a better place.

Even if the effects are as predicted, it is more economical to work around them when they come. The Netherlands is underwater, yet it is still thriving. Florida will be fine.

America has two oceans to regulate the temperature. We have a diverse economy and all the talent available to deal with all problems. Other countries may be worse off and they will want us to pay for their problems. They have more to worry than us.

Going along with the Paris Accord without requiring SIGNIFICANT concessions from other countries would be a terrible Realpolitik move.

NuttBoxer says

The day you DO anything about making our planet a better place to live, I'll shut up.

Then shut up already. As demonstrated in the videos in the original post, the best call to action that Johnny C. Public can do is to foster the political will to implement climate change mitigation policies like a carbon tax or cap and trade. The problem is technically hard to solve. It's the lack of political will that is the sole problem to safeguarding world and national security.

Peter P says

The Netherlands is underwater, yet it is still thriving. Florida will be fine.

Says the guy whose avatar is a fish.

But hey, put your money where your mouth is. I'll take a free market solution. If climate change is so unimportant, you should easily be able to afford a $100 trillion insurance policy on Florida that will pay out all Floridians if you are wrong. The premiums should be damn cheap if the probability of you being wrong is so damn low. Pay for such an insurance policy and I'll gladly shut up about climate change. Until then, you don't get to risk the cities I live in and work in.

Peter P says

Other countries may be worse off and they will want us to pay for their problems. They have more to worry than us.

It is true that the poor countries will bear the brunt of climate change. A moral person would find that unacceptable, especially since the only argument in favor of pollution is letting the ultra rich be a bit richer. The economic prosperity hasn't trickled down to the other 99% of the masses.

However, even if you didn't give a damn about your fellow human, you should be against climate change because it directly harms our economy. Allowing people to pollute the Earth doesn't increase wealth. It destroys wealth. It also picks winners and losers and distorts the free market causing resources to be misallocated.

Dan8267 says

If climate change is so unimportant, you should easily be able to afford a $100 trillion insurance policy on Florida that will pay out all Floridians if you are wrong.

Sure. If they let me.

I can also do a total nuclear war insurance and an alien invasion insurance.

Dan8267 says

Allowing people to pollute the Earth doesn't increase wealth. It destroys wealth.

The Petrodollar is very important for the US. If everybody can use decentralized energy sources, we will have to start paying A LOT more for stuff.

Besides, humans are not polluters, they are pollutants. I will be more willing to support curbing emission when they do something about overpopulation.

Peter P says

Sure. If they let me.

https://www.lloyds.com/

You can insure anything if you can pay the premium determined by the risk. It's the free market's estimate of the probability of sea-level rise destroying Florida. You got anything against free markets? If not, take out the policy. I guarantee you the risk of you being wrong will entail at least a $1 trillion / year premium. And whatever that premium is, that's what the free market says the rational cost of climate change regarding Florida alone is.

Is that what you renamed Global Warming bs story to?

FortWayne says

Is that what you renamed Global Warming bs story to?

Honey, we already went over this debunked lie many, many times. Why do conservatives keep repeating debunked lies? Are they really that dumb?

Dan8267 says

This is another lie told by people with purely bad intentions. Global warming was not renamed to climate change because the Earth isn't warming. Anyone who even attempts to suggest that the term was renamed for deceptive reasons is a lying scumbag.

A new term was adopted for a simple, clear, and noble reason. Global warming is only one of the properties of climate change. Rising sea levels is another. Mass extinction is another effect. Floods and droughts are another. All these things are related, but dumb ass conservatives couldn't understand why warmer weather is a bad things. After all, if they aren't physically uncomfortable, what possible danger could there be. Oh wait, super-fucking-tornadoes. Because conservatives are too stupid to make the connection between rising temperature and various other effects, the broader term climate change was adopted. And the term climate change includes global warming. There is no deception by using the broader term.

There is, however, great deception in suggesting the term was changed to cover up lies. Anyone makes such a suggestion is a shill.

So, Fort Wayne, are you going to repeat this debunked lie again? Don't run away like a coward. Address this right now.

Wasn't me who started the Global Warming hoax. That was your team Dan, and you know your team is Fubar.

Dan8267 says

Then shut up already. As demonstrated in the videos in the original post, the best call to action that Johnny C. Public can do is to foster the political will to implement climate change mitigation policies like a carbon tax or cap and trade.

Posting on Patnet is your idea of DOING something!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

NuttBoxer says

Posting on Patnet is your idea of DOING something!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

If you think that PatNet is a waste of time, don't let the door hit your ass one the way out.

It is empirically demonstrated that the Internet can be use to disseminate ideas, and that such ideas can be refined and popularized as they spread through the Internet. Memes prove this every day, but an idea does not have to achieve meme status to be adopted and well-known. It is precisely through the Internet that the common man has a chance to influence national policies by originating or promoting good ideas or refining them. Only a fool does not realize this.

You want to save the planet, Dan? Then invent a cold fusion process that works, then give it to the Chinese who are the world's biggest polluters, twice as much as the USA! Their air quality controls are basically nothing, and the world needs them to change now. Of course, they will only change if it benefits them economically. Otherwise they will just don their particulate filters and pretend they can see through their pea soup industrial fog.
How else would you effect change in such a notoriously pragmatic yet sovereign nation which is affecting the world with its gross pollution?

Quigley says

Then invent a cold fusion process that works

So it's all or nothing. Unless someone comes up with a magic bullet that solves all problems with zero effort, we should make no effort to move in the right direction. Can we apply that philosophy to terrorism? If there is no magic bullet that stops 100% of terrorism, we should abandon all anti-terrorism efforts? Thank god you don't make policy. You'd get us all killed.

False dichotomies are among the weakest forms of debate.

Dan8267 says

So it's all or nothing.

That is the scale of the problem! Right now, dozens of formerly third world countries are industrializing and wanting to drive cars! The world population keeps rising! Where is all that extra energy going to come from? Nuclear is out as it's too risky. Solar might work, someday, but isn't space efficient. Wind is cool but requires huge investment and copious space like solar. Tidal energy is also possible but like solar and wind it needs lots of space and lots of investment. None of that stuff is available in the uprising third world, so you need a cheap abundant source of energy or you're sunk!

Politics can't solve this! It never could!

Science is the only hope. I would have thought that you'd appreciate this but perhaps you're only paying lip service to your god of choice.

Quigley says

Science is the only hope

The technology already exists to greatly mitigate climate change. I have full confidence in science. However, science without political will does not result in wise policies. I don't understand why that truth is so hard to grasp.

NuttBoxer says

And yes this is ad hominem, but so is your thread title, so mark at your peril.

Patrick's ad hominem rule only applies to direct attacks towards PatNetters, not the general population. That's why every other thread is an ad hominem attack on liberals.

P.S. Your threat only makes you look powerless.

Quigley says

The world population keeps rising!

Uncontrolled population growth fucks things up no matter what your economic policies are. It's best to leave population growth to the free market and let people have a harder time having multiple kids rather than to subsidize population growth with cheap energy at the expense of the future. Why do you hate the free market so much?

EMBRACE THE END TIMES

ARMAGEDDON IS NEAR

99% of SCIENTISTS SAY SO

Not an AH.

FortWayne says

Wasn't me who started the Global Warming hoax. That was your team Dan, and you know your team is Fubar.

So you're not going to address the thorough debunking of your previous lie then? You are conceding then that it is a lie.

As for your next lie, the scientific evidence for both climate change and global warming, one aspect of climate change, is overwhelming. There are literally thousands of independent lines of evidence from ice core samples to tree rings to fossilized remains of sea life to thermo-imaging of the oceans to statistical rise in hurricanes and tornadoes that all say the exact same thing: climate change is happening right now and at a fast pass due to fossil fuel burning.

If even one of these lines of evidence contradicted the others, it would be front page news. The fact is that there is zero contradictory evidence, and the plenitude of evidence proving man-made climate change is simply too great, too consistent, and too global to be wrong.

Furthermore, scientists from around the world have incredible incentive to prove other scientists wrong, yet they all agree on the evidence and the picture it paints. The only ones who "disagree" are fake scientists paid for by fossil fuel burners to publish propaganda. All such propaganda has been debunked, and the bribes exposed in detail. There isn't a single detraction that has withstood even the slightest scrutiny.

Quite frankly, only a complete idiot would fall for such propaganda.

Then you better make me a custom Black bad guy hat with silly propeller on top.