Climate Nearing “Point of No Return”

[tstorm823]

It doesn't matter what I or anyone else does at this point. I have personally stopped buying anything off of Amazon and cut back on physical purchases that aren't food and gas, or essentials not because I need to, but because I want a future for future generations. There are days that I go without meat. But because some jackass decides to fly a private jet from Austin Texas to San Francisco, I may as well not even try.

Delivery is a funny thing to consider, as delivery drivers doing a route are definitely more efficient than everyone driving individually to the store, but people might also walk to the store or get many things at once to offset that. It's certainly best not to get one thing at a time like people do off Amazon, but in the situation where you need some sort of specialty item that you'd have to travel to buy just that one thing, it's probably better for the environment to order off of Amazon than to go out and get it yourself.

 

[Hawki]

Fucking cunts.

 

[Baffle]

Fucking cunts.

Probably couldn't hear the moderator over the massive amount of air-con they needed to have on.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

For any who might be interested in psychic self-harm, the whole debate here;


(Is more manageable lens to observe through than the dry direct source, and counterintuitively somewhat hopeful in the sense of how slim their pickings are)

 

[Ag3ma]

For any who might be interested in psychic self-harm, the whole debate here;

How about sparing me the suffering and answering me a question?

Did any of them discuss meaningful policy, or was it just 50% blathering about Trump-related issues and 50% trivial culture war scapegoating of CRT, "woke", transgender and rowing back on once-grand rhetoric about federal abortion bans?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, Walsh was complaining that they didn't hate trans kids enough, so there's that

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

How about sparing me the suffering and answering me a question?

Did any of them discuss meaningful policy, or was it just 50% blathering about Trump-related issues and 50% trivial culture war scapegoating of CRT, "woke", transgender and rowing back on once-grand rhetoric about federal abortion bans?

Hah!

Why you asking questions you already know the answer to?

Tho tbf, Having watched the whole thing last night with a solid supply of inebriating medicine, there were surprisingly minimal mentions of trans or woke in the usual literal way we're accustomed to. Even Desantis was noticeably restrained. So some strongly worded notes must've been passed around beforehand. The crowd was a bit of a curious creature however. A tad rowdy, a slight unpredictable in some moments. But yeah. No. No policies, no charisma, no human life detected at all I'm afraid.

 

[Kwak]

Fucking cunts.

This is criminal negligence. There is no place in modern society for anyone who denies this, and they need to be barred from holding any position in government or business.

 

[tstorm823]

How about sparing me the suffering and answering me a question?

Did any of them discuss meaningful policy, or was it just 50% blathering about Trump-related issues and 50% trivial culture war scapegoating of CRT, "woke", transgender and rowing back on once-grand rhetoric about federal abortion bans?

Yes, there was some discussion of policy, though mostly only if Nikki Haley was involved. The part on abortion in particular had some actual debate on practical vs ideological pro-life stances and federal vs local regulation (roughly 40 minutes into that video above).

 

[tstorm823]

This is criminal negligence. There is no place in modern society for anyone who denies this, and they need to be barred from holding any position in government or business.

To be fair, that is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. The question was presented and then immediately interrupted by someone protesting the idea of raising hands in a debate. That is not all 8 denying climate change.

 

[Silvanus]

To be fair, that is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. The question was presented and then immediately interrupted by someone protesting the idea of raising hands in a debate. That is not all 8 denying climate change.

Did any of them go on to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change in the presumably ensuing discussion?

 

[Kwak]

That is not all 8 denying climate change.

Of course not.
"The climate always changes!"
"It's the sun's natural cycle affecting the solar system."
"To think humans can alter the forces of nature is the height of arrogance."
"Mediaeval warm period."
"Plants love CO2".

 

[tstorm823]

Did any of them go on to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change in the presumably ensuing discussion?

Yes.

And then mostly shifted focus on China's environmental contributions.

 

[Hawki]

Republican debate: What they said (and didn't say) about climate

Twenty minutes into the presidential debate came a simple question. The answers were anything but.

www.bbc.com

Better explanation of the climate stuff.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes.

And then mostly shifted focus on China's environmental contributions.

So, according to the Beeb summary, Nikki Haley was the only one to acknowledge climate change existed; Vivek Ramaswamy called it a hoax; and Tim Scott just moaned about US green policies being expensive. Is that accurate to how you saw it?

 

[tstorm823]

So, according to the Beeb summary, Nikki Haley was the only one to acknowledge climate change existed; Vivek Ramaswamy called it a hoax; and Tim Scott just moaned about US green policies being expensive. Is that accurate to how you saw it?

The person on the far left who doesn't really matter was actually raising his hand at the question, so that's another one. And then Tim Scott kind of did the opposite of that summary, saying the best thing we can do for the environment is bring jobs back from China, which is undoubtedly better for the environment and more expensive for most Americans. It's about 30 minutes into the debate video above if you want to watch that segment.

To be clear on Vivek, he did not say climate change is a hoax. He said "the climate change agenda is a hoax". Which, to be fair to the point, is not entirely off the mark, there are definitely those who use climate change as a dishonest premise for pushing policies they want anyway. But if you ask me, what he's doing there is worse than if he had said climate change is a hoax. He chose that phrase to be misunderstood and misconstrued on purpose, he is manipulating the media into driving an even greater wedge between those who care to hear his point and those who do not, because the more extreme he seems, the more coverage he gets, the better it is for him personally. His message on climate change isn't actually that controversial if you phrase it in an agreeable way, but he's doing the opposite, which is the kind of politics I deeply resent.

 

[Silvanus]

To be clear on Vivek, he did not say climate change is a hoax. He said "the climate change agenda is a hoax". Which, to be fair to the point, is not entirely off the mark, there are definitely those who use climate change as a dishonest premise for pushing policies they want anyway. But if you ask me, what he's doing there is worse than if he had said climate change is a hoax. He chose that phrase to be misunderstood and misconstrued on purpose, he is manipulating the media into driving an even greater wedge between those who care to hear his point and those who do not, because the more extreme he seems, the more coverage he gets, the better it is for him personally. His message on climate change isn't actually that controversial if you phrase it in an agreeable way, but he's doing the opposite, which is the kind of politics I deeply resent.

The "climate change agenda" he's referring to there-- and you know this is true-- is simply the agenda of making policy changes to mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

So yes, that's exactly as batshit. If he doesn't think climate change itself is a hoax, but thinks efforts to prevent it are a hoax, then he believes we should intentionally allow devastation, which is equally insane.

 

[Ag3ma]

To be clear on Vivek,

Vivek is vile. I also fear that he is trialling for us the future of US politics.

 

[tstorm823]

The "climate change agenda" he's referring to there-- and you know this is true-- is simply the agenda of making policy changes to mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

So yes, that's exactly as batshit. If he doesn't think climate change itself is a hoax, but thinks efforts to prevent it are a hoax, then he believes we should intentionally allow devastation, which is equally insane.

This misses the logic. If those efforts are a hoax, supporting them doesn't help mitigate climate change. And some thing are bull crap. Rich people flying to exotic locations to discuss how we should eat more bugs aren't helping anything, resenting that behavior doesn't worsen the climate.

Though again, it's Vivek's fault we are having this conversation. If he wasn't deliberately inflammatory, there'd be clearer lines of disagreement.

 

[tstorm823]

Vivek is vile. I also fear that he is trialling for us the future of US politics.

I'm very behind Nikki Haley. She's so practical.