HL Climate Change Thread: Fare the well old world

[tru_m.a.c]

So y bring up belief? The main issue to me seems to be the way we district and the electoral college. Environmentalist may blame Christians or big oil companies and the auto industry, but the truth is the impassivity of the American people with this issue is to blame.

because those that deny the science, tend to deny science

 

[acri1]

So y bring up belief? The main issue to me seems to be the way we district and the electoral college. Environmentalist may blame Christians or big oil companies and the auto industry, but the truth is the impassivity of the American people with this issue is to blame.

In this case, a "belief" is part of the problem.

You actually HAVE Congressmen saying we shouldn't do anything about climate change because "“the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.”. Unless he's lying, his belief (in the second coming) is a DIRECT reason he has the position on climate change he does.

Of course all Christians don't think like that, but it's an issue that so many do. A minority of people who think that protecting the environment isn't worthwhile because Jesus will come back and fix everything anyway stopping the government from taking meaningful action is a problem. At least IMO.

The fact that districts are setup in such a way that rural voters (who are more likely to be conservative and thus not believe in climate change) have more power that everybody else definitely an issue, as voter impassivity, but like the article says, even if the average voter DOES support action on climate change it'll still be extremely difficult to pass anything.

 

[blac_da_rappa]

hmmm

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

 

[Robbie3000]

Disgusting.

 

[Blackking]

In this case, a "belief" is part of the problem.

You actually HAVE Congressmen saying we shouldn't do anything about climate change because "“the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.”. Unless he's lying, his belief (in the second coming) is a DIRECT reason he has the position on climate change he does.

Of course all Christians don't think like that, but it's an issue that so many do. A minority of people who think that protecting the environment isn't worthwhile because Jesus will come back and fix everything anyway stopping the government from taking meaningful action is a problem. At least IMO.

The fact that districts are setup in such a way that rural voters (who are more likely to be conservative and thus not believe in climate change) have more power that everybody else definitely an issue, as voter impassivity, but like the article says, even if the average voter DOES support action on climate change it'll still be extremely difficult to pass anything.

I don't think that rural voters have the most power... Rural voters would have made it so that the majority of these senators and congress people would be tea party members. Rural voters in red states (and their elected officials) are outnumbered. However, they are loud and feel strongly about their opposition to climate change legislation because it goes against what they've learn in Church. If there was even the slightest push in the other direction then the rural voters wouldn't matter. The vast majority of politicians are willing to act on climate issues because most of them feel its an issue. - the main reason why they aren't fighting a fight is because this issue will holds no weight on whether they receive campaign funds and/or are reelected.

Look at the history of climate change legislation. There have always only be a few senators against the sh1t. In congress it can pass easy but will fail in the senate for issues not related to Jesus. We can't pass a piece of paper around Washington DC to fix these issues.. There is money and resources involved and there is a debate around that sh1t. There are Senators that support that science behind human's effects on the environment; but don't agree on Nuclear energy issues, Carbon Footprints, Capntrade, some are in the pockets of transportation and auto industries, EPA... and most importantly the fact that the majority of their constituencies don't really give a fukk.. when people go around speaking about voter registration they mention other issues that hit home with people, climate change is only serious for environmentalist.
There are so many Hadith's and points in the Qur'an that point to human beings being fully responsible for the environment. Regardless if I was a politician... I would have to put that sh1t on the back burner, even considering that the US is putting out more damage per capita. Plus this article is incomplete and misleading.

E dolan is an extreme liberal and the Raw story creation and continued point of existence is to solely point out GOP and conservative flaws-- it's not there to paint clear pictures of situations. For example Dolan wrote one about big banks and out debt that I agree with.. .but truthfully he and raw story search for one thing to blow up and make that an issue. They clearly know that Jesus isn't the reason for lack of legislation around climate change.

 

[acri1]

I don't think that rural voters have the most power...

Is it really "fair" that NY has the same number of senators as, say, Vermont? Even though NY has almost 20 million people and Vermont has less than 700,000?

Or that Republicans in the House got fewer votes overall than Democrats, yet still remain the majority because of how districts are drawn? You're crazy, or at least very naive, if you don't think a rural vote counts more than an urban vote.


The rest of your post was 'ing so all I'm gonna say is that the reasons you listed are valid, but that still doesn't mean that silly religious beliefs don't share some of the blame.

 

[Blackking]

Is it really "fair" that NY has the same number of senators as, say, Vermont? Even though NY has almost 20 million people and Vermont has less than 700,000?

Or that Republicans in the House got fewer votes overall than Democrats, yet still remain the majority because of how districts are drawn? You're crazy, or at least very naive, if you don't think a rural vote counts more than an urban vote.


The rest of your post was 'ing so all I'm gonna say is that the reasons you listed are valid, but that still doesn't mean that silly religious beliefs don't share some of the blame.

well, I'm not naive. I don't feel the system is exactly fair, but neither is life.. at least government has reasons behind the things we feel are unfair.

The two Senators thing not being fair, is debatable because the intent is to have equal representation for each state. We get this set up from the Romans (some say iroquois natives) and the intent isn't exactly fairness and equality based on population...but so that each State is represented with it's pov as a sovereign state within the Union. So basically it is fair that Vermont has an Equal number of Senators as NY- because that is the system of government that the founders have agree to and the people of the US haven't hated it enough to revolt against it.

Second point.. Not all republican areas are rural. There are major areas that are controlled by Republicans. We are thinking about the caricature of the country bumpkin ignorant GOP voter that only votes with tobacco in his mouth and a Bible in his hand- shot gun in his other hand used to kill abortion doctors,,,,,, but that's not the complete reality. Think about the Big Business minded folk or issues voters or patriotic based voters-- they tend to be GOP.. plus the random other people.
The democrats could have just as easily gotten the majority. They kept the senate because like you said the majority of the people wanted them... the congress is , imo, more fair because it should go by districts and not number of total national votes.... The IDEAS and views and fukkky that naturally happens to a persons brain because they were born in Cali or NY shouldn't have a gross amount of influence in politics or congress. Just as Texans shouldn't have complete control either. Texas has the second most people AND THOSE people along with Floridians and Pennsylvanians.. aren't the people who you want controlling our ideas.. we balance it out with places like MI and N Dakota.

Yeah I guess religious views share some of the blame, but the alternative to that is to kill off the people whose views we don't want having influence. That's what's been done for most of history-- we can consider that, if that's what you all are suggesting.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Yeah I guess religious views share some of the blame, but the alternative to that is to kill off the people whose views we don't want having influence. That's what's been done for most of history-- we can consider that, if that's what you all are suggesting.

That is the only way. At some point the stupid people no longer have to exist. That's either by not being born, not developing the stupid or dieing.

Natural selection though. What you're talking about is genocide.

 

[Blackking]

That is the only way. At some point the stupid people no longer have to exist. That's either by not being born, not developing the stupid or dieing.

Natural selection though. What you're talking about is genocide.

lol, I was shocked reading this, until I got to your second line.

Well, not all Christians are stupid... so how would you determine who to phase out... ntm human females chose mates based on their ability to provide or how good they treat them.... and men chose females based on perverted and/or other instinctual reasons.

Plus most pregnancies are by accident. And at least part of your thinking and beliefs is developed by parents and environment.. so I don't see how all that is possible without genocide.

Actually! There was this one person in history that used the term judenrein... that seemed to be pretty effective against the people he felt were messing up his society. I'm sure that can be applied to other groups as well.

Or we can be comfortable with diversity of opinions. A nation of liberal atheist bisexuals cohesively thinking similar things and bouncing ideas off each other doesn't sound like an utopian society to me.

 

[acri1]

Climate change will lock the world into frequent and severe heatwaves over the next 30 years, experts warn

Climate change will lock the world into more frequent and severe heatwaves in the next few decades, researchers have claimed.

They say there will be a 'several-fold' increase in heatwaves up to 2040, regardless of how much carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere, but future efforts to slash pollution could stem the rise in extreme heat events later on in the century.

The last decade has seen an exceptional number of extreme heatwaves around the world, hitting the U.S. in 2012, Russia in 2010, Australia in 2009, and Europe in 2003 with damaging impacts on health, the economy, agriculture and wildlife.

The soaring monthly and seasonal temperatures associated with heat waves can now largely be attributed to global warming of around 0.5C over the past 50 years, according to a study published in the Institute of Physics' journal Environmental Letters.

Extreme summer heat waves in which monthly temperatures soar well above norms now cover around five per cent of the world's land, mostly in the Tropics, but also over western Europe and the Mediterranean, the researchers said.

But the percentage of land experiencing summer months of extreme heat is set to double by 2020, and quadruple by 2040 to cover a fifth of the global land surface, the projections using computer climate models found.

Even more severe summer heatwaves will increase from being virtually non-existent today to covering around three per cent of the world's land. The increase in heatwaves takes place regardless of efforts to cut emissions in the next few decades.

After 2040, the frequency of extreme heat events is affected by whether or not the world takes action to slash greenhouse gases.

If there are only low emissions, the frequency of periods of extremely hot weather will remain constant after 2040.

In Europe, around a fifth of summer months will record temperatures will above the seasonal norms, though the most extreme heatwaves will be essentially absent, the scientists said.

But with high emissions of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere, heatwaves will continue to increase, and by 2100 monthly heat extremes will cover around 85 per cent of the world's land area and very severe heat events will occur over 60 per cent of the land.

The study's lead author Dim Coumou, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said: 'We find that up until 2040, the frequency of monthly heat extremes will increase several fold, independent of the emissions scenario we choose to take.

'Mitigation can, however, strongly reduce the number of extremes in the second half of the 21st century.'

He said that a good example of the extreme heatwaves the world is facing were the conditions in Russia in 2010 where the average temperature around Moscow in July was 7C above normal at around 25C (77F). In some places temperatures soared to 40C (104F).

'Heat extremes can be very damaging to society and ecosystems, often causing heat-related deaths, forest fires or losses to agricultural production.

'So an increase in frequency is likely to pose serious challenges to society and some regions will have to adapt to more frequent and more severe heat waves already in the near-term,' he said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...aves-30-years-experts-warn.html#ixzz2c03qmAqV




We brehs.

 

[Serious]

damn...

 

[Brown Ant]

Black people win this battle

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

We are so fukked.

 

[Serious]

We are so fukked.

Might as well live it up