Jump to content

LooseGoose

Global Warming - The "settled" science unwinds.

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, ewsieg said:

When i'm president I fully intend on having Bill Burr as our Secretary of Population Control.   I'd advise...

 

I'm bringing on THANOS.

 

8 hours ago, ewsieg said:

... The argument I've heard from conservatives is that even if it is real, if we are to believe the same folks that say it's real AND we do everything we can do to combat it, it won't matter as India, China and Russia won't buy in.  So we'd be essentially be throwing resources at something we can't stop anyway...

I'll give a couple REPUBLICAN reasons we should be tackling climate change and quit their BS "climate denial" tactics:

1) Two words: Business Opportunity. That means new companies, new jobs, new technologies, new business opportunities. How stupid can they be to pass up new business opportunities? That's not Republican at all. Have Republicans never heard of: steam engines? cross-country railroad system? the automobile? national highway system? space technology? personal computers? internet? 

1b) Related to the above, but in the opposite direction: Two words for the reason they're running away from these business opportunities and pursuing their BS tactics: Old Money. Oil and gas industries have money, and they're buying politicians out (specifically Republicans but lots of Dems too) to wage full-out war against new technologies/ businesses. They don't wanna lose what they've built. I understand that... but, since I'm a futurist: tough ****.

2) Three words: World Economic Leadership. If we're not the World Leader in new technologies such as electric cars, solar and wind technology, geo-thermal, ethanol, etc... then someone else is. Like China. The stupidity of Trump for eliminating electric car incentives, waiving ethanol requirements, and incessantly attacking the solar and wind industries is off the charts. What a ******* moron. And, I believe most Republicans are behind his moves.

Old Money Republicans are going to damage our future by not allowing, or blocking, investments in these future industries.

I want World Economic leading industries/ companies in 5G, aerospace, solar & wind, ethanol & other alternative fuels, AI, and everything else... and would support governmental policies that support those industries. Like resolving immigration issues and specifically H-1 Visa issues, like expanding, not eliminating purchase credits for electric cars, solar panels, wind tower construction, etc. I would expand ethanol requirements (helping our mid-western farmers) & R&D credits to increase the economic viability of ethanol (will they ever figure out how to use switch-grass instead of corn?).

Etc. Etc. Etc.

I hate Old Money obstructive Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, belcherboy said:

... but when you claim the end of the world is coming in 10-12 years, you better...

Who is claiming the end of the world in 10-12 years?

I thought those were all Republican Rapturist Kooks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 84 Lives!!! said:

Who is claiming the end of the world in 10-12 years?

I thought those were all Republican Rapturist Kooks.

See AOC tweet posted above by someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, belcherboy said:

You are wiser than most, and actually investigate things. From my experience, most youth I've encountered  (18-30 year olds) form their political and social beliefs based on social media, and the latest headlines they read there. There are exceptions in this group, not all of them are shallow, but I can't tell you how many times I've heard crazy things spouted by the AOC crowd. On the flip side, there is a significant amount of young people that have gravitated toward Trump. I also hear some crazy things out of this crowd. 

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I don't think the people that have the most consistent groups of voters care much about climate change. It's just become a political football, in my opinion, that has many people just cheering on their teams view of the subject. 

I don't think young people are any worse than older people in how they get their news.  If anything, young people tend to be more internet savvy and are likely to have access to more sources and get a wider range of opinions.  There are lots of shallow people of all ages.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I don't think young people are any worse than older people in how they get their news.  If anything, young people tend to be more internet savvy and are likely to have access to more sources and get a wider range of opinions.  There are lots of shallow people of all ages.  

I don't think I said or implied that young people were worse than older people in how they get their news. My original comment was in response to someone talking about younger voters, so my response was talking about them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tiger337 said:

I don't think young people are any worse than older people in how they get their news.  If anything, young people tend to be more internet savvy and are likely to have access to more sources and get a wider range of opinions.  There are lots of shallow people of all ages.  

Older people who get their news from Fox and AM talk radio are just as bad as younger people who get their news from social media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

Older people who get their news from Fox and AM talk radio are just as bad as younger people who get their news from social media.

I don't think I see a problem with getting news from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, Podcasts, AM radio, Social Media, etc. as long as you aren't afraid to balance it, and as long as you do your homework on who is giving you that news (organization, reporter, etc.). I mean, college coaches probably watch as much film on the opposing teams at they watch of their own team. Balance is the key in my opinion. If one watches/listens/reads the news from an organization that leans to one side of the political aisle, then you just have to assume that what you're hearing is truthful and accurate. We all know that bias often creates stories and creates context that was never intended, or worse is unfairly slanted to harm those they disagree with.

I enjoy todays news environment. The gloves seem to be off of most organizations, and I believe it is forcing people to investigate whether the claims of the news media are simply being hyped up, if bias is clearly showing, or if things are fake. When I grew up (early years of the internet), if you read it in the news, you didn't have a lot of avenues to investigate the accuracy. Now, you have a lot of ways to investigate it if you want to make sure of it's accuracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

I enjoy todays news environment. The gloves seem to be off of most organizations, and I believe it is forcing people to investigate whether the claims of the news media are simply being hyped up, if bias is clearly showing, or if things are fake. When I grew up (early years of the internet), if you read it in the news, you didn't have a lot of avenues to investigate the accuracy. Now, you have a lot of ways to investigate it if you want to make sure of it's accuracy. 

I don't disagree, but the rerality is that a large number of news consumers don't do this and just park themselves at news sources that confirm their biases. Or get their "news" from people who aren't "news" (ie. Hannity, Carlson, Maddow on the cable side, Rush, Hannity, Joe Rogan, etc. on the radio or podcast side; whether you like them or not, they are commentary).

Like, the biggest problem I see in how Americans consume their news is that a good portion of us can't distinguish between news and commentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tiger337 said:

I don't think young people are any worse than older people in how they get their news.  If anything, young people tend to be more internet savvy and are likely to have access to more sources and get a wider range of opinions.  There are lots of shallow people of all ages.  

Yeah, most of the people who fall for stupid stuff on social media tend to be boomers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I don't disagree, but the rerality is that a large number of news consumers don't do this and just park themselves at news sources that confirm their biases. Or get their "news" from people who aren't "news" (ie. Hannity, Carlson, Maddow on the cable side, Rush, Hannity, Joe Rogan, etc. on the radio or podcast side; whether you like them or not, they are commentary).

Like, the biggest problem I see in how Americans consume their news is that a good portion of us can't distinguish between news and commentary.

I agree, but news doesn't sell these days, commentary does. Personally, I would rather hear commentary myself. That is why I like listening to Colin Cowherd's show podcast as I drive home (I know it's one of my vices). He basically says, "I'm not here to tell you sports news, you can look up a box score for that.  I'm here to tell you my interpretation of the news." Ben Shapiro's podcast is this way, and it is interesting to see what he thinks about certain news stories (and I like that he isn't afraid to be pretty critical of Trump...although he definitely is more critical of the left than the right). 

 

The news, and the creators of news are so calculated these days. So I like to hear how Maddow, Ingraham, and various other commentators interpret the news. I tune them out when what they say is simply preaching to the choir, but I do like when they give some insight to a story that I never thought about before.

 

Having said all that, I probably watch less than an hour of news a week. Between watching sports, and dealing with four kids under the age of 6, I just don't have a lot of time to investigate the news as much as I would like, so I try to get most my news through the internet or through the first 10 minutes of many of the more popular news shows (Maddow,  Ingraham, etc. usually tell you what is most popular in the news and everything they are thinking about it in their opening segment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I come at it from the opposite view: I'd rather just hear the news and decide for myself what to think, not hear the news secondhand from people telling me how to interpret the news.

I honestly believe that folks like Rachel Maddow, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, etc. are some of the most useless people in society. They are paid millions of dollars to do a job that, setting entertainment value aside, any Joe Sixpack in America could do. And the have contributed greatly to the breakdown of discourse and the siloing of two sides of the American electorate.

I'll admit that I'm a bit of a hypocrite in the sense that there are a couple of opinion podcasts I listen to on the left and right, but the overaching point is that commentary is not a substitute for hard, fact based news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mtutiger said:

Honestly, I come at it from the opposite view: I'd rather just hear the news and decide for myself what to think, not hear the news secondhand from people telling me how to interpret the news.

I honestly believe that folks like Rachel Maddow, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, etc. are some of the most useless people in society. They are paid millions of dollars to do a job that, setting entertainment value aside, any Joe Sixpack in America could do. And the have contributed greatly to the breakdown of discourse and the siloing of two sides of the American electorate.

I'll admit that I'm a bit of a hypocrite in the sense that there are a couple of opinion podcasts I listen to on the left and right, but it's not a substitute for hard, fact based news.

From my perspective, I can get the news online much quicker. I don't need to hear it on tv. That is the same reason I don't watch Sportscenter any longer (when I use to watch it every day). I don't need to know scores, see highlights, or look at standings, etc. any longer. I can see it all, and very short clips of highlights in much less time.  

Most times I tune into network and cable news shows is when I want to hear someone breakdown their opinions on what happened in the news, just so I can determine if there are other motives for those creating the news. I sometimes change my opinion on a news story, once I hear someone's commentary on that story. 

Again, I don't watch a lot of news each week...heck I don't want a lot of tv anymore. I do find myself during parts of the day watching video clips, and reading twitter (for both political and social stuff). So that probably has replaced my tv time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read Axios, The New York Times, and Politico for news.  I listen to podcasts for commentary, and my favorites include the WSJ Potomoc Watch, Left Right and Center, The Politics Guys, the NYT Daily, Skullduggery, Hacks on Tap, the NYT Argument, and The Bulwark.  I don't watch cable news or listen to talk radio - it's all trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Euphdude said:

I read Axios, The New York Times, and Politico for news.  I listen to podcasts for commentary, and my favorites include the WSJ Potomoc Watch, Left Right and Center, The Politics Guys, the NYT Daily, Skullduggery, Hacks on Tap, the NYT Argument, and The Bulwark.  I don't watch cable news or listen to talk radio - it's all trash.

The thing with me is that I just don't have that much time. I love podcasts because I can listen to them at X2.5 speed. It drives my wife nuts when she is in the car with me, but I've gotten use to it. I like being able to skip commercials, and can listen to several of them a day. When I listen to talk radio, or cable news, it now feels like it is so slow to me. If there isn't something good on the show, I usually lose interest and turn it off after a few minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

I read Axios, The New York Times, and Politico for news.  I listen to podcasts for commentary, and my favorites include the WSJ Potomoc Watch, Left Right and Center, The Politics Guys, the NYT Daily, Skullduggery, Hacks on Tap, the NYT Argument, and The Bulwark.  I don't watch cable news or listen to talk radio - it's all trash.

Pretty much am good with the Post, Times, and my local paper, plus The Daily, The Weekly, 538 and The Bulwark. Will occasionally to PSA if they interview someone I'm interested in. Started listening to Hacks on Tap recently, I find them interesting mostly because they have been in the political arena and know what they are talking about. I do use Twitter as a news aggregator, mostly, but tend to stick more to news stories than op-eds.

Quitting cable news was one of the best decisions I ever made. I will turn in when news is fast breaking (ie. tuned in during the El Paso shooting for a bit), but otherwise most of the time, because of the amount of time they have to fill, they are amplifying stories that don't really matter that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

The thing with me is that I just don't have that much time. I love podcasts because I can listen to them at X2.5 speed. It drives my wife nuts when she is in the car with me, but I've gotten use to it. I like being able to skip commercials, and can listen to several of them a day. When I listen to talk radio, or cable news, it now feels like it is so slow to me. If there isn't something good on the show, I usually lose interest and turn it off after a few minutes. 

Podcasts are awesome and they have increased in quality and quantity over the years.  You can pick exactly which topic or viewpoint you are interested in, and you can play it 2.5x speed while skipping ads.  I listen to them while running, cutting the grass, driving, or doing mudane practice on my euphonium.

It takes some work and research for one to have a well-rounded balance of news and commentary.  Most people won't do it, and will rely on their sources of confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, belcherboy said:

From my perspective, I can get the news online much quicker. I don't need to hear it on tv. That is the same reason I don't watch Sportscenter any longer (when I use to watch it every day). I don't need to know scores, see highlights, or look at standings, etc. any longer. I can see it all, and very short clips of highlights in much less time.  

Most times I tune into network and cable news shows is when I want to hear someone breakdown their opinions on what happened in the news, just so I can determine if there are other motives for those creating the news. I sometimes change my opinion on a news story, once I hear someone's commentary on that story. 

Again, I don't watch a lot of news each week...heck I don't want a lot of tv anymore. I do find myself during parts of the day watching video clips, and reading twitter (for both political and social stuff). So that probably has replaced my tv time. 

Fair enough.... 

I think the challenging thing for me as it pertains to commentators is that, in many cases, there isn't anything particularly distinguishing about them in order to make their opinion on a subject that important aside from the entertainment value they deliver for their employer. So I'm not sure why I should value their opinion on a subject over the opinion I may come to based on reading a news story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go to motownsports for my news. I feel I know which posters news articles to ignore and which ones to read. Seems normal a sports forum would be the best place to stay informed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 9:18 AM, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Apparently the UP is the place to be if one does not want to be adversely affected by climate change.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-the-best-place-to-move-if-youre-worried-about-climate-change/

Or you could buy a mansion on Martha's Vineyard if you know it's all BS.

It was good to see Mick and Keef step off their private jet and take time to lecture us today about the dangers of carbon.  Perhaps when they sell a few houses, start flying commercial and doing acoustic sets I'll think they're something other than flaming hypocrites.

There's nothing quite like being told *I'm* wrecking the planet by people that burn more carbon in an hour than I do in a year.

People have been peddling this crap for a long time, I'm amazed people still are buying it.

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all wrecking the planet, and just because someone else is a bad actor doesn't somehow make it ok for us as a nation to continue on the course we are on.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greta Thunberg lost me.  I'm with her on the issue.  I'm just...SHUT UP YOU LITTLE DIP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...