Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria.

[ryujin]

QUOTE (SumVeritas @ Feb 22 2017, 07:03 PM) Part of the problem i think derives from the weird assumption that climate change = waterworld or some other worst case sci fi scenario. So if you are expecting 50° C on january in Toronto Paps, you'll be dissapointed. The thing is that just small scale changes, like a little longer dry season, a bit of rain in september instead of july or just a decimal of a degree warmer water can become a major problem for agriculture and fishing, after all our methods of getting food haven't changed that much, we are still at the mercy of the seasons.
Say, here we usually had red tide once every 2 years and in a rather small area of the country, now for the last 10 years it has afected a bit more of the coast, last year we had red tide in a way larger area and lasting for around 2-3 months. this $#@!ed the salmon industry of the country (fish dying because of the thing), and the extraction of seafood, which of course means a lot of fishermen and divers going without money and work, you know, the hard working kind of people that you like.

Hush you with actual evidence and stuff. It doesn't fit their narrative.

[Globemaster_III]

ryujin quote : Hush you with actual evidence and stuff. It doesn't fit their narrative.

it's normal, you just aware of it..


There doesn't seem to be any specific resource for when red tides occur. When large blooms occur it usually makes it into the local papers and the blooms usually at least several days.

The other option would be to watch for the right conditions. They seem to occur in the late summer or early fall when we've had a long period of warm water followed by a cold water upwelling event. If you surf often you know that the water temperature dropped precipitously a couple weeks ago following a strong NW wind. This cold water is rich in nutrients and combined with the strong sunlight that we still have this time of year provides ideal conditions for a red tide (or other algae) bloom.

Fortunately it seems that most of the red tides in Southern California are not toxic

[cashto]

Want to know how I know Globey did not write those last three paragraphs himself?

I mean, besides the Google, of course.

[ryujin]

lol

[zombywoof]

QUOTE (Papsmear @ Feb 22 2017, 07:45 AM) Can you give some examples of what you mean by that statement?

I would love to, Paps!

QUOTE (Zwitter @ Feb 21 2017, 02:38 PM) Social media, like ads, are targeted based on interests. This is just business @#(!. If you like goofball leftist junk, that's what you're going to get. If you watch goofballs like Alex Jones, youtube is going to tell you to watch other guys who hate government. They profit off of your clicks and how much you watch - it makes no sense from a business perspective for a guy who subscribes to a bunch of "alt" groups to get recommendations for CNN or FOX, because they're not interested.

This is somewhat true, but really tangential to the point. It also misses the fact that while many people do surround themselves with likeminded friends, it's very unusual for people to have exclusively like-minded *family.* Seriously, you probably wouldn't guess that half of my family voted for Bush twice... and I think at least two of my aunts voted for Trump (though I'm going to choose to pretend they did not for my own sanity). If you think about your family, I'm sure you have at least a member or two you're in semi-regular contact with who disagrees with you vehemently. So if your social media presence is *only* friends, well... then yes it might be true that you could be isolated in a bubble.

Even that; however, would be difficult.

And while you might expect that "gosh all I do on facebook is like these posts" is all that goes into it, don't forget that this forum here is a form of media and is very social. Is your social media diet solely conservative things, Paps? I'd argue no, that you get a very helpful dose of liberal in your life just by reading my posts.

So while it's true, on some level, that these things are targeted, it's not true that most people live in a "bubble" where they're isolated from other, opposing viewpoints. Unless somehow your family all aligns themselves with you politically, and you have no friends from work/college who disagree with you ideologically on anything, and you choose to excise dissenting viewpoints from your media diet (by electing to consume only the most Alex Jonesy media sources), *and* you participate in no online communities based on something other than political ideology (so for example, no sports forums, no home making forums, no TV show forums...), you're going to run into diverse viewpoints. And that's not even including the conversation you overheard at the watercooler about how Trudeau is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

(As an aside, it's a little bit of a bummer how much the rest of the world talks about American politics when frankly none of us Americans talk about anyone else's politics. Sorry our stories are so dominating.)

QUOTE Just as if all you do is watch videos of animals doing silly things on youtube, your recommendations and relateds aren't going to be full of Karl Marx or Andrew Jackson.[/quote]
Blech, this is going to be an interruption in our narrative, but $#@! Andrew Jackson. $#@! him and get him off my $20. Put his face on toilet paper... I love the idea of smearing feces on that @#(!wad's mug.

Good on him to beat the British at the Battle of New Orleans though.

QUOTE And no, I don't think there is a "great divide" in this generation, whichever generation you're talking about. America is America, and this goofball "hurrrr HWNDU we'z all one but we're bein torn apart n stuff" isn't anything. It's sensationalist crap from people who's paycheck directly correlates to how many people look at their crap and/or buy their crap. America has always been a representative democracy, a republic, and voters have always disagreed on an assload of issues,[/quote]

1) It's sliiiiiiiightly true that there's not a "great divide" in this nation. Emphasis on slightly: there is a huge divide in this nation and always has been, it's just the issue do jour changes. In the early 1800s it was slavery which culminated in a war. In the late 1800s and early 1900s it was bimetallism and fiscal policy which culminated in, well, another war but fortunately this time it was against someone else ($#@!ing Nazis). In the mid to late 1900s it was civil rights, and it appears to continue to be civil rights but with a country that's been drifting right as demographics are wont to encourage.

Actually when it comes down to it the voters have very rarely disagreeed on an "assload" of issues but more often disagreed on one or two issues. Slavery, bimetallism, labor vs employer, segregation vs not... typically political drives in America (as with elsewhere) are based on single-issues. Hell, the Trump campaign was a bunch of voodoo bull@#(! about immigration and terrorism. When you start looking at other issues there starts to be massive consensus. Some 60% of Americans think healthcare should be both made more available and affordable. I'd be shocked if you found a percentage over 30% that feels that SNAP and TANF programs should be outright abolished. Social Security is the single most popular government enterprise in history. So where does the divide occur? Now, as ever, along moralistic lines. One group of people thinks another group of people are subhuman and then the fun begins.

"Wait, you're just calling conservatives racist?"

Kind of yes and no? So basically back in the early 1800s the anti-federalists (later Democratic-Republicans, later Democrats) considered black people so subhuman that they were better off being enslaved. The federalists (later whigs, later Republicans) said "no, I mean, they're subhuman but they don't deserve to be enslaved." {At that point, the Republicans were the "liberals."} Then you had the Reconstruction era business Republicans who thought that workers deserved to be exploited, this was social darwinism run amok. That, of course, got shut down. But at this point, the lines between "liberal" and "conservative" gets oddly blurred, though it's true to say that at this time the Republicans were the champions of liberalism. So maybe at this point the "liberals" were the racists? But also the Democrats really liked segregation. So yeah, conservatives have historically been really $#@!ing bigoted, but that may (or may not be) a function of the fact that pretty much everyone has been bigoted for pretty much all of recorded history.

So to sum up: There has always been a great divide in America and probably always will be, and it's always driven by moralistic attitudes. Which side certain individuals are on may change (so some anti-homosexuals may have been anti-segregation, as was often the case with many religious movements during the 50s and 60s), but the real fundamental moral gulf will always be there.

QUOTE yet despite what our Founding Father's told us not to do, we got into a 2 party system so people can look at one of two guys who vaguely aligns with their political views and then just pull a lever.[/quote]
One, count 'em, one founding father told us not to do that. Alexander Hamilton (his mug can be found on the american $5 bill, also they made a play about him) and James Madison (short guy, served 2 terms as President, basically wrote the Constitution) alone wrote a pair of federalist papers (#s 9 and 10) suggesting that factionism is fine. Indeed, *most* of the founding fathers agreed in principle that pluralism would work as disparate interests competed and necessarily compromised to form factions which would work together within the system.

The one guy who disagreed was George Washington who wrote a rather stirring letter on the subject (among other subjects, it's a 32 page letter) which was published September 19, 1796.

Also, incidentally, the reason this happens has almost nothing to do with what the Founding Fathers did or didn't warn us about. There's nothing in the design of the US Constitution that is hostile to multiple parties. Well, presidential election, but if *that* was done the way it was originally intended even *that* wouldn't be inherently hostile to 3+ parties. Actually of the three biggest obstacles to third parties in America, only two are governmental and one of them is constitutional. In increasing order of importance:

1) The passing of the 17th amendment. This took Senatorial seats out of the hands of the state legislatures and placed them in the hands of the electorate at large. This is probably the only one that would have made the Founding Fathers really raise their hackles... since the Senate was *specifically intended* to not be directly elected by the people. Also believe it or not, you get more 3rd party people the *fewer* people are voting on a position because it becomes more about substance than style.

2) Lack of consistency in how electoral college votes are applied. The first state who went to "winner-take-all" basically started an arms race we haven't been able to stop, and at this point a constitutional amendment is probably necessary to fix that mess. *Ideally* votes for president wouldn't even occur, you'd vote for local guy Jim Bob to represent your community, and Jim Bob would talk and debate with the other 537 Jim Bobs from Podunk County about who should be the next President in a procedure that is mostly closed to the public. Now, of course, we have this pseudo popular vote thingy that has people all mystified and being like "gosh how did this happen this makes no sense." It's easy to be confused about politics when you don't pay attention to history; though, it's like people jumped in halfway through a calculus lecture without taking any math classes and were like "wait, where did this sin(x) thing come from?"

3) This is the most important: people vote in the wrong elections. For some reason this nation has fixated on the idea of a president, and the President has gone from being a mostly figurehead leader who made some important decisions but for the most part cleaved to the legislature to God King the First. I blame our @#(!ty educational system, but whatever. No one seems to realize that more government is done at the local level than all the other levels combined. In America, your water isn't a federal government thing: it's your city. The city council for Flint, Michigan is entirely at fault for that @#(!. School district? City council. Police? City council. Trash pickup? Sales taxes? Turkeys blocking the streets? I recently heard someone complaining about the fact that my city has banned plastic bags and all I could think of was "well did you $#@!ing VOTE for city council?" (Spoiler: they did not.) Then, the next biggest source of government is the state level, and again you're kidding yourself if a representative has to be part of a major political party to win. You can actually impact these elections, guys. Instead, people whine about the 2 party system and go "awww we can't win ever" because they don't win ONE single election, the election that is probably the LEAST IMPORTANT in terms of impacting their personal lives, which also happens to be the only vote they ever cast.


QUOTE How voters as individuals hold their opinions is much more complex than "X amount voted for A, Y amount voted for B."[/quote]
History says this is wrong. Hell, *almost all polls* suggest this is wrong. Most people, for better or worse, are single issue voters. A perfect example for this is the gun lobby. And indeed, this has been historically true: you're either pro-new deal or anti-new deal, you're pro-civil rights or anti-civil rights, pro-bimetallism or anti-bimetallism, pro-slavery or anti-slavery (sometimes with a weird mix of tariffs that somehow was just a stand-in for slavery). Frankly, I'd be shocked to find out this isn't the norm for a couple of major reasons:

1) People don't have that much time to devote to politics. Paps is a single dude but he works 40 hours a week, sleeps another 56, spends fourteen or so eating, spends likely another ten hours traveling from place to place, and maybe five hours doing weekly chores like laundry, cleaning, grocery shopping and another seven to eight showering, @#(!ting, and shaving. That's 132 out of 168 weekly hours. Cut out five hours on Sunday for Allegiance, a couple hours for beers at the pub with his pals, and maybe two hour long TV shows a week and we're talking 27 hours left. How much of that do you really spend studying the issues, Paps? And now imagine someone married with kids. They might have time for an issue or two they truly care about, like gun control or drunk driving or civil asset forfeiture or regulating breeding methods for food crops, but there's no way they have the time to become educated and form opinions on everything.

2) People aren't that interested in politics. Governmental policy is boooooooring for most people. I mean, sure, I find it as fascinating as the next person that mens rea has been slowly disappearing from our legal system and that plus a series of reactions to a crime wave in the 1960s has caused a small but alarming growth in fatal encounters with the police even as overall the crime rate has been dropping at a steady rate, and half-percent changes in the federal interest rate at the discount window make Cashto so wet he has to change his panties, but I expect most of you would sit through an actual nuanced lecture about the pros and cons of the DAPL and reach the end going "well, so is this a good thing or a bad thing?" and then get really frustrated with "well, it kind of depends..."

QUOTE Hell, for as long as I've been alive and I'm certain for decades past, ENORMOUS amounts of the American citizenry don't even vote in national elections. I wouldn't be surprised if local politics have an even lower voter turnout. I think for our last 3 presidents, voter turn out was about ~45%, and there's always ~5% voting for some meme like a guy who only talks about pot and doesn't know what Syria is, or a $#@!ing gorilla.[/quote]
It's weird because this is a pervasive meme despite being utterly untrue.

Actually, voter turnout in the US has *steeply* risen as a percentage of total population thanks to suffrage movements and as a percentage of voter-eligible-persons has hovered around 55-60% for pretty much of America's history, at least since we've started recording the actual data. Funnily enough, I didn't need to "think" about these numbers, I used the internet to look them up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_tur ... uscensus-7

There's no doubting that about 6% of the voters do stay away from the primary 2 party candidates, but to call Gary Johnson "some meme guy" is... I mean he wasn't exactly a robust choice for POTUS but a robust choice for POTUS didn't win so there you have it.

QUOTE This "greatest divide" you're seeing is a result of social media encouraging people - just by how it operates - to blurt out something in one or two sentences. Of course you're going to see a bunch of people saying "Hillary/Trump is X" because that's all they have the space for, that's all anyone has the attention for.[/quote]

Add this to the list of things that sounds nice but isn't actually true. Social media doesn't drive this, it's in our very nature whether as a national culture or as a result of being human I'm not qualified to decide. Evidence:

http://loweringthebar.net/2016/11/worst-pr...ntial-race.html

QUOTE You have to actually $#@!ing mentally fight people to get them to properly express and explain their views. Like what I'm doing to you idiots as you all pat yourselves on the back about being SUPER RIGHT AND FACTUAL AND SMART ABOUT LITERALLY EVERYTHING.[/quote]
gosh it must be so hard to be you. Actually it probably is super hard to be you, so yeah, I'm sorry you have to be you.

QUOTE This goes far back beyond social media, though. People in general care more about the immediate and the near future, figuratively and literally. It's hard to get people to stop being apathetic about who lives in a house when most of what they're probably going to see of them is pictures, out of context quotes, and campaign ads. Journalism AFAIK has operated under the accurate assumption that almost all of their readership is lost past the first paragraph of the first page article. That's why the "who, what, where, when, why" is supposed to all be crammed into the short, top paragraph (which obviously leaves out context), and why a headline has to be ATTENTION GRABBING.[/quote]
First, headlines did not always have to be attention grabbing. This appears to be, and this is somewhat second hand information from a pair of English majors, a weird cycle: clickbait style headlines go in fashion for a few decades, then die out for more informative and concise headlines, which then get edged out by clickbait headlines. "You dunce they didn't have the internet before" yeah ok but do you really think the internet significantly changed the style of writing preferred for journalism?

Second, this is a lot like when Sunrodent was like "yeah, but do you agree with this statement" about some stupid thing he said about islam and pretty much everything else Zwitter says here: on the surface it's true enough, but it's skin-deep. When you start investigating *why* these sorts of things happen, you start to realize many of the premises fall apart: clickbaity headlines aren't new, we just have a new word for them. Clickbaity headlines weren't always the norm, but rather had previously developed and gone out of style as the public became numb to them. Also, no one is apathetic about "who lives in a house." That's literally *never* been true, and one time the US fought a civil war over that question... though I guess all those people were super apathetic about that presidential election? I mean, when *I'm* bored I like to hurtle 6 lb iron spheres at federal fortifications and then round it off with a nice 8 hour march in @#(!ty shoes so I can sleep in a tent and eat a hard biscuit and pray to the powers that be that if I don't have a small lead ball shatter my limbs causing an amputation that results in a lifetime disability (assuming I can avoid death by sepsis), I can also avoid the typhoid, measles, malaria, and tuberculosis slowly killing 13% of the people around me.

Man, if you think war is hell *now* ...

QUOTE This all loops back around to how social media works. If the front page is about Bruce Jenner being called woman of the year, people who have no interest in identity politics, don't know who Jenner is, or whatever, aren't even going to read it. So, why would a profit based organization bother showing such things to someone who isn't interested?[/quote]


Aside from the subtle transphobia in there, it's a non-sequitur. But thanks for playing. As a reminder: none of this has anything to do with social media. If it did, we wouldn't be seeing a continuation of the same trends that have occurred for literally 200+ years. Unless you imagine that James Madison was busily defending the Constitution on twitter while Thomas Jefferson made angry tumblr posts about needing a bill of rights.

QUOTE So yeah you're in a bubble, go talk to people who are $#@!ing insane and crazy, like me, or globey. Talk to people who think differently than you. Actually engage them, don't be some $!%^&@ who's like EUUURGHHH BUT HE'S AN X-IST, HE PROMOTES Y-ISM. That doesn't do anything except shut down discussion.[/quote]
1) Dome's not in a bubble. He interacts with people who disagree with him all the time, such as Papsmear.

2) No one should talk to people like zwitter or, frankly, globey. There's dissent, and then there's people who are just not worth engaging.

What happens here, Paps, is the Zwitter-like tries to claim that his opinion is valuable because it is different. That's horse@#(!, by the way, for the same reason that Andrew Wakefield's opinion on vaccines is not valuable because it is different, and for the same reason no one should care about what Ken Ham says about humans coexisting with dinosaurs (despite being unintentionally accurate), and for the reason whenever Jaca pontificates on how he's correct in only buying TPs when he commands giga expansion everyone just ignores him. Having an opinion does not automatically make it valuable.

He also makes several presumptions about the media diets of the individuals he calls out... assumptions that are frankly not true. Dome may get frustrated with Globey (and I think the language barrier is a part of that), but his frustrations are echoed by several. Yet he shows deference to you and listens to your ideas, and you and he most certainly do not see eye-to-eye on many issues. Does Dome live in a bubble? By the very act of both traveling the world and engaging with you he demonstrates that the answer is "no."

(Also, to point out, I have regular arguments with a libertarian friend who links me to *shudders* Reason.com and also follow a very libertarian lawyer as he navigates the world of criminal justice, the law, and modern politics. Plus I get facebook notifications from crazies like Ryujin and he'd be the first to admit that I don't hold back on that account, PLUS that I'm usually read to make amends with some free pizza or a free burger. That's not even including the weird interactions I have with family and friends of family who have, shall we say, awkward ideas about politics that could be read as threats on my life.)

When engaging with people who disagree with you, you still have to be careful: Some are like Zwitter, hate-fueled trolls. Some are like Globey, oft-nonsensical and fact-immune. Both should be dismissed as soon as you realize that their net contributions to a discussion will be negative. You want to find the Antonin Scalias and the Sonia Sotomayors, the ones who disagree with you, are smarter than you, and who will sit down and work out step-by-step why you're wrong, who'll admit when you're right or have a point, but will never back down when they see you making a mistake in reasoning or fact.

Sometimes they do use harsh language, but compared to the pure applesauce of Globey's posts or the jiggery-pokery of Zwitter, you'll find them concise and polite.

[zombywoof]

Also:
TL/DR version.

[SumVeritas]

P1 and Zwitt can build that wall

[zombywoof]

Just click the damn link

[Globemaster_III]

Nix1 quote:

When
engaging with people who disagree with you, you still have to be careful: Some are like Zwitter, hate-fueled trolls. Some are like Globey, oft-nonsensical and fact-immune. Both should be dismissed as soon as you realize that their net contributions to a discussion will be negative. You want to find the Antonin Scalias and the Sonia Sotomayors, the ones who disagree with you, are smarter than you, and who will sit down and work out step-by-step why you're wrong, who'll admit when you're right or have a point, but will never back down when they see you making a mistake in reasoning or factuote :


As you all know, nix1 always claim that he is much smarter than i then why all the upset ?
maybe there is a reason why I pick on nix1 , doom were too easy to pick on, I also knew he were gonna use the ban stick
if you look at my skull, below it there a warn %
there is a reason why pooky leave it there and nix1, I just turn down +100k job for been stupid

[SumVeritas]

QUOTE (Globemaster_III @ Feb 23 2017, 12:05 PM) As you all know, nix1 always claim that he is much smarter than i then why all the upset ?
maybe there is a reason why I pick on nix1 , doom were too easy to pick on, I also knew he were gonna use the ban stick
if you look at my skull, below it there a warn %
there is a reason why pooky leave it there and nix1, I just turn down +100k job for been stupid

huh¿?
Paps, please, translate