I'm a lot like our beloved President, Mr. Donald Trump. I believe in fighting fire with fire A little hyperbole , a little fake news, to combat reams of it from the left , is more than justified. Hope you enjoyed that explanation.
So this is curiosity now, not critique. What is something from the regular media (left leaning to the point of WaPo, not Vox) that in your opinion rises to this level of easily disprovable by simply reading the referenced material (that wasn't retracted)?
Just a little gas (coal?) for the fire... How come the argument takes the form, global warming is false, therefore pollution is good, Q.E.D? I wouldn't have a good answer for that. But I'm sure Breitbart does (just don't source it!)
Lol, from the article and not even 3 paragraphs removed from each other: My bold. Soes, you're slacking...I was sure I'd have to actually look at sources to discredit the article. The author has kindly obliged and saved me the (distasteful) trouble. So, what is it? Is nobody denying a warming planet, or are they casting doubt on it. Doubting is not the equivalent of denying in a logical sense, but I'd think reconciling those two points would be contrived at the very least.
Back when I was a climate change denier (90s) we denied the climate was changing. There was a rather seminal point where a prominent study to show that the climate wasn't warming actually showed that it was and that team had the intellectual honestly to admit their hypothesis was wrong. Some of us, including them, shifted to accepting climate change as an issue. The dogmatic ones switched their stance to admitting that yes the climate is changing, but we can't prove it's caused by humans. That's where they sit now, and the Breitbart article was relatively consistent on that. They just fell down when it came to the actual papers they cited. The cigarette companies went through a similar shifting denial phase, I'm hoping that we all reach a science based acceptance on this too. Key to that is understanding how people like soes think, and I feel like I understand where he's coming from better now, so I'll count that a win for my own growth.
I am agnostic as to cause of warming, maybe it's man made gasses and maybe it's more a function of secular climate change which has and will change no matter what man does or even exist....or a combination. The problem I have with the hysteria surrounding the issue is it detracts from the larger issue of our destroying the planet on many fronts. The demagogues and hucksters and grant seekers have figured out how to benefit from global warming but have yet to figure an angle on global destruction which is accelerating.
This one genuinely baffles me. What's the end-game of discrediting someone whose (reasonably self-evident) argument is that pollution is bad? I mean did it become unamerican to leave your home a place that your children wanted to live? And I actually mean that...Living in Denver I see hoards of millennials moving in because they want walkable cities, clean streets, jobs with advancement potential, locally owned shops in their neighborhood, diverse culture... Everything that Trump decries in the changes in America are exactly the things his supporter's children want (and indeed, that's exactly what's driving the demographic shift that bringing this to a head). It's just so self-defeating.
Well read this thread (https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...-a-fresh-master-of-physics-grad.313837/page-5) which shines some light on it. There is a sizable portion of the over 40 crowd who are convinced that millennials are all buttercup snowflakes and have carved that into their political philosophy so it is very resistant to reason. So to them, the fact that millennials are moving to Denver for walkable cities, clean streets, jobs with advancement potential....is in and of itself a reason to be against all those things! On a broader "understanding others" perspective, there is a large potion of the right that feels they've been talked down to and been treated condescendingly by the left to the point that anything that makes the left upset is something they support. The support has little or nothing to do with the issue, it's almost entirely "this pisses off libtards so it's good", which in many cases I've heard people literally say. I'm not so sure reason will ever appeal to this type of attitude, but I'm not sure what the right answer is. I'd like to get back to having intelligent well meaning discussions about the actual policy, which not to pick on him but I think is possible with people like Soes at least.
I just picked a couple of papers at random and I am a little confused... The first section lists papers that suggest that greenhouse gas emissions are not the cause of rising temperatures (there are other proposed causes, e.g. specific seismic activity). The next section has some papers that suggest that batteries and renewables actually produce more greenhouse gases than traditional energy sources. I am not sure I get the logic here...