Independent journalist Abby Martin on climate change:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhe1FA4RvEM
Printable View
Independent journalist Abby Martin on climate change:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhe1FA4RvEM
Weill im sure if I see it on a hung angels post it has to be true because I believe most scientists start their search for knowledge here! Seriously if you want to change our footprint aka climate change get rid of every big city over 2 million that puts a stress on the planet meaning get rid of half of NYC Los Angeles Chicago Boston etc to move to Iowa Idaho s Dakota etc but you wont you know why? People in big cities wont they don't give a shit. Instead me wanting a spray deodorant instead of on a roll on is every fuckers business. That's why I laugh at climate change its political. And in serious science , scientists don't get caught making shit up. Its all about politics and money. Our coal is dirty lets not use it here instead sell it to the Chinese to burn and throw in the atmosphere at half of what we pay here!
Without any environmental standards streams would be polluted, drinking water would be toxic, and more greenhouse gases would be released into the atmosphere. The reason there is concern about using a deodorant with an aerosol delivery system is that many of these used to release cfcs into the atmosphere. CFCs are strong greenhouse gases, and the accumulation of them in our atmosphere increases global temperatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohioguy13
The point of good regulation is not to shutdown all commerce, but to avoid negative externalities. It is a negative externality when an individual enjoys the benefits of their consumption but does not bear the full costs. Nobody is suggesting that all urban centers be destroyed in order to avoid these negative externalities, only that incentive systems are in place to reduce the consumption of goods that are destructive to the environment.
Also, everyone knows the politics section is for discussion and not to create policy. There are several people on this board who are actually scientists (I am not among them). They are not taking their cues from what is written on this site, but expressing their views here. Be grateful and try to learn something.
lol so your saying I was right scientists do start here!!!
I think I said pretty clearly their views on climate change were not informed by this site. In other words, they do not believe greenhouse gases cause climate change simply because they read it here. However, several people with scientific backgrounds post on this site about subjects they already know a great deal about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohioguy13
You are the prototypical example of the type of proud ignorance and obscurantism the modern day GOP thrives on.
Overpopulation, overconsumption – in pictures:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...on-in-pictures
"Unchained Goddess" by Frank Capra from 1958...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg
Would you become a vegan to save the world?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzmUzSEcwyU
Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-u...ral-resources/
The Independent today publishes an article which cites research that comes close to establishing the role played by the acidification of the oceans in the obliteration of species, particularly marine animals, in past eras such as 'The Great Dying' at the end of the Permian and the onset of the Triassic periods. Steep rises in carbon emissions probably caused by volcanic eruptions are considered the primary cause, with the carbon element being the contemporary issue that raises questions as our own oceans record increases in acidification.
The article is here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-10165989.html
And more bad news on the climate front...
Exxon shareholders reject proposals to set goals for greenhouse gas emissions:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/...-gas-emissions
Fossil fuels subsidized by $10m a minute, says IMF:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...idies-says-imf
Is There an Inherent Contradiction?
Economic Growth and the Environment:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/...e-environment/
Explosive intervention by Pope Francis set to transform climate change debate:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-change-debate
SLAUGTHERHOUSES -- climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzi5t8qETGA
Pope Francis' New Climate Change Stance Will Enrage The Right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFmzJmXlgzU
Pope Francis warns of destruction of Earth's ecosystem in leaked encyclical:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...P=share_btn_tw
Pope Francis Is 'The Most Dangerous Person On The Planet'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMx0MlihzaQ
Rush Limbaugh: Pope's Stance On Climate Science Proves He's Marxist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaNJxlJmCD0
The document proves that he is a bigot like Archie Bunker.
Attachment 853325
But they are not as good as being parents as straight people.
You cannot have it both ways.
Pope Francis highlights the moral imperative of climate action:
http://www.c2es.org/blog/perciasepeb...climate-action
Pope’s climate letter is a radical attack on the logic of the market:
https://theconversation.com/popes-cl...e-market-43437
What Do the Pope and ‘The Martian’ Have in Common?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ommon_20150618
Pope Francis doesn't judge gay people. As he said: who am I to judge. But, yes, he has a very conservative point of view w/ respect to marriage. Which I disagree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerrrr
And, too, with respect to, say, abortion, well, people who are steadfastly opposed to abortion view it as murder.
I wonder if Ben is on holiday as we have not had a regular stream of updates in this thread?
In the meantime the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina has prompted some thoughtful studies of the way in which Louisiana, most notably its southern reaches in the Bayou, has been transformed, and probably not for the better. What is striking about both the BBC report linked below where it begins Louisiana's coastal wetlands are eroding - more than a football field of land is lost every hour. As the marsh erodes, homes, communities and the local Cajun culture are under threat...and the article linked below it from 2014, is the way in which both unravel the extent to which human interventions in the environment have at one time made life in this harsh environment sustainable, and at other times undermined the means that were used to make it sustainable.
Deciding to live in a wetland or marsh environment for most people would be too much of a risk, even if it has a reward for those who make it a success that can be measured in the daily fish catch (but the fish went awol a long time ago), and the freedom as described by Ms Hopkins (in the 2014 article) as she looks out of her window at a glorious sunset. To mitigate the risks, the levees, the dams, the re-routing of the rivers has in effect combined with the impact of hurricanes and BP's oil spill to tip the edge of sustainability perhaps too far to the irredeemable, so that whole way of life may be coming to an end. Someone I used to know suggested at the time that New Orleans should be left to sink into the sea; many of its former citizens -substantially Black Orleanois- now live in Texas; one hopes that Cajun culture will survive. The other interesting issue is how climate change in this instance is only one factor in the major changes that have affected these coastal communities, but others may want to think about living on the coast as a long term risk, rather than a reward because of those sunsets and sea views...
The Washing Away of Cajun Culture
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34053365
The BP Oil Spill and the End of Empire, Louisiana
http://southerncultures.org/files/20...-Empire-LA.pdf
One of the World’s Most Powerful Central Bankers Is Worried About Climate Change:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/up...?emc=eta1&_r=1
Yes Ben, because he is Canadian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Maybe we'll adapt and live underground, .."maybe we'll become like those future underground city dwellers from oh what's that Sci-Fi movie...... ,".+.. .Part of
Anthropocene ..
Exxon's climate lie: 'No corporation has ever done anything this big or bad':
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming
Closing paragraph of the Guardian article
But nonetheless it seems crucial simply to say, for the record, the truth: this company had the singular capacity to change the course of world history for the better and instead it changed that course for the infinitely worse. In its greed Exxon helped — more than any other institution — to kill our planet.
I hope we all don't end up living like mole people ,or be forced to be such. But I'm sure it's all part of a learning curve. It happened/ing to other worlds.(Thanks Evolutionary Theory)
Global warming could be more devastating for the economy than we thought:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...han-we-thought
Exxon’s Climate Concealment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/op...ment.html?_r=2
Wondering if we could sum up most threads here.
Yes - climate change will mean extinction of humans
No - God does not exist
No - guns will not be banned
Yes - Republican Party is full of nutters and arseholes
That about sums it all up
Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't a Republican. He claims to be one. But he's far too rational for the Republican Party. Wish he'd run (I know... he wasn't born in America... but neither was crazy Cruz) and thus add some sanity to the Republican Presidential bid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvcv7Ks5ybA
He is a republican from the 70s but the party now is jjust so extreme and controlled by incredible evangelicals and corporations. He doesn't fit in anymore
Yes. Agreed. The party has gone off the deep end. (And this is a party that started as a socialist party under Abraham Lincoln. They, originally, were against industrialization as posing a threat to their culture, they equated wage-slavery with actual slavery. Most people aren't aware of their origins. Understandably so.) And someone like Eisenhower would be way out on the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleigh
It's a party that wouldn't get any votes if people knew what they actually stood for. They're a party that is deeply committed to serving the super-rich. So, can't get any votes that way. So, you mobilize certain segments of the population: homophobes, Christians zealots, gun enthusiasts, anti-abortion activists etc., etc. That's how you get votes.
I mean, they couldn't be blatantly honest and say: we simply serve the super-rich... now vote for us -- LOL.
And the Democratic Party are moving in the same direction of simply serving the very rich... by embracing the core tenets of neo-liberalism. I mean, both parties embrace and support right-wing economic policies.
GOP Candidates Receive Failing Grades on Climate as 2015 Smashes Global Temperature Records:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3...rature-records
http://www.climatehustlemovie.com
Here's a stupid movie to watch