Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 08, 2018

It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures. Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C states that the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C. Going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years in 2030. To limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve "annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035. ... "Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW, IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, of Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

What happens if we don't act?

The researchers say that if we fail to keep temperatures below 1.5C, we are in for some significant and dangerous changes to our world.

You can kiss coral reefs good-bye, as the report says they would be essentially 100% wiped out at 2 degrees of warming.

Global sea-level will rise around 10 centimetres more if we let warming go to 2C, That may not sound like much but keeping to 1.5C means that 10 million fewer people would be exposed to the risks of flooding.

There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat.

"We are already in the danger zone at one degree of warming," said Kaisa Kosonen from Greenpeace.

"Both poles are melting at an accelerated rate; ancient trees that have been there for hundreds of years are suddenly dying; and the summer we've just experienced - basically, the whole world was on fire."

#1 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-10-08 06:32 AM | Reply

2.4 trillion? Do you know how many aircraft carriers we wouldn't be able to build if we spent that on some touchy feelly thing like the environment? Not going to happen you dirty tree hugger.

#2 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-10-08 07:14 AM | Reply

2.4 Trillion. Sure. Just have the worst polluters in the world pay for it. And that wouldnt be the United States.

Have at it. Make China, Pakistan, India and the other over populated crapholes come up with the cash. But we all know how THAT is going to go over..

#3 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-08 08:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And that wouldnt be the United States.

Your eye problem has turned into brain problem....

LookitTHAT!

en.wikipedia.org

#4 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-10-08 09:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

en.wikipedia.org

Piece of sh....

#5 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-10-08 09:08 AM | Reply

Ho hum. I've read and believed in environmental alarmist predictions since 1968, when I read Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. It reads like bad science fiction today. Utterly laughable, just like the hysterical predictions made at the first Earth Day in 1970, which I also believed at the time.

So my response to this is:

*yawn*

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-08 09:19 AM | Reply

"Have at it. Make China, Pakistan, India and the other over populated crapholes come up with the cash. But we all know how THAT is going to go over.."

When the temperature rises enough you will feel the consequences but you can be secure in the knowledge that we didn't spend any money to fix it....as you drown or starve. What is the downside to making changes Nulli? I remember 1970 also, I remember breathing air so filthy in Orange County, California that it was like smoking a pack a day. Today, it's relatively clean, I guess it was a big mistake to require automakers to reduce emissions. Whether you believe in global warming or not, cleaning up our environment benefits us every day. Preteding otherwise is just dumb. Clean coal my ass!

#7 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-08 10:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Whether you believe in global warming or not, cleaning up our environment benefits us every day.

I grew up in smoggy southern california. It's better now, but that's a separate issue from catastrophic global warming. MMGW I believe in; catastrophic, end-of-civilization warming that requires a State takeover of the economy and punishing energy prices that hurt the poor much more than the white middle/upper class activists, not so much.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-08 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Whether you believe in global warming or not, cleaning up our environment benefits us every day

I completely agree with this. I also think MMGW alarmists are undermining the message in the same way Avenatti undermined the case against Kavanaugh.

#9 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-08 10:36 AM | Reply

The problem is that much research shows that facts just bounce off of people who have their mind made up. Add in the Russian trolls and you'll see plenty of examples here.

The Greenhouse effect was identified and CO2 determined to be the cause in 1823. Not 1923, that's 1823. People who try to deny MMGW might as well try to deny the steam engine. 1823 is about when we started to figure out how that works.

#10 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2018-10-08 11:48 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I grew up in smoggy southern california. It's better now, but that's a separate issue from catastrophic global warming. MMGW I believe in; catastrophic, end-of-civilization warming that requires a State takeover of the economy and punishing energy prices that hurt the poor much more than the white middle/upper class activists, not so much.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-08 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:
| Newsworthy 1

And mandating airbags and seat belts destroyed the auto industry. I mean, they said the "state takeover" forcing those safety devices was going to drive prices so high no one would buy cars anymore, so it must have happened, right? Safety is now the one of the top selling points for vehicles in the US, so maybe the fears were overblown. Banning smoking in bars was going to drive bars out of business, except bars did better business afterwards.

The improvements to smoggy Southern California is not a separate issue from catastrophic global warming. The same arguments were made against the mandating of catalytic converters, lower emission of NOx and SO2, and better fuel mileage. They were all going to destroy the economy, except they didn't. A "state takeover of the economy" is a boogeyman, and not what people are actually calling for. Sensible regulation that forces the industries that create the pollution to carry the cost of those externalities is making the economy work to produce the solution, instead of privatizing the profits and socializing the costs like we have now.

By the way, the poor are also hurt the most by that pollution and its long-term health consequences, so let's figure out which cost we as a society thinks is more appropriate to pay. "[W]hite middle/upper class activists" don't suffer from black lung and don't live near the streams polluted by coal ash. How do we, as a society, make it so the costs aren't borne mostly by the poor? Doing nothing isn't solving that problem, so tell me what your solution is.

#11 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2018-10-08 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#6 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Do tell us the environmental theories you have seen come and go.

The only big one I've seen is the Ozone layer. But we moved on that and stopped it from getting worse.

Other than that, the predictions on global warming have been pretty accurate. Sea levels are rising fast. The world is hotter on average every year. The polar ice caps and glaciers are melting. Storms are getting worse.

And we know CO2 levels are way way way up. We know they cause the Earth to warm up. We know the CO2 levels are rising because of humans.

And we know they are rising 100,000 times faster than ever before.

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-08 12:07 PM | Reply

climate.nasa.gov

#13 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-08 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It's hilarious having to pay attention to these scientists. "Listen to us!!! Our conclusions are perfect and based off of real science!!!" Then a year later "We changed our conclusions but they are still perfect and based off real science so you have to listen to us!"

The IPCC has changed their conclusions many times over since 2003. They claim it's based on better measurements and more accurate readings. Yet, when other scientists come out with valid conclusions that prove there are flaws in their information and conclusions, they go nuts and say those people can't be trusted and everything they do is wrong. "Peer-review" is becoming another ad word used by whoever is trying to sell the product.

#14 | Posted by humtake at 2018-10-08 12:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Do tell us the environmental theories you have seen come and go.

Here's just a short sample.

www.dailysignal.com

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-08 12:11 PM | Reply

It's hilarious having to pay attention to these scientists. "Listen to us!!! Our conclusions are perfect and based off of real science!!!" Then a year later "We changed our conclusions but they are still perfect and based off real science so you have to listen to us!"

The IPCC has changed their conclusions many times over since 2003. They claim it's based on better measurements and more accurate readings. Yet, when other scientists come out with valid conclusions that prove there are flaws in their information and conclusions, they go nuts and say those people can't be trusted and everything they do is wrong. "Peer-review" is becoming another ad word used by whoever is trying to sell the product.

#14 | Posted by humtake at 2018-10-08 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not one actual scientist has ever said "Our conclusions are perfect". Ever.

The rest of your rant is equally vapid projection. No scientist "goes nuts" when a fellow scientist comes out with valid conclusions that prove there are flaws in their information and conclusions. When valid information is brought forward, it is evaluated and used to improve the conclusions. Then again, doing that just proves they were "wrong" and shouldn't be trusted according to you. Change the conclusions based on valid data - "Ha! They were wrong, see!". Point out the criticism wasn't correct "Ha! They don't accept valid criticism!" Convenient for you and those who just want to sow doubt.

The conclusion have changed, but not by a lot each year. I think it's a good time to bring out Isaac Asimov's article about

#16 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2018-10-08 01:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The last comment got cut-off somehow.

Isaac Asimov's article about the "Relativity of Wrong". Read it and comprehend it before bringing out the "Scientists were wrong before so don't believe them now!" nonsense.

#17 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2018-10-08 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"MMGW I believe in; catastrophic, end-of-civilization warming that requires a State takeover of the economy and punishing energy prices that hurt the poor much more than the white middle/upper class activists, not so much."

State takeover of the economy?
Which proposal is that?

"energy prices that hurt the poor much more than the white middle/upper class"

Energy prices already do that.

A fair reckoning would weigh the pros and cons of any energy price adjustments with the projected impact and change on global warming.

You're pulling a page from Sheeple's book where you say you believe the accusation, but you just don't want to do anything about it.

In other words, you know, you just don't care.

Like with that Southern California smog you grew up with and California got rid of through strict emissions standards. Do you support Trump's EPA plans to end California's right to set California's own standards?

See, you know, you just don't care.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-08 01:41 PM | Reply

--Do tell us the environmental theories you have seen come and go.
Here's just a short sample.
www.dailysignal.com

#15 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

That's great. You have a list of theories put forth by a scientist or two. They don't really have scientific consensus, numerous studies over decades, or even rigorous testing.

Now try some that have these things and we can talk. Otherwise, you literally just proved Global Warming is different and should be taken seriously.

#19 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-08 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

El Cóndor Pasa

The last time I heard this song was on a hot summer day while driving a Ford small block V8 up and down the Great River Road (Route 3 - Illinois).
Now, I don't own a car but ride two different electric assist bikes up and down any bike path or road shoulder and everywhere else I can including Amtrak-ing a bike across the US for touring.
There's still hope....
www.youtube.com

#20 | Posted by ajwood at 2018-10-08 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

2.4 Trillion. Sure. Just have the worst polluters in the world pay for it. And that wouldnt be the United States.

#3 | Posted by boaz

God I love it when you post proof of your stupidity like that. Keep em coming.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-08 02:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The IPCC has changed their conclusions many times over since 2003. They claim it's based on better measurements and more accurate readings. Yet, when other scientists come out with valid conclusions that prove there are flaws in their information and conclusions, they go nuts and say those people can't be trusted and everything they do is wrong. "Peer-review" is becoming another ad word used by whoever is trying to sell the product.

#14 | Posted by humtake

They have not changed their conclusion that POLLUTION IS BAD. What changes are they get better numbers through further study.

Yet the puppet's with polluter's hands up their asses like you say "see they don't know everything therefore how do we even know pollution is bad?"

We can't eat fish from the ocean anymore because there's too much mercury in it.

Yet you morons are trying to act like we need further study.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-08 02:36 PM | Reply

Give me a sign! Like that perfectly naturally occurring pentagram the planes made in the sky four weeks ago.

#23 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-10-08 04:20 PM | Reply

It doesn't matter how many Paris Treaties are signed during Black Tie galas over cocktails.

You'll never get China or the third world to stop burning coal, pallets, tires, and whole cars.

All of you virtue signal whores just want to ship it overseas with the sweatshops you refuse to look at. Posers.

#24 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-08 06:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Rolling Coal : www.livescience.com

#25 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-08 06:19 PM | Reply

"You'll never get China or the third world to stop burning coal, pallets, tires, and whole cars."

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Taking our figures from the Global Wind EnergyCouncil, we have formed the following list of 8 countries that produce the most wind energy in the world.

France. Cumulative installed wind powercapacity: 10,358 megawatts. ...Canada. ...United Kingdom. ...Spain. ...India. ...Germany. ...The United States of America. ...China.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-08 09:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This will be something like the tenth "tipping point" that we've passed.

#27 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-10-09 08:44 AM | Reply

The left just doesn't realize it but the biggest thing keeping people from taking climate change seriously is constant histrionic predictions. Like cultists making doomsday predictions, the 30 year history of failed climate apocalyptic prognostications only hurts their cause.

#28 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-10-09 08:48 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

--is constant histrionic predictions.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past – Environment – The Independent

By Charles Onians – Monday 20 March 2000

President Obama ‘has four years to save Earth.'

-- The London Guardian, January 17, 2009.

#29 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 09:32 AM | Reply

snoofy,

I like wind, I work with those folks. But 10,358m is really nothing. it helps, but Wind really doesn't add much to the grid

#30 | Posted by Maverick at 2018-10-09 09:58 AM | Reply

Or we can continue to terraform our planet into New Mars.

Just keep burning down those forests and jungles to clear land for more fat cattle and desertification.

Keep burning that dead ---- of old scrounged from the ground and using our air and waters as the global toilet.

Soon, we won't have to leave Earth to visit Mars.

WINNING

#31 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-10-09 10:00 AM | Reply

"10,358m is really nothing"

10 358m here, 10,358m there, pretty soon youre talking real energy.

"A safe number for an industrialized city of 1M would be 10,000 MWh." Sonebody's got to go first. Once upon a time, technological leadership was an American value. But nowadays peoole like you vot for the comfort of the back seat. Let China and Russia drive this century.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 12:46 PM | Reply

--is constant histrionic predictions.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past – Environment – The Independent
By Charles Onians – Monday 20 March 2000
President Obama ‘has four years to save Earth.'
-- The London Guardian, January 17, 2009.

#29 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Still quoting one scientist in an article and pretending they represent all of science? Interesting ploy. Should I do the same for Roy Moore representing all of the GOP?

By the way, the second article seems to be right. We needed to start reducing emissions during Obama's first turn to stop from hitting the tipping point. We didn't.

You should try reading the articles and you'd sound less like an idiot.

#33 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 02:33 PM | Reply

Umm... the idiots ARE acting now.

That is why we are in trouble. It was all a big act for power.

And America fell for it.

They've got the Powa!

And they will use that Powa to hold on to me that Powa by any means necessary.

That is how extremists act.

They cannot help themselves.

#34 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-10-09 02:37 PM | Reply

To hold on to Powa...not "me". Thx siri

😂

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-10-09 02:38 PM | Reply

Here's what I mean by scientific consensus. UN report indicates coral reef die off and food shortages by 2040 as the Earth warms about 2.7 degrees from CO2 emissions.
9,000 scientists. 6,000 independent studies.

On the other side, we have Nulli and President Trump with their study called, "I disagree."

#36 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 02:42 PM | Reply

-- food shortages by 2040

Paul Ehrlich said that would happen in the 70s and you leftwing environmentalists treated it like gospel truth. And today always-wrong-Ehrlich is still listened to and treated like a hero.

#37 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 02:48 PM | Reply

Happy extinction!

You've earned it. - The late Zatoichi

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-09 02:52 PM | Reply

Better hope this study is wrong because there is no way we're willing to do what they say is necessary. Even Algore will have to reduce his carbon footprint, buying indulgences won't be enough.

#39 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-10-09 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Paul Ehrlich said that would happen in the 70s and you leftwing environmentalists treated it like gospel truth.
#37 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN"

This might be a good time to review the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

At the end of the story, did the wolf really come or not?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 02:56 PM | Reply

--You should try reading the articles and you'd sound less like an idiot.

You're the idiot. I actually attended the first Earth Day events in 1970. I've seen all of the hysterical predictions come to naught. What was said then is the same as now: Time is running out! We have only 10 years to save humanity!

#41 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 02:58 PM | Reply

"--You should try reading the articles and you'd sound less like an idiot."

You're the idiot.

#41 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

"No you're the puppet." Sounds like the ----- doesn't fall far from the dotard.

#42 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-09 03:05 PM | Reply

-- food shortages by 2040
Paul Ehrlich said that would happen in the 70s and you leftwing environmentalists treated it like gospel truth. And today always-wrong-Ehrlich is still listened to and treated like a hero.

#37 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

One scientist? You are saying ONE scientist said this in the 70's even though everyone else disagreed and that means the entire scientific community can't be trusted?

How stupid are your posts? Its the same thing over and over again. "Well, one scientist was wrong therefore all scientists are wrong!"

Why post such garbage?

#43 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:13 PM | Reply

You're the idiot. I actually attended the first Earth Day events in 1970. I've seen all of the hysterical predictions come to naught. What was said then is the same as now: Time is running out! We have only 10 years to save humanity!

#41 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Well they were close when it came to the Ozone actually... Thankfully we trusted science back then and stopped depleting the ozone with CFCs.

Oh sorry, you were trying to show science was wrong about something? Please try again.

#44 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:16 PM | Reply

"Meteorologist Eric Holthaus wrote on Twitter this morning that "The world's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet." He said that as en endorsement of the latest UN climate report, which Grist claims "shows civilization is at stake" if we don't... bring Western Civilization to an end.

Funny how the Left's goals always seem to come to that, isn't it?

Never have any doubt what their end-game is, fully revealed again today: The sacrifice of human liberty, wherever it can be found, on the altar of "scientific statism." "

pjmedia.com

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 03:16 PM | Reply

Sycophant,

The problem isn't so much the scientists but the pundits.

Inconvenient Truth was treated as a serious and scientific piece of work.

Any study that produces catastrophic results gets hyped to the nth degree.

When catastrophic predictions fail to materialize, it's all ho-hum nothing to see here.

The problem with the AGW theory isn't so much with the theory itself but that it's been politicized to an absurd degree.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-09 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jeff,

you can't ask folks who don't understand science to stick to the science and stay away from the pundits. The politics is all they are interested in.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-09 03:23 PM | Reply

"Meteorologist Eric Holthaus wrote on Twitter this morning that "The world's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet." He said that as en endorsement of the latest UN climate report, which Grist claims "shows civilization is at stake" if we don't... bring Western Civilization to an end.

#45 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Great deflection. When no scientist will back you up...talk about how the results mean you might have to do things you dislike!

But lets see...

I have a million scientists on one side, 100,000's of studies, mountains of visible evidence, and even a planet to compare CO2 levels to with their effects to.

On the other side, I have Nulli saying, "No. I don't believe it."

Gosh, this one is such a toss up...

#48 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:24 PM | Reply

The problem with the AGW theory isn't so much with the theory itself but that it's been politicized to an absurd degree.

#46 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Whose fault was that? CFC and the Ozone wasn't a political issue because Republicans didn't go to war against scientists to protect industries using CFCs. They did with oil.

Don't blame the Democrats for telling you we need to do something. That's not political. It's fact.

#49 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:25 PM | Reply

-On the other side, I have Nulli saying, "No. I don't believe it."

actually, we have sycophant who can't argue so they resort to assigning a position that doesn't exist so you can feel better about yourself.

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-09 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

True, Ebs.

Don't blame the Democrats for telling you we need to do something. That's not political. It's fact.

#49 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Have you witnessed discussions on this site about what to do about it?

Any suggestions that don't conform to LW orthodoxy of massively growing government as the solution get shouted down.

It's almost impossible to have a rational discussion about this issue on this site, or in public in general.

If you don't buy into the lefty 'solutions' you are a "denier".

I've seen it play out too many times and have participated in such 'discussions' too many times.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-09 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--9,000 scientists.

--I have a million scientists on one side,

Same poster less than an hour apart. It's like a fish story; the fish gets bigger with each retelling.

#52 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 03:30 PM | Reply

-On the other side, I have Nulli saying, "No. I don't believe it."
actually, we have sycophant who can't argue so they resort to assigning a position that doesn't exist so you can feel better about yourself.

#50 | POSTED BY EBERLY

No. That's a correct clarification of his position. No evidence. No argument. Just "One scientist said something crazy and was wrong, therefore this is wrong."

Maybe you have a more cogent defense?

#53 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:30 PM | Reply

--9,000 scientists.
--I have a million scientists on one side,
Same poster less than an hour apart. It's like a fish story; the fish gets bigger with each retelling.

#52 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

9,000 refers to the scientists involved with the UN Report.

A million refers to the overall world consensus among scientists.

Is lying all you have left?

#54 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:31 PM | Reply

--6,000 independent studies.

-100,000's of studies

Same poster.

#55 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 03:32 PM | Reply

Have you witnessed discussions on this site about what to do about it?
Any suggestions that don't conform to LW orthodoxy of massively growing government as the solution get shouted down.
It's almost impossible to have a rational discussion about this issue on this site, or in public in general.
If you don't buy into the lefty 'solutions' you are a "denier".
I've seen it play out too many times and have participated in such 'discussions' too many times.

#51 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yes.

The Right has said do nothing. It's not happening. There has been no real statement about what to do on the Right.

And unfortunately, there aren't many solutions other than prepare for the worst, cut emissions, and invest in carbon collector technology.

#56 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:32 PM | Reply

--6,000 independent studies.

-100,000's of studies
Same poster.

#55 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

No wonder you don't understand. You can't read!

6,000 studies is what the UN Report was based upon.

100,000 is the sheer volume of studies on climate change over the years.

If you are too slow to keep up, why bother coming here at all?

#57 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:33 PM | Reply

Look, you disbelieve climate change caused by CO2 emissions?

Fine. Give me one alternative backed by at least 5% of the scientific community.

I'll give you a hint: There isn't one.

#58 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:35 PM | Reply

--Just "One scientist said something crazy and was wrong, therefore this is wrong."

No. All you have is caricature. Thousands of scientists and hundreds of environmental organizations and thousands of media pundits and millions of activists.

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 03:36 PM | Reply

Give me one alternative backed by at least 5% of the scientific community.
#58 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I'll check back in an hour to see if you have one. Or if you have a reason we should just ignore the scientific community entirely and say it isn't happening.

#60 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:37 PM | Reply

-"One scientist said something crazy and was wrong, therefore this is wrong."

you know what... ... ...you just keep posting stuff like that.

I'll just watch.

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-09 03:37 PM | Reply

No. All you have is caricature. Thousands of scientists and hundreds of environmental organizations and thousands of media pundits and millions of activists.

#59 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

And you have....you. And that's it.

I'll await your genius response to #60.

#62 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 03:38 PM | Reply

--Look, you disbelieve climate change caused by CO2 emissions?

You're flailing and failing. I said in my first post I believe in MMGW. What I don't believe is that we should base policy on the most extreme predictions like collapse in 20 years. And the more sane and sober predictions of a one foot rise in sea levels by 2100 don't justify the draconian measures proposed that will hurt people in 2018.

#63 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 03:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Have you witnessed discussions on this site about what to do about it?"

Discussion? I have not witnessed that.
The right doesn't discuss what to do about it.
Instead, they discuss why not to do anything about it.
Reasons like "it will hurt the poor."
Reasons like "it will only reduce warming a little bit."
Reasons like "if China doesn't lead on this isssue why should anyone else?"

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 03:43 PM | Reply

"Look, you disbelieve climate change caused by CO2 emissions?

Fine."

see? asked and answered. you have assign the position in order to discuss.

#65 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-09 03:44 PM | Reply

-If you don't buy into the lefty 'solutions' you are a "denier".

NW

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-09 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#64 is a classic case in point.

Solutions other than massive growth of government are always dismissed or shouted down.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-09 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Taking an approach to this issue the way the link below sends the left into a complete meltdown.

www.copenhagenconsensus.com

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-09 03:48 PM | Reply

"And the more sane and sober predictions of a one foot rise in sea levels by 2100"

"Sane and sober"

"One foot rise"

Almost forgot: Right-wingers consistently seek to downplay the magniture of the problem and accuse anyone who says otherwise as being hysterical.

"Predictions for sea-level rise over the next 40 years show significant increases in sea level by 2060, likely between 13 and 34 inches. But beyond 40 years from now, the level of uncertainty is too high to know how much rise to expect, Gilbert said."
www.businessinsider.com

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 03:54 PM | Reply

--Solutions other than massive growth of government are always dismissed or shouted down.

The solution to poverty? Abolish capitalism. Inequality? Abolish capitalism. Social injustice of any kind? Abolish capitalism. The neat thing about catastrophic global warming is it provides a scientific, rather than purely moral justification for the permanent goal of the left for over a century: Abolish capitalism

#70 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If you don't buy into the lefty 'solutions' you are a "denier".
NW"

"If you believe the science and think there is a problem heading our way then you are a gay Prius driving Smug farting Liberal. I roll my beautiful clean coal smoke in your general direction!"

NW!

#71 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-10-09 03:57 PM | Reply

"Solutions other than massive growth of government are always dismissed or shouted down.
#67 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Which solutions ate the ones that "demand massive growth of government?"

That just means a tax, right?

You're just being hysterical, right?

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 03:58 PM | Reply

---If you don't buy into the lefty 'solutions' you are a "denier".

NW
#66 | Posted by eberly

What's really dishonest about that phrase is that it equates anyone who doesn't buy in to the worst case predictions with holocaust deniers. That's why they started using that phrase. It's ad hominem, pure and simple.

#73 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 04:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"At the end of the story, did the wolf really come or not?" Snoofy.

THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT. Nobody believed him because of the previous histrionics.

#74 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-10-09 04:06 PM | Reply

-That's why they started using that phrase. It's ad hominem, pure and simple.

Yes. Of course, they fail to understand that it doesn't advance the cause.

People that have questions and concerns can still be believers (or whatever you want to call them)

#75 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-09 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're flailing and failing. I said in my first post I believe in MMGW. What I don't believe is that we should base policy on the most extreme predictions like collapse in 20 years. And the more sane and sober predictions of a one foot rise in sea levels by 2100 don't justify the draconian measures proposed that will hurt people in 2018.

#63 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Ah good. So it's not IF we are screwed, but WHEN?

And because it's down the road farther than the majority of predictions, no reason to worry, right?

So if a group of doctors tells you that you have cancer but disagree on how long you can last without treating it, you'll choose to believe the one who gives you the longest time before treatment? Interesting gamble to take.

#76 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-09 04:25 PM | Reply

What's really dishonest about that phrase is that it equates anyone who doesn't buy in to the worst case predictions with holocaust deniers. That's why they started using that phrase. It's ad hominem, pure and simple.
#73 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

What would you rather people who deny the existence of global warming be called? Idiots?

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-09 04:36 PM | Reply

"And the more sane and sober predictions of a one foot rise in sea levels by 2100 don't justify the draconian measures proposed that will hurt people in 2018."

Why does it make sense to assume the best case scenario will obtain and be caught with our pants down if it turns out to be worse than that?

#78 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-10-09 04:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Nulli is right. the flailing is epic.

#79 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-09 04:45 PM | Reply

--What would you rather people who deny the existence of global warming be called? Idiots?

Why don't you call them "scum" like you always do?

#80 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 05:01 PM | Reply

Ok. Thanks.

#81 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-09 05:28 PM | Reply

"At the end of the story, did the wolf really come or not?" Snoofy.
THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT. Nobody believed him because of the previous histrionics.
POSTED BY JAMESGELLIOTT

^
You're so close to getting it!

Did the villagers make the right decision or the wrong decision, when the wolf actually came?

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 05:30 PM | Reply

"The solution to poverty? Abolish capitalism. Inequality? Abolish capitalism. Social injustice of any kind? Abolish capitalism. The neat thing about catastrophic global warming is it provides a scientific, rather than purely moral justification for the permanent goal of the left for over a century: Abolish capitalism
#70 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN"

Nulli puts a new twist on an old tale.
Now it's "The Boy Who Cried Capitalism."

The discussion about why you guys won't participate in the discussion is quite revealing: You're all hysterical and given in to fear. It's difficult for anyone to be rational under those circumstances, but you've got to try to keep your wits about you.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 05:35 PM | Reply

Did the villagers make the right decision or the wrong decision, when the wolf actually came?
#82 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

If only the villagers had paid Al Gore's Wolf Tax!

#84 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-09 05:39 PM | Reply

If we dont act soon the forests of pakistan will start to see forest fires that dont end for months.

#85 | Posted by Tor at 2018-10-09 05:41 PM | Reply

--Why does it make sense to assume the best case scenario will obtain and be caught with our pants down if it turns out to be worse than that?

The horrible record of environmentalist predictions since 1970, especially worst-case scenarios.

The likelihood of technological breakthroughs in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and carbon sequestration in the coming decades which will obviate the need for draconian, statist measures.

The immorality of punishing existing families and reducing their standards of living based on nebulous predictions of what may or may not happen by 2100.

#86 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 05:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Why does it make sense to assume the best case scenario will obtain and be caught with our pants down if it turns out to be worse than that?

The horrible record of environmentalist predictions since 1970, especially worst-case scenarios.

The likelihood of technological breakthroughs in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and carbon sequestration in the coming decades which will obviate the need for draconian, statist measures.

The immorality of punishing existing families and reducing their standards of living based on nebulous predictions of what may or may not happen by 2100.

#86 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-10-09 05:45 PM

Bears repeating.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-09 05:49 PM | Reply

And one more. I'll treat the problem as serious when environmental activists give up their private jets and mansions and reduce their carbon footprints to the level of an average American family.

#88 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 05:57 PM | Reply

The likelihood of technological breakthroughs

Are those breakthroughs not made more likely by government investment in thise areas, in addition to what the private sector is doing?

I'll treat the problem as serious when environmental activists give up their private jets and mansions

You taught me what a tu quoque fallacy was ten tears ago. Guess it's time to brush up on that?

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-09 06:03 PM | Reply

"The likelihood of technological breakthroughs"

Technological breakthroughs are how and why humans are warming the globe in the first place.

Given that fact, looking to technology to remedy the problems caused by technology is like trying to cure your hangover by having more of the alcohol that gave you a hangover in the first place.

Also, it's a great way to say it's up to some eggheads to solve the problem. Which conveniently absolves you of personal responsibility for your use and enjoyment of the globe-warming technology. So you're welcoming of an as of yet nonexistent technological solution, but when faced with current actionable governmental solutions, you reject them out of hand and not because they wouldn't work but because they are not compatible with a hastily cobbled together concern for the poor; a concern that has never once examined the impact on the poor of doing nothing to stem climate change.

To sum up, your position is an intellectual fraud.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 06:03 PM | Reply

Probably closer to fifteen now that i think about it. Damn.

#91 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-09 06:03 PM | Reply

"I'll treat the problem as serious when...
POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN"

^
This is the "bargaining" stage of the Kübler-Ross stages of grief model.

Which is a self-inflicted intellectual deceit.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 06:06 PM | Reply

--You taught me what a tu quoque fallacy was ten tears ago. Guess it's time to brush up on that?

Nope. Calling out hypocrisy is not a fallacy. Claiming they are wrong because they have private jets is.

#93 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 06:08 PM | Reply

So they aren't wrong for the reason you cited, you just want to bash their character. Got it.

#94 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-09 06:12 PM | Reply

- a self-inflicted intellectual deceit.

That's actually on his resume... it's considered a plus in rwing circles.

One of the stupidest memes ever to escape a rwinger's mouth is that because Al Gore flies in jets, he can't be taken seriously on climate change.

Al Gore's Carbon Footprint Doesn't Matter
Conservatives say environmentalists are hypocrites if they consume more energy than the average American. It's a deceitful, disingenuous argument.

newrepublic.com

Posted here by our most deceitful, disingenuous troll of a poster.

#95 | Posted by Corky at 2018-10-09 06:27 PM | Reply

Al Gore's Carbon Footprint Doesn't Matter
#95 | POSTED BY CORKY

HAHAhaha. "Do as I say, not as I do!"

Corky throws himself onto the tarmac to protect Gore's private pollution machine.

Maybe Al will let you serve cocktails on the flight. poser.

#96 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-09 06:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Calling out hypocrisy is not a fallacy."

^
Thats's incorrect, but more importantly, its the type of conversational gambit people make when they don't want to discuss any steps we might take to remediate and mitigate the risk and harm of global warming.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 06:33 PM | Reply

- when they don't want to discuss any steps we might take to remediate and mitigate the risk and harm of global warming.

Stop flying private jets to GW luxury resort conferences and black tie galas, for starters.

#98 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-09 06:37 PM | Reply

"Leonardo DiCaprio Flew an Eyebrow Artist 7,500 Miles for the Oscars"

Yeah, people should reduce their living stnndards because he said so.

They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

#99 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 06:39 PM | Reply

"They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk."

Kinda like when those slave-owning liberals wrote the Declaration of Independence proclaiming that "All Men Are Created Equal."

Does their shortcoming make you want to do better at walking the walk? Strive for a More Perfect Union?

Or are you not going to try and walk the walk, because liberals suck at it, and you're no better than liberals.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 06:51 PM | Reply

What about slavery!

lol

#101 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 06:55 PM | Reply

The Framers are Posers!

#102 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-09 06:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What's really dishonest about that phrase is that it equates anyone who doesn't buy in to the worst case predictions with holocaust deniers."

Since you brought it up, there's a lot of overlap in the mindset of climate deniers and Holocaust deniers.

In both cases, they argue the "consensus" is an orchestrated deception by the elites to serve their own elite purposes, at everyone else's expense.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 07:03 PM | Reply

"The Framers are Posers!"

Jefferson paraded Sally Hemings around like prize winning poodle.

Then again, it did say all men are created equal. Nothing about women!

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 07:06 PM | Reply

--Jefferson paraded...

When is your team going to start tearing down Jefferson statues and renaming schools?

#105 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-09 07:17 PM | Reply

Nullifidian, whatever it takes for you to not take global warming seriously, I'm sure liberals have already given you a lifetime supply.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 07:23 PM | Reply

Nazi George Washington and his Alt-right brownshirt Jefferson burned coal and deforested Virginia!

#107 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-09 07:29 PM | Reply

This thread is a nice example of why there is no dialogue, and no action; at least from the right.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 08:54 PM | Reply

SNOOFY

who established the EPA?

the Right has always been about alternative energy. The Left has done a great job painting the Right as the opposite

#109 | Posted by Maverick at 2018-10-09 09:17 PM | Reply

109: Which alternative energies do you think the Right favors?

#110 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2018-10-09 09:22 PM | Reply

- Which alternative energies do you think the Right favors?
#110 | POSTED BY WOE_IS_W

Which alternatives energies are green, efficient, cost effective, scalable, reproducible, realistic

to power entire cities and regions? Here in Utah, we have giant wind turbines and fields of solar panels,

and they're just not producing enough to power much more than a neighborhood. especially once you factor in loss/leakage of cable.

#111 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-09 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"the Right has always been about alternative energy. The Left has done a great job painting the Right as the opposite."

Is that why Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House, and Ronald Reagan took them off?

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-09 09:34 PM | Reply

I've read and believed in environmental alarmist predictions since 1968, when I read Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb.

We really dont know if Ehrlich was right or not. While he was writing that book Norman Borlaug's tests were still in development. Science came to the rescue. We tripled wheat and rice production by 1975 and around a billion less people starved.

Just to be clear, your "argument" is that a prediction in 1968 didn't come true therefore predictions are useless?

#113 | Posted by BluSky at 2018-10-10 01:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Climate Change isn't going to be solved, it will be engineered over time. That's what we do as a species. We will build ----- and raise buildings and all the other things people smarter than me will think of. Some of the consequences we will learn to live with, some we will reverse, some will get worse and handed off to the next generation to figure out. At no point are we going to collectively spend 2.4 zillion dollars. That's not even a pipe dream and putting numbers like that in a paper seems like a poison pill to be quickly swallowed by the right. If you are trying to convince conservatives you dont tell them how much something cost, you tell them how much it will save them (in cash not lives).

Assuming we can't engineer our way out of this mess, we will be among the last to go. It will be us, cockroaches, crows, ants and spider mites. Even after we eat all the roaches and crows there will remain a considerable population of lunkheads wondering what the fuss is all about.

#114 | Posted by BluSky at 2018-10-10 03:26 AM | Reply

111: Was that supposed to be an answer to my question in 110?

#115 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2018-10-10 09:54 AM | Reply

"At the end of the story, did the wolf really come or not?" Snoofy.
THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT. Nobody believed him because of the previous histrionics.
POSTED BY JAMESGELLIOTT
^
You're so close to getting it!
Did the villagers make the right decision or the wrong decision, when the wolf actually came?,

Snoofy, many times you have you don't have the intelligence to understand common analogies. Since YOU brought up the story of the boy who cried wolf answer this....WHY DIDN'T THE VILLAGERS RESPOND WHEN THE WOLF ACTUALLY APPEARED.

#116 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-10-10 06:15 PM | Reply

From your history on DR, I know you'll either ignore the post, give an reply that has nothing to do with the question or post something that proves you just don't understand analogies.

#117 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-10-10 06:18 PM | Reply

"WHY DIDN'T THE VILLAGERS RESPOND WHEN THE WOLF ACTUALLY APPEARED.
POSTED BY JAMESGELLIOTT"

Because their PRIDE AND KNOW-IT-ALL ATTITUDE LED THEM TO MAKE THE WRONG DECISION.

They failed to heed common and legally required investment advice that everybody today knows: "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns."

Let's also consider how stupid these villagers are, by pinning their livestock security on a boy.

Probably would have made more sense to put a wolf biologist into that role. Sort of like we have climate scientists, not children, studying the problem of climate change.

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 06:22 PM | Reply

As you understand the analogy, its to educate little boys about the consequence of telling lies. The consequence is when you are telling the truth, nobody believes you.

But there's lessons for other players in the story.

There's also the part where for this analogy to work, you don't think the climate scientists were merely mistaken in the past, but rather they deliberately lied to manipulate us. Is that what you think?

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 06:27 PM | Reply

But there's lessons for other players in the story.
#119 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Is it the strawman? ...is it? I love it when he appears.

I feel like he's near. Like he's somewhere in #119

#120 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 06:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Snoofy, you again proved yourself unable to comprehend the meaning of parables and famous quotes.

I've never said I doubted climate change, only that histrionic prediction have a negative effect even if there is a grain of truth.

Just like I predicted, you just aren't smart enough to understand the true meaning of parables and quotes.

#121 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-10-10 08:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've never said I doubted climate change, only that histrionic prediction have a negative effect even if there is a grain of truth.

#121 | Posted by jamesgelliott

That's quite an indictment of conservatives. It translates to: If you're upset about something important, we can't handle it so we're not going to listen, even if it gets a ton of people killed.

Not only do you demand irrefutable facts and proof to listen to scientists, you need it presented in just the right way. You have to be fed information like babies are fed mashed vegetables "Open up... here comes the airplane!....Good boy!"

#122 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-10 09:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

- we're not going to listen, even if it gets a ton of people killed.
#122 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That could almost be a quote by HRC discussing Libya.

#123 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 09:08 PM | Reply

That could almost be a quote by HRC discussing Libya.

#123 | Posted by SheepleSchism

haha leave it to the dumbest russian on the site to deflect from republican climate change stupidity to hillary and libya.

#124 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-10 09:10 PM | Reply

"Snoofy, you again proved yourself unable to comprehend the meaning of parables and famous quotes."

Let's start with this. When it counted the villagers make the right decision or the wrong decision?

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 09:15 PM | Reply

,,,did the villagers make...

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 09:16 PM | Reply

haha leave it to the dumbest russian on the site to deflect from republican climate change stupidity to hillary and libya.
#124 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Just pointing out that the hows and whys of killing people only raise your concern when it fits your pet narratives.

#127 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 09:22 PM | Reply

We are all supposed to be underwater by now. Ooopsie. Not happening. 1988 was a banner year for stupidity.

#128 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-10-10 09:24 PM | Reply

Yep, as I expected, Snoofy doubled down on stupid.

He doesn't understand that while I agree humans are causing climate change, doomsday predictions hurt their position.

I'm sure in his mind the "occupy Wall Street" protests was a winner.

#129 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-10-10 09:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"while I agree humans are causing climate change"

What, if anything, should humans do about that?

Also, do you agree it's not very smart for a village to appoint a boy to watch over their sheep? Or was there no failure of leadership whatsoever there, and the fact that the villagers literally got it wrong every time --- believing the boy when he lied, not believing the boy when he told the truth -- is entirely the failure of a boy, who couldn't even be held legally responsible in our society?

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 09:31 PM | Reply

"That's quite an indictment of conservatives. It translates to: If you're upset about something important, we can't handle it so we're not going to listen, even if it gets a ton of people killed."

Tell all the truth but tell it slant --
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind --

--Emily Dickinson

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 09:34 PM | Reply

Just pointing out that the hows and whys of killing people only raise your concern when it fits your pet narratives.

#127 | Posted by SheepleSchism

No you're just reminding us all how you spew the same talking points as infowars, breitbart, trump, and all the dumbest fox watching mouth breathers.

You're the dumbass who just yesterday was saying you'd prefer repubs to win and kill people than vote for an imperfect democrat, remember?

#132 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-10 09:36 PM | Reply

Of course, we've been trying to explain it to them for 20 years.
122, if you start with Arrhenius.
The children still refuse to get it.
Not sure if Emily has a poem about that.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 09:36 PM | Reply

you'd prefer repubs to win and kill people
#132 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I remember the strawman you assembled yesterday. Do you believe that shaking it at me will count your emotional outburst as a win?

you spew the same talking points as infowars, breitbart, trump, and all the dumbest fox watching mouth breathers.

You do realize that you're spewing a Vox, Salon, Huffpo talking point? I know this, because I read them, just like you.
The difference is, I understand that they write to a base of like-minded readers, who gobble up emotionally charges, political pablum.

Just don't think that it educates you from a neutral perspective. Your news sources only tell half the story. the half that instigates your melt downs.

#134 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 10:21 PM | Reply

#133 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Good one.

#135 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-10 10:22 PM | Reply

"they write to a base of like-minded readers, who gobble up emotionally charges, political pablum."

Oh, I get it.

The style of writing where the author drops a Hillary Clinton Is Responsible For The ---- Bayonetting of Momar Qadaffi reference in a thread about climate change.

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-10 10:35 PM | Reply

Snoofy is really putting his stupidity on display

"do you agree it's not very smart for a village to appoint a boy to watch over their sheep? Or was there no failure of leadership whatsoever there, and the fact that the villagers literally got it wrong every time --- believing the boy when he lied, not believing the boy when he told the truth -- is entirely the failure of a boy, who couldn't even be held legally responsible in our society?"

He believes the moral of the story has to with the failure of the villgers and that over 2000 years they would have made a mistake by letting a boy watch a flock of sheep at a time when it was common practice.

The moral of the story has always been interpreted as liars will not be believed even when they tell the truth.

#137 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-10-11 07:35 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort