His death was in a public place and reported widely across all news sources, so I don't think there's any question that it was real. The post above on the Scoop article was just pointing out the inappropriate use of the emoji rather than being about confirmation of the story itself.
Source criticality.
An activist suicider (purported) would highly appreciate that.
An activist suicider (purported) would highly appreciate that.
@TStael we've just been criticizing Trump for his attitude to the truth. One common thing he does that annoys me is to state that stories that are easily verified are "Fake News".
It may be just use of English, but your response above sounds like you're still treating this story as unproven. Given how widely it's been reported and how easy it is to verify the facts in this case it seems odd to me to treat it in that way.
An activist suicider (purported) would highly appreciate that.
@TStael we've just been criticizing Trump for his attitude to the truth. One common thing he does that annoys me is to state that stories that are easily verified are "Fake News".
It may be just use of English, but your response above sounds like you're still treating this story as unproven. Given how widely it's been reported and how easy it is to verify the facts in this case it seems odd to me to treat it in that way.
Why not Google the story for yourself? Do you really believe that BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, USA Today (and on and on and on) have all been taken in by a made up story about something that happened in a public place? Have the body and suicide notes (including one that Buckel emailed himself to news outlets) been faked as well?
President Donald Trump's 2020 reelection campaign has spent about $835,000 in legal fees so far this year, or about 22% of its total spending, according to the latest fundraising reports filed quarterly with the Federal Election Commission.
If he opened a gofundme for his legal bills it would be more honest about things.
I'm so confused about the mess I've made by posting the screenshot. I was just trying to say that the combo of "moving us forward" and the fire emoji made for a pretty bad take on the situation. I was not offering it for the truth of the matter state, which is easily verifiable through other (more trustworthy) sources.
EDIT: apparently "The Scoop" is a comedy troll site. Someone on my newsfeed shared it unironically, and I followed suit in assuming it was supposed to be a serious take. The other uses of the #movingUSforward were associated with videos about people snorting condoms (wtf?????) so it is clearly meant to be ironic.
Moving on, today Justice Gorsuch was the deciding vote in invalidating a clause that gives the executive the power to deport foreigners who were found guilty of "a crime of violence" on the grounds that it is overly vague.
Gorsuch is clearly in line with Scalia's thinking on criminal matters, and I hope this helps ease the minds of those who believed that Justice Gorsuch would be a "rubber stamp" for the Trump Administration.
(speaking of headlines, every article about this has noted in the headline that Gorsuch was the deciding vote... except for CNN's)
There's an article in the Times advocating for parents to accept and raise children with Down Syndrome rather than choose abortion, on the grounds that studies have found that people with the disability live happy and fulfilling lives at much the same rates as people without the syndrome. I couldn't help but think of @ThacoBell and the dedication, strength, and compassion he's shown in raising and caring for a disabled child.
Moving on, today Justice Gorsuch was the deciding vote in invalidating a clause that gives the executive the power to deport foreigners who were found guilty of "a crime of violence" on the grounds that it is overly vague.
Gorsuch is clearly in line with Scalia's thinking on criminal matters, and I hope this helps ease the minds of those who believed that Justice Gorsuch would be a "rubber stamp" for the Trump Administration.
(speaking of headlines, every article about this has noted in the headline that Gorsuch was the deciding vote... except for CNN's)
Every vote that voted for the decision was the deciding vote. If any of them changed then the decision would be different, right?
That's great that he didn't rubber stamp an anti immigrant decision in a way people would expect from a Trumpist. But what's he doing headlining for a fundraiser for conservative brainwashing at a Trump hotel? He doesn't deserve praise just because he didn't do the racist thing in this decision .
You're gonna make me cry @semiticgod . I absolutely belienve that a disability doesn't mean you live unhappily. Its certainly more difficult, but my son has this unbridled joy for life that I have never seen matched. I'm trying to follow his example.
Moving on, today Justice Gorsuch was the deciding vote in invalidating a clause that gives the executive the power to deport foreigners who were found guilty of "a crime of violence" on the grounds that it is overly vague.
Gorsuch is clearly in line with Scalia's thinking on criminal matters, and I hope this helps ease the minds of those who believed that Justice Gorsuch would be a "rubber stamp" for the Trump Administration.
(speaking of headlines, every article about this has noted in the headline that Gorsuch was the deciding vote... except for CNN's)
Every vote that voted for the decision was the deciding vote. If any of them changed then the decision would be different, right?
That's great that he didn't rubber stamp an anti immigrant decision in a way people would expect from a Trumpist. But what's he doing headlining for a fundraiser for conservative brainwashing at a Trump hotel? He doesn't deserve praise just because he didn't do the racist thing in this decision .
I'd appreciate it if we were able to discuss thing without being childish. As a former participant of TFAS, it is far from brainwashing. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that if you think an organization with an opposing viewpoint is brainwashing, you're likely brainwashed yourself... especially if you think a ruling that doesn't go in your favor is automatically "racist".
Moving on, today Justice Gorsuch was the deciding vote in invalidating a clause that gives the executive the power to deport foreigners who were found guilty of "a crime of violence" on the grounds that it is overly vague.
Gorsuch is clearly in line with Scalia's thinking on criminal matters, and I hope this helps ease the minds of those who believed that Justice Gorsuch would be a "rubber stamp" for the Trump Administration.
(speaking of headlines, every article about this has noted in the headline that Gorsuch was the deciding vote... except for CNN's)
Every vote that voted for the decision was the deciding vote. If any of them changed then the decision would be different, right?
That's great that he didn't rubber stamp an anti immigrant decision in a way people would expect from a Trumpist. But what's he doing headlining for a fundraiser for conservative brainwashing at a Trump hotel? He doesn't deserve praise just because he didn't do the racist thing in this decision .
I'd appreciate it if we were able to discuss thing without being childish. As a former participant of TFAS, it is far from brainwashing. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that if you think an organization with an opposing viewpoint is brainwashing, you're likely brainwashed yourself... especially if you think a ruling that doesn't go in your favor is automatically "racist".
Do you believe flat earthers and round earthers are opposing viewpoints? They are in opposition but that doesn't mean they are equally valid viewpoints or that there are equal numbers on each side.
TFAS teaches to a conservative viewpoint. I'm glad you enjoyed it but what else is that but brainwashing? A organization that only praised liberal policy would be the same.
Moving on, today Justice Gorsuch was the deciding vote in invalidating a clause that gives the executive the power to deport foreigners who were found guilty of "a crime of violence" on the grounds that it is overly vague.
Gorsuch is clearly in line with Scalia's thinking on criminal matters, and I hope this helps ease the minds of those who believed that Justice Gorsuch would be a "rubber stamp" for the Trump Administration.
(speaking of headlines, every article about this has noted in the headline that Gorsuch was the deciding vote... except for CNN's)
Every vote that voted for the decision was the deciding vote. If any of them changed then the decision would be different, right?
That's great that he didn't rubber stamp an anti immigrant decision in a way people would expect from a Trumpist. But what's he doing headlining for a fundraiser for conservative brainwashing at a Trump hotel? He doesn't deserve praise just because he didn't do the racist thing in this decision .
I'd appreciate it if we were able to discuss thing without being childish. As a former participant of TFAS, it is far from brainwashing. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that if you think an organization with an opposing viewpoint is brainwashing, you're likely brainwashed yourself... especially if you think a ruling that doesn't go in your favor is automatically "racist".
Do you believe flat earthers and round earthers are opposing viewpoints? They are in opposition but that doesn't mean they are equally valid viewpoints or that there are equal numbers on each side.
TFAS teaches to a conservative viewpoint. I'm glad you enjoyed it but what else is that but brainwashing? A organization that only praised liberal policy would be the same.
So to paraphrase, you think conservatives are 'Flat Earthers' then and liberals are the far more enlightened 'Round Earthers'? Get off your high horse dude...
He doesn't deserve praise just because he didn't do the racist thing in this decision .
Immigration policy has nothing to do with racism; please do not conflate the two issues. If, on the other hand, you are convinced that immigration policy is definitely race-based, then why weren't people calling Obama a racist? His Administration deported more people than the three previous Administrations to his put together.
Gorsuch should know better--Supreme Court Justices must always avoid even the *hint* of being political. The spokespeople for that group may claim that they chose the venue because "it is a nice hotel and a new venue for us" but we all know that they chose it because it has the name "Trump" on it. They are hoping to appear as if they have the blessing of the sitting POTUS by holding their conference in a hotel bearing his name.
Moving on, today Justice Gorsuch was the deciding vote in invalidating a clause that gives the executive the power to deport foreigners who were found guilty of "a crime of violence" on the grounds that it is overly vague.
Gorsuch is clearly in line with Scalia's thinking on criminal matters, and I hope this helps ease the minds of those who believed that Justice Gorsuch would be a "rubber stamp" for the Trump Administration.
(speaking of headlines, every article about this has noted in the headline that Gorsuch was the deciding vote... except for CNN's)
Every vote that voted for the decision was the deciding vote. If any of them changed then the decision would be different, right?
That's great that he didn't rubber stamp an anti immigrant decision in a way people would expect from a Trumpist. But what's he doing headlining for a fundraiser for conservative brainwashing at a Trump hotel? He doesn't deserve praise just because he didn't do the racist thing in this decision .
I'd appreciate it if we were able to discuss thing without being childish. As a former participant of TFAS, it is far from brainwashing. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that if you think an organization with an opposing viewpoint is brainwashing, you're likely brainwashed yourself... especially if you think a ruling that doesn't go in your favor is automatically "racist".
Do you believe flat earthers and round earthers are opposing viewpoints? They are in opposition but that doesn't mean they are equally valid viewpoints or that there are equal numbers on each side.
TFAS teaches to a conservative viewpoint. I'm glad you enjoyed it but what else is that but brainwashing? A organization that only praised liberal policy would be the same.
So to paraphrase, you think conservatives are 'Flat Earthers' then and liberals are the far more enlightened 'Round Earthers'? Get off your high horse dude...
I never said liberals are round earthers. Labels are things that are divisive in a us against them sort of way.
I do find many conservative beliefs akin to pseudo science though yes. Specifically things like trickle down economics in all its guises such tax cuts for the rich and also climate change denialism.
He doesn't deserve praise just because he didn't do the racist thing in this decision .
Obviously, there may be nuances in American politics I'm ignorant of, but I wish dearly my own government wasn't such a wuss for years about appearing racist towards Chechens armed with knifes and traumatic firearms molesting girls on the streets and ganging up on whoever would come to their defense. But nope, apparently the police and the courts preferred to sentence the abovementioned girls for grabbing a firearm and inflicting injury upon our "honorable guests" when they were busy ganging up on girl's two friends *spits* If someone comes to my city, he has to obey my laws and traditions, and if he doesn't want to then he's very welcome to return to his mountains and do the unmentionables there.
He doesn't deserve praise just because he didn't do the racist thing in this decision .
Obviously, there may be nuances in American politics I'm ignorant of, but I wish dearly my own government wasn't such a wuss for years about appearing racist towards Chechens armed with knifes and traumatic firearms molesting girls on the streets and ganging up on whoever would come to their defense. But nope, apparently the police and the courts preferred to sentence the abovementioned girls for grabbing a firearm and inflicting injury upon our "honorable guests" when they were busy ganging up on girl's two friends *spits* If someone comes to my city, he has to obey my laws and traditions, and if he doesn't want to then he's very welcome to return to his mountains and do the unmentionables there.
And I don't know your countries politics but often here in the United States minority groups are demonized. I suspect it is the same in your country since it is one of the oldest tricks in the book. For example Trump famously called Mexicans rapists and criminals and oh maybe a couple were good people. Mexicans are not rapists. Rapists are rapists. Criminals are criminals.
What happens here are Republican politicians call this or that minority "group" criminals. Poor people are lazy criminals. Illegal immigrants are violent criminals. People on food stamps are criminals. Black people are thugs. Things like that.
Then while they have their followers frothing at the mouth about these people who are either completely powerless in society or on a lower economic rung, the Republican politicians and their friends run off with all the money. The Republican party dupes people into voting against their economic interests by triggering outrage on cultural issues.
Moving on, today Justice Gorsuch was the deciding vote in invalidating a clause that gives the executive the power to deport foreigners who were found guilty of "a crime of violence" on the grounds that it is overly vague.
Gorsuch is clearly in line with Scalia's thinking on criminal matters, and I hope this helps ease the minds of those who believed that Justice Gorsuch would be a "rubber stamp" for the Trump Administration.
(speaking of headlines, every article about this has noted in the headline that Gorsuch was the deciding vote... except for CNN's)
Every vote that voted for the decision was the deciding vote. If any of them changed then the decision would be different, right?
That's great that he didn't rubber stamp an anti immigrant decision in a way people would expect from a Trumpist. But what's he doing headlining for a fundraiser for conservative brainwashing at a Trump hotel? He doesn't deserve praise just because he didn't do the racist thing in this decision .
I'd appreciate it if we were able to discuss thing without being childish. As a former participant of TFAS, it is far from brainwashing. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that if you think an organization with an opposing viewpoint is brainwashing, you're likely brainwashed yourself... especially if you think a ruling that doesn't go in your favor is automatically "racist".
Do you believe flat earthers and round earthers are opposing viewpoints? They are in opposition but that doesn't mean they are equally valid viewpoints or that there are equal numbers on each side.
TFAS teaches to a conservative viewpoint. I'm glad you enjoyed it but what else is that but brainwashing? A organization that only praised liberal policy would be the same.
So to paraphrase, you think conservatives are 'Flat Earthers' then and liberals are the far more enlightened 'Round Earthers'? Get off your high horse dude...
I never said liberals are round earthers. Labels are things that are divisive in a us against them sort of way.
I do find many conservative beliefs akin to pseudo science though yes. Specifically things like trickle down economics in all its guises such tax cuts for the rich and also climate change denialism.
I don't deny climate change. Human caused climate change is entirely another thing though. It's just as much pseudo science to say we're the cause of this climate change as it is to say that it isn't happening. 10,000 years ago the entire US was covered by glaciers. What exactly did those early humans do to cause those glaciers to withdraw? Oh, I know, they were busy slaughtering giant bison, musk oxen, mammoths and wooly rhinos because, you know, that's what we horrible human beings do. I'm sure that's what warmed the planet back then. It must be humans now too. The answer always seems to be we in the US (and Europe to a lesser extent) have to stop destroying the world by paying higher taxes, and lowering our standard of living. When Al Gore turns his thermostat down to 68 and starts taking the bus for his trips then maybe I'll start listening to him...
I don't deny climate change. Human caused climate change is entirely another thing though. It's just as much pseudo science to say we're the cause of this climate change as it is to say that it isn't happening. 10,000 years ago the entire US was covered by glaciers. What exactly did those early humans do to cause those glaciers to withdraw? Oh, I know, they were busy slaughtering giant bison, musk oxen, mammoths and wooly rhinos because, you know, that's what we horrible human beings do. I'm sure that's what warmed the planet back then. It must be humans now too. The answer always seems to be we in the US (and Europe to a lesser extent) have to stop destroying the world by paying higher taxes, and lowering our standard of living. When Al Gore turns his thermostat down to 68 and starts taking the bus for his trips then maybe I'll start listening to him...
You're a scientist, right? I mean. I feel like I've heard you say you're a scientist on here before. What exactly do you do? I'm also assuming you have a graduate degree. What's that in?
I don't find it surprising that humans could be responsible for a world-wide shift in temperatures. Humans have done crazier things by complete accident.
We have a much more powerful impact on the planet than we did when we were chucking spears at wooly mammoths. We've created entire islands, diverted rivers, carved holes through mountains, wiped out entire forests and ecosystems through deforestation and erosion or even just basic pollution, and mercury levels in fish have spiked for the sole reason that humans have been leaking mercury into their water supply. We've dramatically slashed the worldwide fish population, lit up the planet with electric lights enough that you can literally see us from space, wiped out entire species, and created entire species. Most of those changes weren't even intentional--just like climate change.
We already know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that's one of its physical properties. We already know that carbon dioxide is at its highest levels in thousands of years, and we already know that humans are emitting more carbon dioxide than we ever have in human history. We already know that global temperatures are their highest levels in thousands of years. We already know that global temperatures have never spiked as quickly as they have over the past several decades. And we're already seeing unusually strong natural disasters just a few years after the increased global temperatures just happened to coincide with the rapid melting of glaciers and ice floes that introduced large amounts of cold water into weather systems. And we already know that sudden changes in weather systems trigger chaotic behavior in those systems. None of that is theoretical.
Is it really so implausible that our millennia-high levels of known greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the millennia-high temperatures that occurred at the exact same time?
There have been more drastic changes in the past (orders of magnitude greater) than anything we have done in recent history. More animals have gone extince in the distant past than currently exist. The impact we have had on the diversity of life isn't even a blip on the radar. The general climate of the planet was sub tropical at its coldest FAR before any hole in the ozone was first detected by us. If you really want to measure our global impac ton the weather, consider that our global still hasn't normalized since the last Ice Age (which means we are still technically in it). The Earth's temperature at some point would normalize back to those near tropical levels eventually. We just happen to be around to see it start.
I don't deny climate change. Human caused climate change is entirely another thing though. It's just as much pseudo science to say we're the cause of this climate change as it is to say that it isn't happening. 10,000 years ago the entire US was covered by glaciers. What exactly did those early humans do to cause those glaciers to withdraw? Oh, I know, they were busy slaughtering giant bison, musk oxen, mammoths and wooly rhinos because, you know, that's what we horrible human beings do. I'm sure that's what warmed the planet back then. It must be humans now too. The answer always seems to be we in the US (and Europe to a lesser extent) have to stop destroying the world by paying higher taxes, and lowering our standard of living. When Al Gore turns his thermostat down to 68 and starts taking the bus for his trips then maybe I'll start listening to him...
You're a scientist, right? I mean. I feel like I've heard you say you're a scientist on here before. What exactly do you do? I'm also assuming you have a graduate degree. What's that in?
No graduate degree but I have a B.S. in chemistry. I work in the environmental field so I know about abuse of statistics. The trouble with climate science is that it can't be proven empirically and since it's a fairly new discipline the rules of the game are constantly in flux due to new data. I think of it like nutrition science. What's killing you one year is perfectly fine the next and the things that were so good for you before are now the things that are killing you. I pretty much ignore most of the so-called science in both of those arenas.
If my job funding depended on scaring people I'd come up with some great world-ending scenarios too...
I don't find it surprising that humans could be responsible for a world-wide shift in temperatures. Humans have done crazier things by complete accident.
We have a much more powerful impact on the planet than we did when we were chucking spears at wooly mammoths. We've created entire islands, diverted rivers, carved holes through mountains, wiped out entire forests and ecosystems through deforestation and erosion or even just basic pollution, and mercury levels in fish have spiked for the sole reason that humans have been leaking mercury into their water supply. We've dramatically slashed the worldwide fish population, lit up the planet with electric lights enough that you can literally see us from space, wiped out entire species, and created entire species. Most of those changes weren't even intentional--just like climate change.
We already know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that's one of its physical properties. We already know that carbon dioxide is at its highest levels in thousands of years, and we already know that humans are emitting more carbon dioxide than we ever have in human history. We already know that global temperatures are their highest levels in thousands of years. We already know that global temperatures have never spiked as quickly as they have over the past several decades. And we're already seeing unusually strong natural disasters just a few years after the increased global temperatures just happened to coincide with the rapid melting of glaciers and ice floes that introduced large amounts of cold water into weather systems. And we already know that sudden changes in weather systems trigger chaotic behavior in those systems. None of that is theoretical.
Is it really so implausible that our millennia-high levels of known greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the millennia-high temperatures that occurred at the exact same time?
@semiticgod It's entirely plausible but it isn't provable. On the micro-scale we are devastating the planet in some ways and I won't even try to defend it. The Aral Sea is almost completely gone just so the Russians/Soviets could grow crops in regions that they had no business growing crops in. The Colorado River doesn't even make it to the Pacific anymore because of the US diverting water to the plains and Mexico doesn't have any say in it. Ditto with China screwing the Vietnamese out of the Mekong River so they can have cheap electric power. All of those problems are short-sighted human problems. We're also great at devastating our ecosystems by not controlling the introduction of non-native species (both animals and plants) and some of those introductions were even intentional on the advice of scientists that should have known better.
It's when I get preached at that I'm destroying the planet and need to feel guilty about keeping my house at 70F instead of 65F and should pay $5/gallon for gas and also pay a carbon tax that I call BS. If I wanted to feel guilty all the time I'd start going to church again...
The impact we have had on the diversity of life isn't even a blip on the radar.
Wait - so you actually believe this? You think that the rate of extinction of life on this planet since say... the industrial revolution is not even a blip on the radar of history?
If my job funding depended on scaring people I'd come up with some great world-ending scenarios too...
Ironically - this is a horrible problem, but mostly in the opposite direction (Large oil companies that lobby politicians and talking heads to spin disinformation).
Edit - Anecdotally, my brother is a nuclear physicist who teaches at a university and does research for them. His funding is not predicated on finding a particular result. A very, very dear friend of mine is an environmental biologist who worked for Brown university for awhile. Her funding wasnt contingent on finding fake results.
The impact we have had on the diversity of life isn't even a blip on the radar.
Wait - so you actually believe this? You think that the rate of extinction of life on this planet since say... the industrial revolution is not even a blip on the radar of history?
If my job funding depended on scaring people I'd come up with some great world-ending scenarios too...
Ironically - this is a horrible problem, but mostly in the opposite direction (Large oil companies that lobby politicians and talking heads to spin disinformation).
Edit - Anecdotally, my brother is a nuclear physicist who teaches at a university and does research for them. His funding is not predicated on finding a particular result. A very, very dear friend of mine is an environmental biologist who worked for Brown university for awhile. Her funding wasnt contingent on finding fake results.
Nuclear physics and environmental biology are not climatology. Climatology is based on computer modeling, not on empirical data. How good are the weather forecasts in your region? They're pretty pathetic here...
Edit: just out of curiosity, what do you think the extinction rates were when the glaciers advanced over all of that landmass? What about when it receded? Niche species come and go and always have. More adaptable lifeforms stick around longer. Our short lifespans don't allow us to get our heads around that concept. We are part of nature. Volcanoes, comets, the sun and asteroids are also part of nature. Guess what? Compared to those things we're not even the biggest determiner of the fate of this planet. The best thing humans can do for life on this planet is to figure out how to get off of it and extend it beyond the life of our star. Going back to the stone age won't advance that goal...
Comments
An activist suicider (purported) would highly appreciate that.
It may be just use of English, but your response above sounds like you're still treating this story as unproven. Given how widely it's been reported and how easy it is to verify the facts in this case it seems odd to me to treat it in that way.
Bots much?
If not, source criticality.
Do tell.
If he opened a gofundme for his legal bills it would be more honest about things.
I have a general interest in headlines and the brief descriptions that sources include in links to their work on social media. The sad truth is that headlines and blurbs are far more influential than the actual article in most cases. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/19/americans-read-headlines-and-not-much-else/?utm_term=.569e080c6d4a
EDIT: apparently "The Scoop" is a comedy troll site. Someone on my newsfeed shared it unironically, and I followed suit in assuming it was supposed to be a serious take. The other uses of the #movingUSforward were associated with videos about people snorting condoms (wtf?????) so it is clearly meant to be ironic.
http://time.com/5243171/supreme-court-immigrants-neil-gorsuch/
Gorsuch is clearly in line with Scalia's thinking on criminal matters, and I hope this helps ease the minds of those who believed that Justice Gorsuch would be a "rubber stamp" for the Trump Administration.
(speaking of headlines, every article about this has noted in the headline that Gorsuch was the deciding vote... except for CNN's)
That's great that he didn't rubber stamp an anti immigrant decision in a way people would expect from a Trumpist. But what's he doing headlining for a fundraiser for conservative brainwashing at a Trump hotel? He doesn't deserve praise just because he didn't do the racist thing in this decision .
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/gorsuch-trump-hotel-speech/index.html
TFAS teaches to a conservative viewpoint. I'm glad you enjoyed it but what else is that but brainwashing? A organization that only praised liberal policy would be the same.
Gorsuch should know better--Supreme Court Justices must always avoid even the *hint* of being political. The spokespeople for that group may claim that they chose the venue because "it is a nice hotel and a new venue for us" but we all know that they chose it because it has the name "Trump" on it. They are hoping to appear as if they have the blessing of the sitting POTUS by holding their conference in a hotel bearing his name.
I do find many conservative beliefs akin to pseudo science though yes. Specifically things like trickle down economics in all its guises such tax cuts for the rich and also climate change denialism.
If someone comes to my city, he has to obey my laws and traditions, and if he doesn't want to then he's very welcome to return to his mountains and do the unmentionables there.
What happens here are Republican politicians call this or that minority "group" criminals. Poor people are lazy criminals. Illegal immigrants are violent criminals. People on food stamps are criminals. Black people are thugs. Things like that.
Then while they have their followers frothing at the mouth about these people who are either completely powerless in society or on a lower economic rung, the Republican politicians and their friends run off with all the money. The Republican party dupes people into voting against their economic interests by triggering outrage on cultural issues.
You're a scientist, right? I mean. I feel like I've heard you say you're a scientist on here before. What exactly do you do? I'm also assuming you have a graduate degree. What's that in?
We have a much more powerful impact on the planet than we did when we were chucking spears at wooly mammoths. We've created entire islands, diverted rivers, carved holes through mountains, wiped out entire forests and ecosystems through deforestation and erosion or even just basic pollution, and mercury levels in fish have spiked for the sole reason that humans have been leaking mercury into their water supply. We've dramatically slashed the worldwide fish population, lit up the planet with electric lights enough that you can literally see us from space, wiped out entire species, and created entire species. Most of those changes weren't even intentional--just like climate change.
We already know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that's one of its physical properties. We already know that carbon dioxide is at its highest levels in thousands of years, and we already know that humans are emitting more carbon dioxide than we ever have in human history. We already know that global temperatures are their highest levels in thousands of years. We already know that global temperatures have never spiked as quickly as they have over the past several decades. And we're already seeing unusually strong natural disasters just a few years after the increased global temperatures just happened to coincide with the rapid melting of glaciers and ice floes that introduced large amounts of cold water into weather systems. And we already know that sudden changes in weather systems trigger chaotic behavior in those systems. None of that is theoretical.
Is it really so implausible that our millennia-high levels of known greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the millennia-high temperatures that occurred at the exact same time?
If my job funding depended on scaring people I'd come up with some great world-ending scenarios too...
It's entirely plausible but it isn't provable. On the micro-scale we are devastating the planet in some ways and I won't even try to defend it. The Aral Sea is almost completely gone just so the Russians/Soviets could grow crops in regions that they had no business growing crops in. The Colorado River doesn't even make it to the Pacific anymore because of the US diverting water to the plains and Mexico doesn't have any say in it. Ditto with China screwing the Vietnamese out of the Mekong River so they can have cheap electric power. All of those problems are short-sighted human problems. We're also great at devastating our ecosystems by not controlling the introduction of non-native species (both animals and plants) and some of those introductions were even intentional on the advice of scientists that should have known better.
It's when I get preached at that I'm destroying the planet and need to feel guilty about keeping my house at 70F instead of 65F and should pay $5/gallon for gas and also pay a carbon tax that I call BS. If I wanted to feel guilty all the time I'd start going to church again...
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/massextinct_10
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/extinction-rates-are-biased-and-much-worse-than-you-thought-24290026/
I dont have the will to go on here. It's too damn depressing. Ironically - this is a horrible problem, but mostly in the opposite direction (Large oil companies that lobby politicians and talking heads to spin disinformation).
Edit - Anecdotally, my brother is a nuclear physicist who teaches at a university and does research for them. His funding is not predicated on finding a particular result. A very, very dear friend of mine is an environmental biologist who worked for Brown university for awhile. Her funding wasnt contingent on finding fake results.
Edit: just out of curiosity, what do you think the extinction rates were when the glaciers advanced over all of that landmass? What about when it receded? Niche species come and go and always have. More adaptable lifeforms stick around longer. Our short lifespans don't allow us to get our heads around that concept. We are part of nature. Volcanoes, comets, the sun and asteroids are also part of nature. Guess what? Compared to those things we're not even the biggest determiner of the fate of this planet. The best thing humans can do for life on this planet is to figure out how to get off of it and extend it beyond the life of our star. Going back to the stone age won't advance that goal...