There's a curious article on the Times about public perception of government assistance programs. Apparently people have increasingly negative views of welfare even as welfare programs grow smaller and as the number of people on other forms of government assistance grows, dislike for welfare programs increases with the size of minority populations using welfare, and dislike for welfare programs is correlated more with the programs that one doesn't benefit from, rather than the programs one does.
The data indicate that the distaste for welfare is mostly based on the fact that other people benefit from it. Programs that affect a broader portion of the population, like Social Security and Medicare (two of our most massive expenditures), are viewed more positively than smaller programs that benefit only 1% of the population.
Of course that's what it says. Did we think the attacks for the last 50+ years on poor people and minorities would not be effective in selling this narrative?? See the proposed bailout for soy bean farmers and how it receives almost no scrutiny.
Perhaps government controlled news media that doesn't tell you the awful things Trump is doing would make us all happier. Hear no evil, right? Is that really what people think is a good idea? Because that's what would happen because that's what countries like Russia do. And guess what just being ignorant of the facts and corruption doesn't make people's lives any better.
---------
Trump admitted his sons and campaign manager were involved in a criminal conspiracy. He 'says' (lol the zero integrity guy 'says') he knew nothing about it. Still he admitted his sons committed felonies. So where's the law and order party now?
There's a curious article on the Times about public perception of government assistance programs. Apparently people have increasingly negative views of welfare even as welfare programs grow smaller and as the number of people on other forms of government assistance grows, dislike for welfare programs increases with the size of minority populations using welfare, and dislike for welfare programs is correlated more with the programs that one doesn't benefit from, rather than the programs one does.
The data indicate that the distaste for welfare is mostly based on the fact that other people benefit from it. Programs that affect a broader portion of the population, like Social Security and Medicare (two of our most massive expenditures), are viewed more positively than smaller programs that benefit only 1% of the population.
Of course that's what it says. Did we think the attacks for the last 50+ years on poor people and minorities would not be effective in selling this narrative?? See the proposed bailout for soy bean farmers and how it receives almost no scrutiny.
As per the hypothesis a bailout affecting only farmers (I.e. a tiny minority) should receive a lot of criticism.
It is not a matter of IF a Trump supporter kills a member of the media at this point, but just WHEN it is going to happen. And I wonder what we are all going to say when that takes place. What will be the justification when that event comes to pass?? Someone is going to shoot a reporter because of this rhetoric, so let's not sit around shocked and mystified when it happens.
So you don't think people have the right to fight back against the lying press?
I don't share the Trump voter's agenda - but the agenda that they hold isn't really their agenda. And you know this is true. It's the agenda that has been put into them. I am no fan of reactionaries.
But there is no question that the media should be run by the State. And overseen by ethics committees comprised of private citizens. Of course you are probably just fine with the media - democrats seem to be these days. So much for being a party for the people. Perhaps they will be the first to face justice when power returns to the people. Bernie Sanders was the only politician worth a shit and even he sold out at the end.
As for the reactionaries - they have already blown their load on Trump, and their fight isn't my fight. But it's not their fight, either. They are just brainwashed hooligans. But the time comes when Americans WILL wake up and demand justice against those who sold their hides. And I will sit back and laugh as suburban, gated-white communities burn to the ground. Too long have the upper-classes lorded it over poor folk and minorities.
The lying press has already burned their bridge - we know who these people are. At this point, I assure you, they do well for themselves in opposing the revolution! Those who lie for the sake of their corporate and bureaucratic masters will have to pay back every penny!
I have never been a communist but that hammer and sickle is looking sweeter by the moment.
I despise injustice ...and you all should, too!
Trump constantly calls the press the enemy of the people due to it’s fake news, yet never, ever, sites cases where the news media is lying and then offers substantial proof on how they are lying.
I fact, in majority of the cases, it has proven to be the other way around. Trump claims a story is false and denies the hell out it, only for it to be proven right by the media weeks or months later.
Journalist live off of their ethics and trustworthiness. To the point where, if one was found fabricating a story, they’d never write a story for a news agency again. Trump knows this, it is why he is attacking it, attempting to trigger them, the way he himself has been triggered by all the negative news surrounding his pesidency thus far.
There is also no question that the media should be independent from the government. A government controlled media help repress people. All one needs to do is look at China and how their state run news networks work.
You'd actually have to abolish the First Amendment to do it. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
I find the notion that the media is some sort of tyrannical presence to be silly. It's not some elite cabal that prevents outsiders from joining; anyone can start a newspaper or magazine or online publication without needing any special permission or clearance from anybody. The media is a collection of privately-owned companies that sell content. Some of them sell books; some sell movies and TV shows; some sell articles, either by charging directly for access, posting advertisements, or both.
Saying a newspaper is an enemy of the people is like saying a book publisher or movie producer or a webcomic artist is an enemy of the people. All they're doing is saying words and selling stuff. That's the entire industry.
They don't have political power; they can't veto laws or override executive orders or decide court rulings. They just talk--just like everyone on this forum is doing.
It's true that they can influence politics. But they do it by talking, and in legal parlance, that's called the "free marketplace of ideas." It's legal, normal, and good for people to express opinions.
Whether a given article is right or not is another question, but it's not like the media has any power beyond their freedom of speech.
It's like climate change. Who are you going to believe 97% of the world's scientists are lying or a plucky group of billionaires, corporate lobbyists, and Fox News have uncovered a plot to slightly increase corporate overhead.
Who's lying hundreds of independent news people all across the country, James Comey, England, the EU, NATO, Democrats, scientists, celebrities, or Trump who constantly flip flopping and being caught in obvious lies.
Well Mr. Vessel, I agree with your assessment of the media since you've explained your earlier argument a bit more but not necessarily your suggested course of action. The mainstream media is pro-corporate for sure , fox news is intentionally brainwashing people and lying to them while regular news is mostly of the type lies of omission (freezing out Bernie) and corporate bias.
To me that's hardly the "enemy of the people" as Trump describes it. I'd say there's no way right now the government produces any useful thing to support your government funded media. With Republicans in charge it would be skewed to pork and side tracked and be guaranteed to be "proconservative", Congress has already been whining that there's not enough done to cater to right wing conspiracy nut jobs (I sheet you not).
And even if the Congress was an honest actor in this I'm not convinced that it is the best plan to have the government controlling the media. Maybe crowdsourced media is better (overlook the q-anon looonies hey crowdsourced news is not perfect but neither is corporate media).
Bottom line: There will always be critical thinking required.
Even though it may annoy some people I'll post a link to this study on climate change. What's different about this study is that it's not looking at climate change as a whole, but specific mechanisms about the planet that have helped to protect it against climate change in the past - these are summarized on this diagram.
The concern raised by the paper is that, as the temperature increases up to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, that could trigger positive feedback from these mechanisms - making it difficult or impossible to hold the temperature increase to the 2 degree target agreed in Paris. As an example, ice sheets have in the past helped stabilize temperature increases (for instance those resulting from increased solar activity), by reflecting radiation away from the Earth. As the temperature rises though those ice sheets are disappearing, thus less of the radiation reaching us will be reflected away - increasing the temperature further.
A quick review of scientific reaction to the paper shows plenty of both support and opposition, rather than the virtual unanimity associated with the basic question of whether climate change is happening at all. The paper suggests not just reducing CO2 emissions, but extracting existing CO2 from the air as well. Personally I'm not convinced that's wise, but I absolutely agree that more research in this area should be done.
It's no doubt a pipe dream, but it would be nice if sceptics of climate change (looking at you President Trump) analyzed the type of information they would need to be convinced of its reality and then jointly commissioned research aimed at producing that type of information. The current disconnect between US scientists and politicians has harmful effects wider than just climate change, as does the distrust of evidence-based policy.
I'll let someone else comment on the imposition of tariffs on Iran and just how starkly the approach there (discarding a verifiable agreement to prevent nuclear weapons) differs from the one adopted with North Korea (stating that nuclear weapons are no longer a danger, despite having no verifiable agreement and in the face of evidence that the country is continuing to develop nuclear weapons).
What else is there to say? It's the mark of a man who is profoundly not detail-oriented and has put zero thought into solving the Korean nuclear problem.
All he got from North Korea was a handshake and a nonbinding promise using 1990s-era language, from a country that's already infamous for breaking those promises... and yet he announced that the Korean nuclear issue was solved, for the sole reason that he wants to claim some sort of accomplishment. He doesn't know if the problem is solved and he doesn't care. He got a chance to brag, and now that he has it, he has no plans to follow up on the issue or make sure that North Korea is going to make good on the same promise it's broken countless times in the past.
Sometimes 2+2 is just 4. He doesn't know how to solve these problems, so he makes a token gesture and then triumphantly announces that he's magically fixed everything.
There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.
This is how he's always operated. Back when he was a full-time real estate tycoon, he would hold big press conferences to announce new projects, only to forget about them and move on to something else. Even before he became President, his first instinct was to brag.
He doesn't have follow-through. He doesn't put in the effort.
What else is there to say? It's the mark of a man who is profoundly not detail-oriented and has put zero thought into solving the Korean nuclear problem.
All he got from North Korea was a handshake and a nonbinding promise using 1990s-era language, from a country that's already infamous for breaking those promises... and yet he announced that the Korean nuclear issue was solved, for the sole reason that he wants to claim some sort of accomplishment. He doesn't know if the problem is solved and he doesn't care. He got a chance to brag, and now that he has it, he has no plans to follow up on the issue or make sure that North Korea is going to make good on the same promise it's broken countless times in the past.
Sometimes 2+2 is just 4. He doesn't know how to solve these problems, so he makes a token gesture and then triumphantly announces that he's magically fixed everything.
There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.
This is how he's always operated. Back when he was a full-time real estate tycoon, he would hold big press conferences to announce new projects, only to forget about them and move on to something else. Even before he became President, his first instinct was to brag.
He doesn't have follow-through. He doesn't put in the effort.
110% correct. I'm not sure we talk enough (with all his other problems) of just how profoundly LAZY Donald Trump is by any measurable standard. If this was your kid putting in this kind of effort washing the dishes, you'd scold them. If you were a professor and a student put in this kind of effort on a term paper, you would fail them. This is DOUBLY annoying in regards to the Iran deal, because actual painstaking work over the course of YEARS went into making it happen, and Trump destroyed it on a whim one afternoon.
As for what Iran should do now, they should go tell us to fly a kite. Given the humiliation this has caused the moderates, I don't see how they now have any other choice. In the end, he talks about what a horrible deal Obama got with Iran (when we gave up, in actuality, almost nothing), yet he couldn't even secure a fraction of that deal in his "summit" with North Korea. To him, it was an episode of "The Apprentice".
And what is more amazing is that well-meaning people even in this forum were ready to give him the benefit of the doubt to see what he could accomplish. Yet EVERY SINGLE TIME, Trump reverts back to his mean, no matter how much people WISH he wouldn't. It always circles back to a malignant ego, stupidity, and utter laziness. Every time. You will never lose betting on that happening. But Bolton and Trump insisting Iran come back to the table?? Are they f'n serious?? Even if they DID come back to the table, why would they ever make a deal with us again when they now know we will just break the terms based on who is in office?? Our credibility is done, gone. Forever.
It's no doubt a pipe dream, but it would be nice if sceptics of climate change (looking at you President Trump) analyzed the type of information....
Trump is not interested in learning about climate change. He's already made up his mind. No amount of "facts", "learning" or proof right in his face would change his mind because it is to his advantage to deny climate change. He's an opportunist and a conman, not an honest seeker of truth.
People pay bribes to his businesses and money to his never ending campaign to allow them to pollute and destroy the environment. That's what they want and for a price he's happy to do it. If he can be an asshole about things at the same time to people he doesn't like that's icing on the cake. When he can get paid and be a jerk about it, why he's happy in his own way.
The man is incapable but mainly unwilling to perform analysis. It's just not in his interests to do so. He is smart and creative and he does learn and struggle with thoughts but only about how he can argue with strings of words in a way that is in line with his personal agendas. He's an evil genius, not a stable genuis. He's figured out how to get what he wants by bring the world biggest jerk. If he can actually convince a few rubes along the way then all the better.
The average "white" guy from a big city on South is 88% white and in another city is 66%, that is a huge difference. That means that is very easy for someone to be considered "white" in a state and "non white" on another. Of course, it is the average, let's say that half is pure and half is 3/4, on average they will be 7/8
It's no doubt a pipe dream, but it would be nice if sceptics of climate change (looking at you President Trump) analyzed the type of information....
Trump is not interested in learning about climate change. He's already made up his mind. No amount of "facts", "learning" or proof right in his face would change his mind because it is to his advantage to deny climate change. He's an opportunist and a conman, not an honest seeker of truth.
People pay bribes to his businesses and money to his never ending campaign to allow them to pollute and destroy the environment. That's what they want and for a price he's happy to do it. If he can be an asshole about things at the same time to people he doesn't like that's icing on the cake. When he can get paid and be a jerk about it, why he's happy in his own way.
The man is incapable but mainly unwilling to perform analysis. It's just not in his interests to do so. He is smart and creative and he does learn and struggle with thoughts but only about how he can argue with strings of words in a way that is in line with his personal agendas. He's an evil genius, not a stable genuis. He's figured out how to get what he wants by bring the world biggest jerk. If he can actually convince a few rubes along the way then all the better.
I agree Trump is many things and most of them are bad. However, I also agree with you he's not stupid and I don't believe he actually wants to leave the world worse than he found it. I think it's necessary to find the right lines of argument with him - things like: - he's narcissistic, so will want to leave monuments behind him. If, for instance, a major memorial was named the Trump memorial I guarantee it would be easier to get him to consider the potential damage pollution could do to the structure. - he loves making money, so pointing out what sea level rises could do to his investments (like the Scottish links golf courses he's so fond of) would be a good way to concentrate his mind.
The point is that there are always two sides to an argument. Trump is mainly concentrated on what he thinks provides the most instant gratification, e.g. reducing regulations provides more jobs (and voters for him); increasing shale production benefits energy security and gives the US more power in the world. The other side of those arguments needs to be put in a way he can relate to, e.g. more jobs may help hundreds of workers, but pollution could affect many thousands (of voters); shale production will last relatively few years and become gradually more expensive - tidal energy could last for ever, will become cheaper over time and be a huge export opportunity for the US.
The impact of global warming will vary greatly in different areas and the variability of the weather means that global warming tells you virtually nothing about what will happen at any place in the short term anyway.
However, I did do a quick search for information on Patagonia and found this academic study. That suggests there has been a trend towards drier weather in Patagonia over 30-40 years, culminating in an extreme drought and wildfires in 2016 - i.e. the same sort of weather seen in many areas in the northern hemisphere this year.
Just like any other locality, weather patterns in Patagonia don't tell you a lot about global warming - you do need to look at data worldwide to get a decent picture of that. However, the data certainly don't suggest that Patagonia will be spared from the worldwide impacts.
An investigation by Forbes Magazine is alleging that Wilbur Ross may have swindled over 120 million dollars from associates and investors. If true, this would make him the biggest grifter in American history.
Who is Wilbur Ross? He's Trump's Commerce Secretary. Because of course he is.
An investigation by Forbes Magazine is alleging that Wilbur Ross may have swindled over 120 million dollars from associates and investors. If true, this would make him the biggest grifter in American history.
Who is Wilbur Ross? He's Trump's Commerce Secretary. Because of course he is.
The next administration will be uncovering crimes from this administration for decades to come. Will they continue to cover up and hide the evidence and let them get away with it?
@SorcererV1ct0r "Gloabl Warming" is a misnomer anyway. "Global Climate Change" is MUCH more accurate. Some places will get significantly hotter (here in Kansas, we have had record breaking hot summers and winters for several years straight), while other places will experience colder temperature (The Shahara, of all places, got snowfall the last three years in a row, while before then, it hadn't snowed since 1979).
An investigation by Forbes Magazine is alleging that Wilbur Ross may have swindled over 120 million dollars from associates and investors. If true, this would make him the biggest grifter in American history.
Who is Wilbur Ross? He's Trump's Commerce Secretary. Because of course he is.
At this point, we are reaching Teapot Dome or Tammany Hall levels of corruption. He might as well have made Bernie Madoff Commerce Secretary.
But that may be small potatoes if you take into account this new poll from Ipsos, in which 43% of Republicans say they think the President of the United States should be able to SHUT DOWN certain news outlets engaged in bad behavior:
The impact of global warming will vary greatly in different areas and the variability of the weather means that global warming tells you virtually nothing about what will happen at any place in the short term anyway.
However, I did do a quick search for information on Patagonia and found this academic study. That suggests there has been a trend towards drier weather in Patagonia over 30-40 years, culminating in an extreme drought and wildfires in 2016 - i.e. the same sort of weather seen in many areas in the northern hemisphere this year.
Just like any other locality, weather patterns in Patagonia don't tell you a lot about global warming - you do need to look at data worldwide to get a decent picture of that. However, the data certainly don't suggest that Patagonia will be spared from the worldwide impacts.
You are right. I only mentioned Patagonia, because i have heard that regions more close to Mediterranean are experiencing more temperature growth. Honestly, i din't studied yet to have an opinion about the global warring so i an only asking questions to people who studied more on that subject. IF the temperature rises in 90% of the world but remain stable or reduces on two regions, this doesn't means that the temperatures aren't rising or that the more stable regions will suffer no consequences.
Really, higher temperatures aren't the biggest problem with climate change. The problem is disruption. Crops require a certain level of temperature and rainfall and so forth to grow properly and at maximum yield, and while genetic engineering will allow us to adapt crops to climate change a little faster, the increasing unpredictability of weather patterns will make it harder to grow the right crop in the right environment
The climate is a high-order system (a system with lots of different factors), which means it's extremely difficult to predict. "Chaotic" systems are very dependent on initial conditions, which is why climate predictions for day-to-day changes are only accurate for a few dozen hours into the future.
Take the example of a pendulum. Once you have its period, you can easily predict where it will be at any given time. But add a single extra factor--say, a single extra joint in the pendulum--and that tiny change will make the pendulum increasingly difficult to predict as time goes on. Imagine you're a farmer trying to base your business plans on the movement of this pendulum, and that little joint seems like a hideous problem. Whenever the end of the pendulum reaches the starting point, that essentially represents a crop failure.
@SorcererV1ct0r "Gloabl Warming" is a misnomer anyway. "Global Climate Change" is MUCH more accurate. Some places will get significantly hotter (here in Kansas, we have had record breaking hot summers and winters for several years straight), while other places will experience colder temperature (The Shahara, of all places, got snowfall the last three years in a row, while before then, it hadn't snowed since 1979).
The Sahara got snowfall but overall it is much hotter than ever before. It is advancing south into more tropical terrain in Sudan and Chad, turning green vegetation dry and soil once used for farming into barren ground in areas that can least afford to lose it.
Really, higher temperatures aren't the biggest problem with climate change. The problem is disruption. Crops require a certain level of temperature and rainfall and so forth to grow properly and at maximum yield, and while genetic engineering will allow us to adapt crops to climate change a little faster, the increasing unpredictability of weather patterns will make it harder to grow the right crop in the right environment
The climate is a high-order system (a system with lots of different factors), which means it's extremely difficult to predict. "Chaotic" systems are very dependent on initial conditions, which is why climate predictions for day-to-day changes are only accurate for a few dozen hours into the future.
Take the example of a pendulum. Once you have its period, you can easily predict where it will be at any given time. But add a single extra factor--say, a single extra joint in the pendulum--and that tiny change will make the pendulum increasingly difficult to predict as time goes on. Imagine you're a farmer trying to base your business plans on the movement of this pendulum, and that little joint seems like a hideous problem. Whenever the end of the pendulum reaches the starting point, that essentially represents a crop failure.
Most businesses operate in a chaotic environment :P
@SorcererV1ct0r "Gloabl Warming" is a misnomer anyway. "Global Climate Change" is MUCH more accurate. Some places will get significantly hotter (here in Kansas, we have had record breaking hot summers and winters for several years straight), while other places will experience colder temperature (The Shahara, of all places, got snowfall the last three years in a row, while before then, it hadn't snowed since 1979).
The Sahara got snowfall but overall it is much hotter than ever before. It is advancing south into more tropical terrain in Sudan and Chad, turning green vegetation dry and soil once used for farming into barren ground in areas that can least afford to lose it.
@SorcererV1ct0r "Gloabl Warming" is a misnomer anyway. "Global Climate Change" is MUCH more accurate. Some places will get significantly hotter (here in Kansas, we have had record breaking hot summers and winters for several years straight), while other places will experience colder temperature (The Shahara, of all places, got snowfall the last three years in a row, while before then, it hadn't snowed since 1979).
The Sahara got snowfall but overall it is much hotter than ever before. It is advancing south into more tropical terrain in Sudan and Chad, turning green vegetation dry and soil once used for farming into barren ground in areas that can least afford to lose it.
An investigation by Forbes Magazine is alleging that Wilbur Ross may have swindled over 120 million dollars from associates and investors. If true, this would make him the biggest grifter in American history.
Who is Wilbur Ross? He's Trump's Commerce Secretary. Because of course he is.
At this point, we are reaching Teapot Dome or Tammany Hall levels of corruption. He might as well have made Bernie Madoff Commerce Secretary.
But that may be small potatoes if you take into account this new poll from Ipsos, in which 43% of Republicans say they think the President of the United States should be able to SHUT DOWN certain news outlets engaged in bad behavior:
Once again, what is deemed bad behaviour? Disagreeing with the president, or actually spreading false information regarding an issue through social media apps like Facebook? Vague question will always get vague answer, and if there was someone more responsible in the White House such as Obama, maybe more democrats would swing the same way.
The second question from the paragraph is more telling, as it clearly states that if media knowingly published false information, it should be easier to sue. The key word here is knowingly. Very few news outlets knowingly publish false information, it takes away their credibility to begin with.
Thanks a lot for answers. Any interesting articles about evidences that the climate changes are created by humans? And articles that they are natural?
But lets assume that the climate change is not natural and is caused by humans. HOw to solve that problem? I mean, China is the worlds largest polluter, if everyone needs to trade with China, who make countries pollute less? (source https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/09/the-worlds-largest-cap-and-trade-program/407371/ ) And how do that without capping the development in underdeveloped nations?
Comments
Perhaps government controlled news media that doesn't tell you the awful things Trump is doing would make us all happier. Hear no evil, right? Is that really what people think is a good idea? Because that's what would happen because that's what countries like Russia do. And guess what just being ignorant of the facts and corruption doesn't make people's lives any better.
---------
Trump admitted his sons and campaign manager were involved in a criminal conspiracy. He 'says' (lol the zero integrity guy 'says') he knew nothing about it. Still he admitted his sons committed felonies. So where's the law and order party now?
I fact, in majority of the cases, it has proven to be the other way around. Trump claims a story is false and denies the hell out it, only for it to be proven right by the media weeks or months later.
Journalist live off of their ethics and trustworthiness. To the point where, if one was found fabricating a story, they’d never write a story for a news agency again. Trump knows this, it is why he is attacking it, attempting to trigger them, the way he himself has been triggered by all the negative news surrounding his pesidency thus far.
There is also no question that the media should be independent from the government. A government controlled media help repress people. All one needs to do is look at China and how their state run news networks work.
I find the notion that the media is some sort of tyrannical presence to be silly. It's not some elite cabal that prevents outsiders from joining; anyone can start a newspaper or magazine or online publication without needing any special permission or clearance from anybody. The media is a collection of privately-owned companies that sell content. Some of them sell books; some sell movies and TV shows; some sell articles, either by charging directly for access, posting advertisements, or both.
Saying a newspaper is an enemy of the people is like saying a book publisher or movie producer or a webcomic artist is an enemy of the people. All they're doing is saying words and selling stuff. That's the entire industry.
They don't have political power; they can't veto laws or override executive orders or decide court rulings. They just talk--just like everyone on this forum is doing.
It's true that they can influence politics. But they do it by talking, and in legal parlance, that's called the "free marketplace of ideas." It's legal, normal, and good for people to express opinions.
Whether a given article is right or not is another question, but it's not like the media has any power beyond their freedom of speech.
Who's lying hundreds of independent news people all across the country, James Comey, England, the EU, NATO, Democrats, scientists, celebrities, or Trump who constantly flip flopping and being caught in obvious lies.
To me that's hardly the "enemy of the people" as Trump describes it. I'd say there's no way right now the government produces any useful thing to support your government funded media. With Republicans in charge it would be skewed to pork and side tracked and be guaranteed to be "proconservative", Congress has already been whining that there's not enough done to cater to right wing conspiracy nut jobs (I sheet you not).
And even if the Congress was an honest actor in this I'm not convinced that it is the best plan to have the government controlling the media. Maybe crowdsourced media is better (overlook the q-anon looonies hey crowdsourced news is not perfect but neither is corporate media).
Bottom line: There will always be critical thinking required.
The concern raised by the paper is that, as the temperature increases up to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, that could trigger positive feedback from these mechanisms - making it difficult or impossible to hold the temperature increase to the 2 degree target agreed in Paris. As an example, ice sheets have in the past helped stabilize temperature increases (for instance those resulting from increased solar activity), by reflecting radiation away from the Earth. As the temperature rises though those ice sheets are disappearing, thus less of the radiation reaching us will be reflected away - increasing the temperature further.
A quick review of scientific reaction to the paper shows plenty of both support and opposition, rather than the virtual unanimity associated with the basic question of whether climate change is happening at all. The paper suggests not just reducing CO2 emissions, but extracting existing CO2 from the air as well. Personally I'm not convinced that's wise, but I absolutely agree that more research in this area should be done.
It's no doubt a pipe dream, but it would be nice if sceptics of climate change (looking at you President Trump) analyzed the type of information they would need to be convinced of its reality and then jointly commissioned research aimed at producing that type of information. The current disconnect between US scientists and politicians has harmful effects wider than just climate change, as does the distrust of evidence-based policy.
All he got from North Korea was a handshake and a nonbinding promise using 1990s-era language, from a country that's already infamous for breaking those promises... and yet he announced that the Korean nuclear issue was solved, for the sole reason that he wants to claim some sort of accomplishment. He doesn't know if the problem is solved and he doesn't care. He got a chance to brag, and now that he has it, he has no plans to follow up on the issue or make sure that North Korea is going to make good on the same promise it's broken countless times in the past.
Sometimes 2+2 is just 4. He doesn't know how to solve these problems, so he makes a token gesture and then triumphantly announces that he's magically fixed everything. This is how he's always operated. Back when he was a full-time real estate tycoon, he would hold big press conferences to announce new projects, only to forget about them and move on to something else. Even before he became President, his first instinct was to brag.
He doesn't have follow-through. He doesn't put in the effort.
As for what Iran should do now, they should go tell us to fly a kite. Given the humiliation this has caused the moderates, I don't see how they now have any other choice. In the end, he talks about what a horrible deal Obama got with Iran (when we gave up, in actuality, almost nothing), yet he couldn't even secure a fraction of that deal in his "summit" with North Korea. To him, it was an episode of "The Apprentice".
And what is more amazing is that well-meaning people even in this forum were ready to give him the benefit of the doubt to see what he could accomplish. Yet EVERY SINGLE TIME, Trump reverts back to his mean, no matter how much people WISH he wouldn't. It always circles back to a malignant ego, stupidity, and utter laziness. Every time. You will never lose betting on that happening. But Bolton and Trump insisting Iran come back to the table?? Are they f'n serious?? Even if they DID come back to the table, why would they ever make a deal with us again when they now know we will just break the terms based on who is in office?? Our credibility is done, gone. Forever.
People pay bribes to his businesses and money to his never ending campaign to allow them to pollute and destroy the environment. That's what they want and for a price he's happy to do it. If he can be an asshole about things at the same time to people he doesn't like that's icing on the cake. When he can get paid and be a jerk about it, why he's happy in his own way.
The man is incapable but mainly unwilling to perform analysis. It's just not in his interests to do so. He is smart and creative and he does learn and struggle with thoughts but only about how he can argue with strings of words in a way that is in line with his personal agendas. He's an evil genius, not a stable genuis. He's figured out how to get what he wants by bring the world biggest jerk. If he can actually convince a few rubes along the way then all the better.
But in anothers, like on Patagonia, the temperature is RELATIVELY stable? I visited recently Bariloche on July and... Still snowing a lot(mainly on montains), on summer, the average temperature during summer still 16ºC from long years and 3ºC on winter(city, not montains) ( source https://www.holiday-weather.com/bariloche/averages/ and https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/argentina/bariloche/climate )
There are articles saying that some USA sates like Texas can be destroyed by global warrning https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-is-totally-screwed-says-new-climate-change-report-7439099
----------------------------------
About Bolsonaro, some journalists are accusing his vice of being racist and his vice is OBVIOUS non white. Here a article automatically translated https://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/eleicoes/mourao-liga-indio-a-indolencia-e-negro-a-malandragem,73be8aea4ea3a5d1c82310c56e458fdaygfsqjsp.html
Other think about affirmative action.
IF you look to this chart
source http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017063
The average "white" guy from a big city on South is 88% white and in another city is 66%, that is a huge difference. That means that is very easy for someone to be considered "white" in a state and "non white" on another. Of course, it is the average, let's say that half is pure and half is 3/4, on average they will be 7/8
- he's narcissistic, so will want to leave monuments behind him. If, for instance, a major memorial was named the Trump memorial I guarantee it would be easier to get him to consider the potential damage pollution could do to the structure.
- he loves making money, so pointing out what sea level rises could do to his investments (like the Scottish links golf courses he's so fond of) would be a good way to concentrate his mind.
The point is that there are always two sides to an argument. Trump is mainly concentrated on what he thinks provides the most instant gratification, e.g. reducing regulations provides more jobs (and voters for him); increasing shale production benefits energy security and gives the US more power in the world. The other side of those arguments needs to be put in a way he can relate to, e.g. more jobs may help hundreds of workers, but pollution could affect many thousands (of voters); shale production will last relatively few years and become gradually more expensive - tidal energy could last for ever, will become cheaper over time and be a huge export opportunity for the US.
However, I did do a quick search for information on Patagonia and found this academic study. That suggests there has been a trend towards drier weather in Patagonia over 30-40 years, culminating in an extreme drought and wildfires in 2016 - i.e. the same sort of weather seen in many areas in the northern hemisphere this year.
Just like any other locality, weather patterns in Patagonia don't tell you a lot about global warming - you do need to look at data worldwide to get a decent picture of that. However, the data certainly don't suggest that Patagonia will be spared from the worldwide impacts.
Who is Wilbur Ross? He's Trump's Commerce Secretary. Because of course he is.
But that may be small potatoes if you take into account this new poll from Ipsos, in which 43% of Republicans say they think the President of the United States should be able to SHUT DOWN certain news outlets engaged in bad behavior:
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/americans-views-media-2018-08-07
The climate is a high-order system (a system with lots of different factors), which means it's extremely difficult to predict. "Chaotic" systems are very dependent on initial conditions, which is why climate predictions for day-to-day changes are only accurate for a few dozen hours into the future.
Take the example of a pendulum. Once you have its period, you can easily predict where it will be at any given time. But add a single extra factor--say, a single extra joint in the pendulum--and that tiny change will make the pendulum increasingly difficult to predict as time goes on.
Imagine you're a farmer trying to base your business plans on the movement of this pendulum, and that little joint seems like a hideous problem. Whenever the end of the pendulum reaches the starting point, that essentially represents a crop failure.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/29/the-sahara-is-growing-thanks-in-part-to-climate-change/
The second question from the paragraph is more telling, as it clearly states that if media knowingly published false information, it should be easier to sue. The key word here is knowingly. Very few news outlets knowingly publish false information, it takes away their credibility to begin with.
This is very sad.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/us/what-we-know-about-new-mexico-compound/index.html
Here is another news angle.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/07/body-found-on-new-mexico-property-where-11-children-were-found-abused.html
But lets assume that the climate change is not natural and is caused by humans. HOw to solve that problem? I mean, China is the worlds largest polluter, if everyone needs to trade with China, who make countries pollute less? (source https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/09/the-worlds-largest-cap-and-trade-program/407371/ ) And how do that without capping the development in underdeveloped nations?