"Get a grip, America."

[music lover]

That is a bullshit false equivalence right there. Democrats don't want the public to "fear" climate change; they want to fix it.

Before something can be fixed, we need proof that it needs "fixing", and proof that the "fix" will not cause as much damage as no fix. No one has proven either scenario beyond a reasonable doubt.

Computer projections are not proof, no matter what anyone claims.

Fuck off. We already had this argument in a different thread, where you made it crystal clear that there is no standard of "proof" sufficient to stop you from moving the goalposts and that you are arguing in bad faith. If you can't restrain yourself from spewing bullshit, at least go do it there instead of here.

I suggest that you fuck off instead. The only ones moving the goalposts are the alarmists. Arctic sea ice was supposed to be gone by 2015, among many other failed predictions that didn't happen. If they get something right, they might be worth listening to. But until then, they are nothing but a bunch of blathering idiots shrieking about doom and gloom.

[Conjou]

I think the descriptor "climate change" isn't very useful, much like global warming isn't a helpful description. Climates always change. Global warming seems like a good idea to people living in cold climates. Yadayada. In both cases people hear the language and deploy a readymade dismissal. Someone recently mentioned "global weirding" as being more helpful to get people to think about the stuff that is happening and to maybe ask why, but my confidence that people would try to make lifestyle adjustments based on what they know would be good for the planet, kind to others (thinking of welcoming the stranger here instead of carpet bombing out of fear), and being more civil and rational in public debate is about the same level of confidence I have that people will suddenly see the wisdom of MMM-- yeah, a small minority of the population is on board but the majority just think we mustachians are a bunch of wackos.

[Kris]

I think the descriptor "climate change" isn't very useful, much like global warming isn't a helpful description. Climates always change. Global warming seems like a good idea to people living in cold climates. Yadayada. In both cases people hear the language and deploy a readymade dismissal. Someone recently mentioned "global weirding" as being more helpful to get people to think about the stuff that is happening and to maybe ask why, but my confidence that people would try to make lifestyle adjustments based on what they know would be good for the planet, kind to others (thinking of welcoming the stranger here instead of carpet bombing out of fear), and being more civil and rational in public debate is about the same level of confidence I have that people will suddenly see the wisdom of MMM-- yeah, a small minority of the population is on board but the majority just think we mustachians are a bunch of wackos.

I agree with this.

I prefer the term "climate destabilization," myself. Because that's what the lived result is for us.

[Glenstache]

I think the descriptor "climate change" isn't very useful, much like global warming isn't a helpful description. Climates always change. Global warming seems like a good idea to people living in cold climates. Yadayada. In both cases people hear the language and deploy a readymade dismissal. Someone recently mentioned "global weirding" as being more helpful to get people to think about the stuff that is happening and to maybe ask why, but my confidence that people would try to make lifestyle adjustments based on what they know would be good for the planet, kind to others (thinking of welcoming the stranger here instead of carpet bombing out of fear), and being more civil and rational in public debate is about the same level of confidence I have that people will suddenly see the wisdom of MMM-- yeah, a small minority of the population is on board but the majority just think we mustachians are a bunch of wackos.

I agree with this.

I prefer the term "climate destabilization," myself. Because that's what the lived result is for us.

I think the name climate change is okay. Destabilization is perhaps better. The real issue is that there is a lot of purposeful obfuscation making it very difficult for the public to sort it out. That influence overpowers any of the issues with what we choose to name it. If it were simply an issue of education, the nuances between the names would be far less important than the big picture.

[MoonShadow]

It's kinda rule number 1 in the one page one rule book of GOP tactics. Sow fear.

Both parties sow fear as part of their platform...the Democrats have chosen climate.

I'll take the fear based on science over the fear based on racism, thanks though.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/why-i-left-greenpeace

[MoonShadow]

That is a bullshit false equivalence right there. Democrats don't want the public to "fear" climate change; they want to fix it.

Before something can be fixed, we need proof that it needs "fixing", and proof that the "fix" will not cause as much damage as no fix. No one has proven either scenario beyond a reasonable doubt.

Computer projections are not proof, no matter what anyone claims.

Fuck off. We already had this argument in a different thread, where you made it crystal clear that there is no standard of "proof" sufficient to stop you from moving the goalposts and that you are arguing in bad faith. If you can't restrain yourself from spewing bullshit, at least go do it there instead of here.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-our-biggest-problem

[Kris]

That is a bullshit false equivalence right there. Democrats don't want the public to "fear" climate change; they want to fix it.

Before something can be fixed, we need proof that it needs "fixing", and proof that the "fix" will not cause as much damage as no fix. No one has proven either scenario beyond a reasonable doubt.

Computer projections are not proof, no matter what anyone claims.

Fuck off. We already had this argument in a different thread, where you made it crystal clear that there is no standard of "proof" sufficient to stop you from moving the goalposts and that you are arguing in bad faith. If you can't restrain yourself from spewing bullshit, at least go do it there instead of here.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-our-biggest-problem

Jack, don't bother.  Moon Shadow's main lines of arguments when presented with an idea he doesn't agree with are to: a) present a website that he DOES agree with; b) when someone else presents evidence to the contrary, immediately say that anyone can give a link to "prove" whatever they want, bla bla bla, so he doesn't have to even engage with what you've presented; c) move the goalposts constantly in any argument so that he never has to admit being called on the carpet. 

The man is a logical fallacy poster boy.

[MoonShadow]

That is a bullshit false equivalence right there. Democrats don't want the public to "fear" climate change; they want to fix it.

Before something can be fixed, we need proof that it needs "fixing", and proof that the "fix" will not cause as much damage as no fix. No one has proven either scenario beyond a reasonable doubt.

Computer projections are not proof, no matter what anyone claims.

Fuck off. We already had this argument in a different thread, where you made it crystal clear that there is no standard of "proof" sufficient to stop you from moving the goalposts and that you are arguing in bad faith. If you can't restrain yourself from spewing bullshit, at least go do it there instead of here.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-our-biggest-problem

Jack, don't bother.  Moon Shadow's main lines of arguments when presented with an idea he doesn't agree with are to: a) present a website that he DOES agree with; b) when someone else presents evidence to the contrary, immediately say that anyone can give a link to "prove" whatever they want, bla bla bla, so he doesn't have to even engage with what you've presented; c) move the goalposts constantly in any argument so that he never has to admit being called on the carpet. 

The man is a logical fallacy poster boy.

That was a video by an original founder of Greenpeace that basically considers the whole movement corrupt.  And was the only director with a science degree by 1985.  It was an opinion piece, so I didn't offer it as "evidence".  Of course you didn't take the time to watch it, Kris.  I didn't expect you to.  Your reaction was predictable.

[cerat0n1a]

That is a bullshit false equivalence right there. Democrats don't want the public to "fear" climate change; they want to fix it.

Before something can be fixed, we need proof that it needs "fixing", and proof that the "fix" will not cause as much damage as no fix. No one has proven either scenario beyond a reasonable doubt.

Computer projections are not proof, no matter what anyone claims.

Fuck off. We already had this argument in a different thread, where you made it crystal clear that there is no standard of "proof" sufficient to stop you from moving the goalposts and that you are arguing in bad faith. If you can't restrain yourself from spewing bullshit, at least go do it there instead of here.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-our-biggest-problem

Jack, don't bother.  Moon Shadow's main lines of arguments when presented with an idea he doesn't agree with are to: a) present a website that he DOES agree with; b) when someone else presents evidence to the contrary, immediately say that anyone can give a link to "prove" whatever they want, bla bla bla, so he doesn't have to even engage with what you've presented; c) move the goalposts constantly in any argument so that he never has to admit being called on the carpet. 

The man is a logical fallacy poster boy.

In fairness, Bjorn Lomberg, who's material was linked to, is at least a serious person who's done research and based his arguments on facts and reasoning. His argument is essentially, yes I understand that human CO2 emissions are increasing the amont of CO2 in the atmosphere and this is causing the world to get warmer and this has bad consequences and I don't dispute the obvious scientific facts, but the cost of doing something about it is more than the cost of the bad consequences, therefore we should spend our money on other things instead. That's a least a position that you have can have a rational discussion about, rather than someone who simply dismisses stuff "because a scientist said it"

[Jack]

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-our-biggest-problem

Jack, don't bother.  Moon Shadow's main lines of arguments when presented with an idea he doesn't agree with are to: a) present a website that he DOES agree with; b) when someone else presents evidence to the contrary, immediately say that anyone can give a link to "prove" whatever they want, bla bla bla, so he doesn't have to even engage with what you've presented; c) move the goalposts constantly in any argument so that he never has to admit being called on the carpet. 

The man is a logical fallacy poster boy.

In fairness, Bjorn Lomberg, who's material was linked to, is at least a serious person who's done research and based his arguments on facts and reasoning. His argument is essentially, yes I understand that human CO2 emissions are increasing the amont of CO2 in the atmosphere and this is causing the world to get warmer and this has bad consequences and I don't dispute the obvious scientific facts, but the cost of doing something about it is more than the cost of the bad consequences, therefore we should spend our money on other things instead. That's a least a position that you have can have a rational discussion about, rather than someone who simply dismisses stuff "because a scientist said it"

Oh, really? In that case, that's a significant departure from Moonshadow's previous position on the topic. If that is indeed true, then I'll be happy to debate again with him on the next climate change thread (this isn't it, by the way: this thread is about hype about terrorism and its deleterious effect on civil rights).

Of course, that economist is still totally wrong, for at least two reasons (that I noticed in my quick reading of that page): First, he claims instances of unusually-severe weather don't matter because it isn't worse "on average," but that neglects the fact that severity is what matters: the eastern and gulf coasts can withstand category 3 hurricanes (for example) all the time with very little damage, because the infrastructure is built to handle it. However, rebuilding all the infrastructure to make it capable of withstanding category 5 storms is incredibly expensive. Katrina was a disaster because it was a monstrous category 5; if New Orleans had been instead hit by a series of category 3s nothing would have happened. Changing the probability distribution of storm severity -- skewing it away from a normal distribution -- is what makes climate change costly. Similarly, droughts and floods in places where they are unusual are much more costly than the same events in places that are used to dealing with them. Second, he claims that wind and solar are still inefficient, but that's no longer true. Besides, he suggests that we'd be better off putting the money into developing the technology, but apparently doesn't realize that that's exactly what the subsidies accomplish (albeit indirectly)! But again, that's a discussion for another thread.

[MoonShadow]

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-our-biggest-problem

Jack, don't bother.  Moon Shadow's main lines of arguments when presented with an idea he doesn't agree with are to: a) present a website that he DOES agree with; b) when someone else presents evidence to the contrary, immediately say that anyone can give a link to "prove" whatever they want, bla bla bla, so he doesn't have to even engage with what you've presented; c) move the goalposts constantly in any argument so that he never has to admit being called on the carpet. 

The man is a logical fallacy poster boy.

In fairness, Bjorn Lomberg, who's material was linked to, is at least a serious person who's done research and based his arguments on facts and reasoning. His argument is essentially, yes I understand that human CO2 emissions are increasing the amont of CO2 in the atmosphere and this is causing the world to get warmer and this has bad consequences and I don't dispute the obvious scientific facts, but the cost of doing something about it is more than the cost of the bad consequences, therefore we should spend our money on other things instead. That's a least a position that you have can have a rational discussion about, rather than someone who simply dismisses stuff "because a scientist said it"

Oh, really? In that case, that's a significant departure from Moonshadow's previous position on the topic. If that is indeed true, then I'll be happy to debate again with him on the next climate change thread (this isn't it, by the way: this thread is about hype about terrorism and its deleterious effect on civil rights).

Uh, no it's not.  I'm a "likewarmer", and I have repeatedly said that I don't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the climate is changing.  I dispute that this is necessarily a crisis.  I have specifically brought up Bjorn's reasoning on this forum in the past, personally & by name.

[hoping2retire35]

might as well fully hijack this thread.

... (which it's effects are occuring now, not in 20 years) ...

Wasn't really talking about the time specifically, just that the sooner we act the better.

But that obscured the immediacy of the issue. And it is true that the sooner we act the better. A better analogy would be an infection. The sooner you act the easier it is to manage.

...the details were not that important, if its an infection you could just go to an island or another continent.

bankrupting the entire world, that somehow we have to come up with a technology that will require "ALL THE RESOURCES"?...

I really just meant it would involve reorganising our economic system, specifically cap n trade and Kyoto protocal( these were two pieces I had in mind when I inserted the snarky comments). And yes, if we are talking about massive global sea level rise, desertification, extinction of thousands of species, ( some have said the Syria immigrant situation is at least partially to blame on CC), and maybe even lead to a Permian like extinction event. So yes we better throw the fucking kitchen sink.

No reorganization needed. Cap and trade was used for the reduction of SO2 (acid rain). It worked and it didn't require a whole reorganization of the economy to do so. The Kyoto Protocol was signed and ratified by several countries which has not altered the economic system globally. Unless you have proof that those two pieces actually have reorganized our economic system then you're either blowing smoke or jumping at nothing.

Those other things are effects of CC. So are you arguing for or against doing something about it now?
[/quote]

No, not at all. CO2 is in everything. it is what you exhale, comes from your car exhaust, decomposition, everything, not just purifying diesel fuel or changing some ingredients in an aerosol can.

Also, we have not signed the Kyoto Treaty, and for good reason. it negated the effects of our large forest farms for absorbing CO2, due to lack of biodiversity. Both are important and not even mutually exclusive, however considering drastically reducing our CO2 output because we do not meet a biometric threshold is over the top.

So no, I am not for reorganizing our economy on some grand scale when we cannot get even the little things right. We legislation looks too much like it fits someone/parties political agenda and involves this much change, no way.

If so then you're using the same fear mongering techniques. Congratulations you've crossed the boundary into pure irony.

I generally keep my thoughts to myself( I got sucked into this thread by pointing out the pentagon is not an unbiased source) but legislators in Washington state are pretty much nuts about this stuff. The state pays residents $0.54 per kwh produced by home solar power and some other conditions.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/29/americas-best-solar-incentives-are-in-washington/

Okay. So what? Governments have a long long history of incentivizing all sorts of activity. When someone uses that as an argument against things I wonder if they take advantage of all the other things that government incentivizes in their lives.

Regardless it comes back to the fear based rhetoric. For climate change you can get language that does reflect that. I'll agree whole heartedly. But like I said, that's fear based on science and not on racism. It's a fear for the stability and quality of life for the future. The fear you receive from the GOP these days is a fear about some illusory culture changing. Well guess what, the world has changed, the GOP is fucked if they don't as well. We no longer and never have lived in Andy Griffith land.

Be flexible and keep growing or die. The world around is changing and we need to change along with it. That goes for climate change and is just a good philosophy about resilience and flexibility in our own lives.
[/quote]

Wrong. it is not racism, though i could see how a casual observer may think that. It is really the white liberal many fear; working hard, sending their kids to college to become secularized and having a degree that is no longer valuable. If you really want to understand it read what this guy writes. The site is ran/owned? by Pat Buchanan so it is mainstream/not crazy, has good material. I'll post a recent article that summarizes a lot of the fears you are referencing, if it seems too long just skim the quotes.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/is-commitment-pluralism-the-answer-tyranny-liberalism/

This thread is getting out of the fun zone, so I'm going back to talking about tax free gift exemptions; however I felt you deserved a response.

[matchewed]

might as well fully hijack this thread.

... (which it's effects are occuring now, not in 20 years) ...

Wasn't really talking about the time specifically, just that the sooner we act the better.

But that obscured the immediacy of the issue. And it is true that the sooner we act the better. A better analogy would be an infection. The sooner you act the easier it is to manage.

...the details were not that important, if its an infection you could just go to an island or another continent.

An infection of the body is what I meant.

bankrupting the entire world, that somehow we have to come up with a technology that will require "ALL THE RESOURCES"?...

I really just meant it would involve reorganising our economic system, specifically cap n trade and Kyoto protocal( these were two pieces I had in mind when I inserted the snarky comments). And yes, if we are talking about massive global sea level rise, desertification, extinction of thousands of species, ( some have said the Syria immigrant situation is at least partially to blame on CC), and maybe even lead to a Permian like extinction event. So yes we better throw the fucking kitchen sink.

No reorganization needed. Cap and trade was used for the reduction of SO2 (acid rain). It worked and it didn't require a whole reorganization of the economy to do so. The Kyoto Protocol was signed and ratified by several countries which has not altered the economic system globally. Unless you have proof that those two pieces actually have reorganized our economic system then you're either blowing smoke or jumping at nothing.

Those other things are effects of CC. So are you arguing for or against doing something about it now?

No, not at all. CO2 is in everything. it is what you exhale, comes from your car exhaust, decomposition, everything, not just purifying diesel fuel or changing some ingredients in an aerosol can.

Also, we have not signed the Kyoto Treaty, and for good reason. it negated the effects of our large forest farms for absorbing CO2, due to lack of biodiversity. Both are important and not even mutually exclusive, however considering drastically reducing our CO2 output because we do not meet a biometric threshold is over the top.

So no, I am not for reorganizing our economy on some grand scale when we cannot get even the little things right. We legislation looks too much like it fits someone/parties political agenda and involves this much change, no way.

So I'm confused do you believe Climate Change is  happening because of CO2?

And I know we haven't signed the Kyoto Treaty. My point is we've used cap and trade before and the Kyoto treaty was signed by several more governments than not yet it did not result in this doomsday scenario you're painting. Why not? Because America didn't join in? Because aerosol cans aren't universal? Those are weak arguments. The cap and trade on SO2 is reflective that the industries which used it adapted. You're claiming industries which produce CO2 cannot for some reason. What is that reason?

If you think it is happening what do you think should be done about it? Present to me a seemingly non-partisan solution that has been proposed by anybody then if you believe all the solutions discussed mainstream are just agenda laden.

If so then you're using the same fear mongering techniques. Congratulations you've crossed the boundary into pure irony.

I generally keep my thoughts to myself( I got sucked into this thread by pointing out the pentagon is not an unbiased source) but legislators in Washington state are pretty much nuts about this stuff. The state pays residents $0.54 per kwh produced by home solar power and some other conditions.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/29/americas-best-solar-incentives-are-in-washington/

Okay. So what? Governments have a long long history of incentivizing all sorts of activity. When someone uses that as an argument against things I wonder if they take advantage of all the other things that government incentivizes in their lives.

Regardless it comes back to the fear based rhetoric. For climate change you can get language that does reflect that. I'll agree whole heartedly. But like I said, that's fear based on science and not on racism. It's a fear for the stability and quality of life for the future. The fear you receive from the GOP these days is a fear about some illusory culture changing. Well guess what, the world has changed, the GOP is fucked if they don't as well. We no longer and never have lived in Andy Griffith land.

Be flexible and keep growing or die. The world around is changing and we need to change along with it. That goes for climate change and is just a good philosophy about resilience and flexibility in our own lives.

Wrong. it is not racism, though i could see how a casual observer may think that. It is really the white liberal many fear; working hard, sending their kids to college to become secularized and having a degree that is no longer valuable. If you really want to understand it read what this guy writes. The site is ran/owned? by Pat Buchanan so it is mainstream/not crazy, has good material. I'll post a recent article that summarizes a lot of the fears you are referencing, if it seems too long just skim the quotes.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/is-commitment-pluralism-the-answer-tyranny-liberalism/

This thread is getting out of the fun zone, so I'm going back to talking about tax free gift exemptions; however I felt you deserved a response.

Wait wait wait, you're making the claim that the information posted in the opinion article from the OP about all the fear mongering regarding Muslims is not because of racism but because of fear of stability? No. What the hell does any Muslim have to do with that? I call bullshit on that line of thought. There is nothing connecting those. It is still fucking awesome to be a white guy in the US.

It's the cowering of the conservatives behind the "I want my quality of life to remain static" line of reasoning that is a soft piece of cloth covering the reality of the situation. It's bullshit. The reality is their view is decidedly impacting other human beings with rights. It is this same viewpoint which makes them wax melancholically about life in the 50's. Which was really great if you were a white guy.

As I said above. The culture is changing. The days of the GOP are numbered unless they drop that false narrative and embrace other cultures. Their fear is not about their quality of life which is awesome. It's about denying that quality of life to people who are not them.

[hoping2retire35]

Not going to quote all of that. ^to matchewed

The OP article, IIRC, was that people (GOP/Trump/tea party) are afraid of immigrants (racism implied). Pretty quickly, in the thread, someone made it clear the above group was racist. Music lover or someone said democrats use climate to push fear. I believe it was you or someone said that changed it slightly and said dems use science while reps use racism. I was trying to make the point that it is not racism.

I agree it is pretty awesome to be in the USA(I have learned how much more awesome it can be from this fourm and MMM), whether white or any other identifying group. It attracts a lot of people who want to immigrate because of that; however it is also the freest most libertarian country in the world, by far, and that is what they(GOP/tea party/angry trump supporters) are afraid of losing. They want to be left alone; not spied on, taxed, harrassed, or generally told to comply. Their idea of freedom is to be left alone, others idea is to be given certain rights; positive rights vs. negative rights. Repbulicans generally promote negative rights while disdaining positive ones, however they have not acted in accordance with their rhetoric (hence the tea parties disgust with establishment republicans). Democrats usually try to sell positive rights when campaigning, and they have been delivering, and what has fueled the tea party and outsiders like Cruz and Trump is that the Republicans have been going along.  Granted, they may not have the numbers to get to the white house or hold Congress long term, but that does not mean they want to continue voting for the establishment. We may continue to see the balance swings between Republican and Democrat but the Republicans will continue to move left. Immigrants from Latin America or the Middle East will most likely vote democrat/liberal. Thereby, exacerbating the move to the left. I realize the Syrian immigrants would only be a small part to this and the threat from terrorism is small and do feel as though some Republicans/conservaties have overreacted, but the Democrats/liberals are also showing a lot of naivety.

The article i linked and some of Dreher's other stuff is probably a good place to go if you want to understand better.

[matchewed]

Not going to quote all of that. ^to matchewed

The OP article, IIRC, was that people (GOP/Trump/tea party) are afraid of immigrants (racism implied). Pretty quickly, in the thread, someone made it clear the above group was racist. Music lover or someone said democrats use climate to push fear. I believe it was you or someone said that changed it slightly and said dems use science while reps use racism. I was trying to make the point that it is not racism.

I agree it is pretty awesome to be in the USA(I have learned how much more awesome it can be from this fourm and MMM), whether white or any other identifying group. It attracts a lot of people who want to immigrate because of that; however it is also the freest most libertarian country in the world, by far, and that is what they(GOP/tea party/angry trump supporters) are afraid of losing. They want to be left alone; not spied on, taxed, harrassed, or generally told to comply. Their idea of freedom is to be left alone, others idea is to be given certain rights; positive rights vs. negative rights. Repbulicans generally promote negative rights while disdaining positive ones, however they have not acted in accordance with their rhetoric (hence the tea parties disgust with establishment republicans). Democrats usually try to sell positive rights when campaigning, and they have been delivering, and what has fueled the tea party and outsiders like Cruz and Trump is that the Republicans have been going along.  Granted, they may not have the numbers to get to the white house or hold Congress long term, but that does not mean they want to continue voting for the establishment. We may continue to see the balance swings between Republican and Democrat but the Republicans will continue to move left. Immigrants from Latin America or the Middle East will most likely vote democrat/liberal. Thereby, exacerbating the move to the left. I realize the Syrian immigrants would only be a small part to this and the threat from terrorism is small and do feel as though some Republicans/conservaties have overreacted, but the Democrats/liberals are also showing a lot of naivety.

The article i linked and some of Dreher's other stuff is probably a good place to go if you want to understand better.

So calling Mexicans coming into the US is not racist but fueled by negative rights promotion. Shutting down the internet because of "Muslim terrorists" is not fueled by racism but by negative rights promotion.  Preventing all Muslims from coming into the country is also not racist but a negative rights promotion.

I still call bullshit. What rights exactly are being protected? Please elaborate on that as I cannot see some negative right that is being violated if Muslims are allowed into our country.

[Zx]

It's kinda rule number 1 in the one page one rule book of GOP tactics. Sow fear.

Both parties sow fear as part of their platform...the Democrats have chosen climate.

I remember when I was in college in 2002, 2003. The first 20 minutes were always taken by the prof giving a lecture on some bleeding hearted liberal tripe, whatever the flavor of the day was, and we had to listen to him rant and rave about the latest liberal fear mongering tactics and they had him going, for sure. He drank the koolaid down to the dregs, and us uniformed students had the privilege every day of sitting at his feet so as to learn of all the dangers posed by the evil, treacherous conservatives.

I remember one day in particular. He'd read something about the new thing: global warming. He had read "the science" and agreed with the "scientists", that unless something was done, we'd be losing most of the coastal regions on Earth by 2015. Oh, it was horrible, the sky was falling, and falling fast. It was the GOP's fault, they were always trying to: kill the poor, kill the old people, kill the Earth, help the rich, help themselves, take away this, take away that...but fear mongering was their greatest tool...

...I never said anything, but I'd like to have asked him if he was listening to what he was saying. He was like the liberals' answer to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. It just never ended. And it had nothing to do with our class whatsoever.

I had gone to a private school for awhile and it was the other way around. The fear mongering goes both ways, both sides help the rich and hurt the poor, both sides are making the rich richer and poor poorer, and it's all posturing with us as the cash cow and the media brewing the koolaid to inflame our passions and get us to put our time and attention to their little world.

Seems like hardly anyone realizes, but ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC have only left wing liberal Democrats in their "journalist" corps now. There used to be Diane Sawyer, a registered Republican, and Pat Buchanan which made two over the six networks, but they got rid of them. And most of the people gathering, preparing, and delivering "news" content aren't journalists anyway but rather activists holding the job of journalist.

And they'll tell you only FOX News is biased, that's the funniest thing. They are 100% left wing liberal Democrat and they call FOX News biased. FOX News IS biased, of course, but not nearly so much as the six left wing networks. FOX by themselves employs more activists from the other side of the aisle than all six leftist networks combined do. Not saying much, as they'd only have to employ ONE for that statement to be true, but there it is.

There's no difference in either side of the aisle. That's why they are lying to us all the time. You have the Lying Messiah, Barack Obama, on one side assuring us that we can keep our doctor, period, and we can keep our insurance if we like it, period, and that American families will save on average 2 500 dollars per year on health insurance, you have the IRS taking sides against his enemies, and I could go on and on and on. But if you love him, then you probably hated W, who "lied to us about WMD" and cut taxes on the rich and whatever else.

And if you are for the walking gaffe machine, Joe Biden, who goes around with one foot in his mouth and always trying to fit the other one in there, then you hate Sarah Palin and call her stupid and mock the ridiculous things that come out of her mouth. They are two peas in a pod, but we've been sold a bill of goods that says one political party is the real one, one party is for US, and oh the horrible things that will happen if the OTHER party takes power...no fear mongering there, right? By either side. Whatever.

They are playing us. Both sides. And yes, 6 of the 7 television networks are bleeding hearted liberal biased and most people think it isn't bias, it's just the truth.

And then you have FOX News, who depending on which koolaid you've been marinating in, is the evil empire OR the only one that tells you the truth.

The media is now the opiate of the masses, and the fools are the people who actually believe what they are telling you, buying in to their schtick, and thinking for a moment that there is a difference. We are being PLAYED.

Science is the new religion in town, and their Great High Priests, the hallowed and wonderful "scientists", are making a mint on the fear mongering they are doing but couching it in "science", when like everything else you can make it say what you want it to say. If you think the "scientists" are unbiased as to their own conclusions and are just seeking the truth no matter what it may be, you are HIGH. You are being played.

And for most of the USA it is business as usual and has worked for a long, long time. And it will keep working right up to the end, whenever that is. I hope it's a long ways off!

[GuitarStv]

The beauty of science, and the reason why it's the best way of examining and thinking of the natural world that so far been devised is that the biases of the scientists doing the work don't matter at all.  Only the logic that they use and and the results to support their conclusions do.  It's why you can have a scientist of any religion, any political leaning, and from any country come up with results that change our understanding of the world.  Baked into the scientific method is a self correcting mechanism that is pretty good at replacing bad ideas with good ones.

When someone insinuates that science is like a religion, or that political bias controls scientists it's just evidence of woeful lack of understanding what science is, and kind of sad to see.  It also comes from both sides of the political spectrum, but typically on different issues (stuff like vaccination of children from the ignorant on the left, denial of climate change from the ignorant on the right).

[TheNick]

It's kinda rule number 1 in the one page one rule book of GOP tactics. Sow fear.

Both parties sow fear as part of their platform...the Democrats have chosen climate.

I'll take the fear based on science over the fear based on racism, thanks though.

Lol...democrats stir far more crap about racism than republicans could ever dream of.  Obama appointed a flat out racist supreme court justice, and stuffed his foot in his mouth multiple times in racial issues that made the national headlines as he jumped to support the black guy before he even had all the facts.

I'm in my 30s now so I haven't been around as long as some of the folk on this forum, but I can say without a doubt race relations are far worse today than they were under either Bush or Clinton...its part of the democrats new platform...convince all the minorities the big evil white people want to hurt them so they all go out and vote democrat...if that's not fear mongering I don't know what is.  I don't know how many times over the last 7 years I've had people call me racist for disagreeing with a liberal policy because clearly I only disagreed because Obama was black.

Democrats also love to sow fear over guns as well.

I'd rather listen to the republicans go on and on about terrorists than the democrats tell me I'm an oppressive whitey while they try desperately to chip away at my right to own firearms.  Strangely enough people in this thread are talking about the totalitarian republican regime...but let's just ignore one of the first thing any totalitarian regime does is try to disarm civilians.  Republicans are bad, but democrats right now are worse.

[Glenstache]

It's kinda rule number 1 in the one page one rule book of GOP tactics. Sow fear.

Both parties sow fear as part of their platform...the Democrats have chosen climate.

I'll take the fear based on science over the fear based on racism, thanks though.

Lol...democrats stir far more crap about racism than republicans could ever dream of.  Obama appointed a flat out racist supreme court justice, and stuffed his foot in his mouth multiple times in racial issues that made the national headlines as he jumped to support the black guy before he even had all the facts.

I'm in my 30s now so I haven't been around as long as some of the folk on this forum, but I can say without a doubt race relations are far worse today than they were under either Bush or Clinton...its part of the democrats new platform...convince all the minorities the big evil white people want to hurt them so they all go out and vote democrat...if that's not fear mongering I don't know what is.  I don't know how many times over the last 7 years I've had people call me racist for disagreeing with a liberal policy because clearly I only disagreed because Obama was black.

Democrats also love to sow fear over guns as well.

I'd rather listen to the republicans go on and on about terrorists than the democrats tell me I'm an oppressive whitey while they try desperately to chip away at my right to own firearms.  Strangely enough people in this thread are talking about the totalitarian republican regime...but let's just ignore one of the first thing any totalitarian regime does is try to disarm civilians.  Republicans are bad, but democrats right now are worse.

To borrow a phrase: "get a grip"
1990s: see Rodney King and race riots. This is not a new thing. Systematic racism in this country is a real thing, and we have a long way to go. The 100 year trend is towards "better", but we are not there yet. The statistics are clear that it exists. It is more complicated than just saying a police officer as an individual is biased (on the whole they are much better than the average citizen in stress situations, for example). This is something we have a moral obligation to address, and simultaneously realize that it will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

The gun control thing is maddening because it should not be a political issue. The NRA has done a good job of making it a wedge issue. Background checks are a totally reasonable thing to implement and have historically been supported by both parties at the Federal level. State level control is a different (but admittedly related) topic. And yes, I am one of the large number of gun owners who think this is reasonable.

Totalitarian regimes would also use scare tactics of the "other", widespread surveillance, etc. It would look a lot more like North Korea than San Francisco.

I personally tend to be a political pragmatist. I find posts like the one above where issues are viewed in starkly partisan terms to be counterproductive.

[TheNick]

To borrow a phrase: "get a grip"

What's wrong, can't handle a little truth?

1990s: see Rodney King and race riots. This is not a new thing. Systematic racism in this country is a real thing, and we have a long way to go. The 100 year trend is towards "better", but we are not there yet. The statistics are clear that it exists. It is more complicated than just saying a police officer as an individual is biased (on the whole they are much better than the average citizen in stress situations, for example). This is something we have a moral obligation to address, and simultaneously realize that it will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

Translation...the last big racial event prior to the Obama years most people can recall from memory was almost 25 years ago.  Just because things have gotten better over the last 100 years doesn't mean they haven't gotten worse over the last 7.

The gun control thing is maddening because it should not be a political issue. The NRA has done a good job of making it a wedge issue. Background checks are a totally reasonable thing to implement and have historically been supported by both parties at the Federal level. State level control is a different (but admittedly related) topic. And yes, I am one of the large number of gun owners who think this is reasonable.

No, the anti-gun crowd has done a good job of making it a wedge issue.  We already have a background check system in place.  Sure there might be room for improvement and making it more efficient, but the gun control crowd will not stop there.  I live in a liberal state with strict gun laws...soon as they get an inch they want to take two...its how they work, they just happen to be more effective at it on a state level in a liberal state than on a national level.

Totalitarian regimes would also use scare tactics of the "other", widespread surveillance, etc. It would look a lot more like North Korea than San Francisco.

I personally tend to be a political pragmatist. I find posts like the one above where issues are viewed in starkly partisan terms to be counterproductive.
[/quote]

How was my post partisan lol.  I pointed out the fact that face relations has gotten worse since Obama has been president, not better.  Race relations were better during the Clinton or Bush years, but since Obama got into office the democrats have taken a liking to playing the race card, and now we are seeing the results.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/19/race-relations-havenotimprovedunderobamasaymajorityofamericans.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/386336/poll-african-americans-think-race-relations-have-gotten-worse-2009-ryan-lovelace
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-07/bloomberg-politics-poll-finds-most-americans-see-race-relations-worsening-since-obamas-election
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110314-724708-new-ibd-poll-shows-obama-poisoned-race-relations-in-america.htm
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/nearly-40-percent-voters-say-race-relations-have-gotten-worse-n241526
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/poll-race-relations-worse-under-obama

Gun rights?  I'm partisan for supporting the second amendment?  I'm curious how that makes me partisan when there are democrats that support the second amendment as well.

I personally find the people that think that are pragmatists while accusing everyone who doesn't agree with them of being partisan as being counterproductive.

[MoonShadow]

I personally find the people that think that are pragmatists while accusing everyone who doesn't agree with them of being partisan as being counterproductive.

Everyone believes that they are reasonable, rational & close to the middle on most issues. Sadly, that is human nature. 

[MoonShadow]

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-our-biggest-problem

Jack, don't bother.  Moon Shadow's main lines of arguments when presented with an idea he doesn't agree with are to: a) present a website that he DOES agree with; b) when someone else presents evidence to the contrary, immediately say that anyone can give a link to "prove" whatever they want, bla bla bla, so he doesn't have to even engage with what you've presented; c) move the goalposts constantly in any argument so that he never has to admit being called on the carpet. 

The man is a logical fallacy poster boy.

In fairness, Bjorn Lomberg, who's material was linked to, is at least a serious person who's done research and based his arguments on facts and reasoning. His argument is essentially, yes I understand that human CO2 emissions are increasing the amont of CO2 in the atmosphere and this is causing the world to get warmer and this has bad consequences and I don't dispute the obvious scientific facts, but the cost of doing something about it is more than the cost of the bad consequences, therefore we should spend our money on other things instead. That's a least a position that you have can have a rational discussion about, rather than someone who simply dismisses stuff "because a scientist said it"

Oh, really? In that case, that's a significant departure from Moonshadow's previous position on the topic. If that is indeed true, then I'll be happy to debate again with him on the next climate change thread (this isn't it, by the way: this thread is about hype about terrorism and its deleterious effect on civil rights).

Uh, no it's not.  I'm a "likewarmer", and I have repeatedly said that I don't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the climate is changing.  I dispute that this is necessarily a crisis.  I have specifically brought up Bjorn's reasoning on this forum in the past, personally & by name.

I'm ready to have this debate, Jack.

[zephyr911]

I'd like to see a politician compare the statistics and ponder the statement "ISIS doesn't kill Americans, Americans kill Americans".  15,000 murders in 2013 according to the FBI.   Not that I support the Daese, but it might keep things in perspective.

I read more Americans were killed by toddlers (finding carelessly stored and loaded guns) than by terrorists last year. Both figures were in the 40s, IIRC, but the toddlers won out.

[GuitarStv]

I'd like to see a politician compare the statistics and ponder the statement "ISIS doesn't kill Americans, Americans kill Americans".  15,000 murders in 2013 according to the FBI.   Not that I support the Daese, but it might keep things in perspective.

I read more Americans were killed by toddlers (finding carelessly stored and loaded guns) than by terrorists last year. Both figures were in the 40s, IIRC, but the toddlers won out.

Simple solution for that.  The only thing that can stop a bad toddler with a gun . . . is a good toddler with a gun.  #ArmAllToddlers

[MoonShadow]

I'd like to see a politician compare the statistics and ponder the statement "ISIS doesn't kill Americans, Americans kill Americans".  15,000 murders in 2013 according to the FBI.   Not that I support the Daese, but it might keep things in perspective.

I read more Americans were killed by toddlers (finding carelessly stored and loaded guns) than by terrorists last year. Both figures were in the 40s, IIRC, but the toddlers won out.

I'd like to see that article.  Can I get a link, please?

[the_gastropod]

I'd like to see that article.  Can I get a link, please?

Not sure if this is the same article, but here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-powers/toddlers-involved-in-more_b_8650536.html

[Jack]

1990s: see Rodney King and race riots. This is not a new thing. Systematic racism in this country is a real thing, and we have a long way to go. The 100 year trend is towards "better", but we are not there yet. The statistics are clear that it exists. It is more complicated than just saying a police officer as an individual is biased (on the whole they are much better than the average citizen in stress situations, for example). This is something we have a moral obligation to address, and simultaneously realize that it will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

Translation...the last big racial event prior to the Obama years most people can recall from memory was almost 25 years ago.  Just because things have gotten better over the last 100 years doesn't mean they haven't gotten worse over the last 7.

Things haven't gotten worse, they just look worse because the combination of Obama's election and prolific cellphone cameras to provide video proof have caused the issue of systemic racism to be more out in the open (i.e., emboldened the victims to speak out now, as opposed to being too afraid -- or just disbelieved -- before) than it had been since desegregation.

Uh, no it's not.  I'm a "likewarmer", and I have repeatedly said that I don't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the climate is changing.  I dispute that this is necessarily a crisis.  I have specifically brought up Bjorn's reasoning on this forum in the past, personally & by name.

I'm ready to have this debate, Jack.

Okie-dokie. [Wow, that looks really weird written.]

Start a new thread, please.

[MoonShadow]

1990s: see Rodney King and race riots. This is not a new thing. Systematic racism in this country is a real thing, and we have a long way to go. The 100 year trend is towards "better", but we are not there yet. The statistics are clear that it exists. It is more complicated than just saying a police officer as an individual is biased (on the whole they are much better than the average citizen in stress situations, for example). This is something we have a moral obligation to address, and simultaneously realize that it will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

Translation...the last big racial event prior to the Obama years most people can recall from memory was almost 25 years ago.  Just because things have gotten better over the last 100 years doesn't mean they haven't gotten worse over the last 7.

Things haven't gotten worse, they just look worse because the combination of Obama's election and prolific cellphone cameras to provide video proof have caused the issue of systemic racism to be more out in the open (i.e., emboldened the victims to speak out now, as opposed to being too afraid -- or just disbelieved -- before) than it had been since desegregation.

Uh, no it's not.  I'm a "likewarmer", and I have repeatedly said that I don't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the climate is changing.  I dispute that this is necessarily a crisis.  I have specifically brought up Bjorn's reasoning on this forum in the past, personally & by name.

I'm ready to have this debate, Jack.

Okie-dokie. [Wow, that looks really weird written.]

Start a new thread, please.

What do you want me to call it?  And what is the basis of your objection to my perspectives?  I still don't even know what, exactly, we would be debating.

[Glenstache]

How about: 'Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread.'  ?  (tongue in cheek)

[Jack]

Uh, no it's not.  I'm a "likewarmer", and I have repeatedly said that I don't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the climate is changing.  I dispute that this is necessarily a crisis.  I have specifically brought up Bjorn's reasoning on this forum in the past, personally & by name.

I'm ready to have this debate, Jack.

Okie-dokie. [Wow, that looks really weird written.]

Start a new thread, please.

What do you want me to call it?  And what is the basis of your objection to my perspectives?  I still don't even know what, exactly, we would be debating.

Apparently we'd be debating about whether anthropogenic global warming is a crisis or not (or indeed if it were actually a good thing). It belongs in a different thread because this one is about fear-based rhetoric (especially in the realm of national security / totalitarian disregard for civil rights), not global warming. [I realize that you asserted that climate change politics are fear-based, and admit that that's on-topic -- barely -- but the merits of Bjorn's arguments are not.]

How about: 'Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread.'  ?  (tongue in cheek)

I like it!

[MoonShadow]

How about: 'Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread.'  ?  (tongue in cheek)

I like it!

It shall be done.