Quote (proccy @ 20 Sep 2020 20:16)

I didn't even think of that but it's so true.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 20 2020 02:39pm)

Except he isn't comparing the cost of these events, he's making a point about the increased frequency, which is clear because he's referencing things that are all happening at once that have never happened at once, and in the case of the artic topping 100 degrees something that's literally never happened.

You guys are making a lot of assumptions about the content (that it's intended as a direct cause-effect relationship) which are debunked by a basic understanding of the science and the content of the tweet itself, and ignoring essential context in that these are all happening at once meaning it's a statement about the frequency.

This is the problem with conservatism in America, you guys can't make honest criticism about these things. Instead of having a discussion that accept we need to do something and we need to figure out the details, you guys are making obviously dishonest criticisms about how the issue is presented in tweets, or going out of your way to not read the GND and parroting propaganda instead.

Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 20 2020 02:09pm)

Bernie's tweet does not say "...fires may become more prevalent, and action is needed." If he had, he might have made a constructive, uncontroversial post.

Instead he decides to make an argument that the GND's prohibitive cost is justified because of natural disasters that may or may not be linked to climate change, and which the GND may or may not solve. It's a poor argument on a number of levels. Is there a cheaper proposal? A more effective proposal? How does the GND solve for forest maintenance? Nobody knows, and Bernie certainly doesn't try to address it. His post is not serious, and it deserves to be treated as such.

Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 20 2020 12:09pm)

Bernie's tweet does not say "...fires may become more prevalent, and action is needed." If he had, he might have made a constructive, uncontroversial post.

Instead he decides to make an argument that the GND's prohibitive cost is justified because of natural disasters that may or may not be linked to climate change, and which the GND may or may not solve. It's a poor argument on a number of levels. Is there a cheaper proposal? A more effective proposal? How does the GND solve for forest maintenance? Nobody knows, and Bernie certainly doesn't try to address it. His post is not serious, and it deserves to be treated as such.

Quote (proccy @ Sep 20 2020 10:54am)

I searched through 15 pages of Pard to necro a thread so that we don't have to pollute the picture thread

had to make my own

And I feel like even though climate change hasn't been addressed much lately since the pandemic - I was sure that it'd be coming up again soon.



2 and 3 are correct

Quote (inkanddagger @ Sep 20 2020 12:19pm)

We don't talk about it here because ParD is an anti-science right wing forum. You won't make any progress, and you shouldn't try. Essentially, your only option is to wait for the coming Civil War this January and take out as many Trump supporters as you can to save the planet.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 20 2020 03:11pm)

The natural disasters are linked to climate change... an increased frequency of natural disasters is exactly what we expect, and the fact that these are all happening at the same time are exactly congruent with that situation.

You're, again, being dishonest as hell, and this is just part of a larger problem for you personally and for basically everybody I see criticizing the GND and action on climate change as a whole. Your criticism is in line with Ben Shapiro saying "why wouldn't they just sell their house if it floods too much?"

Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 20 2020 12:24pm)

It's not clear that these natural disasters are linked to climate change. Natural disasters after all happen all the time. We expect that they will occur at an increased frequency going forward, but are they? Depends on the natural disaster, and the evidence isn't nearly so clear-cut.

Nobody is being dishonest here. Bernie was Bernie. He made a bad post. The GND is criticized because it is incredibly expensive and highly unrealistic. Pointing to a few natural disasters and demanding an extreme solution is not an argument, but it's par for the course for America's comrade.

Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 20 2020 02:24pm)

It's not clear that these natural disasters are linked to climate change. Natural disasters after all happen all the time. We expect that they will occur at an increased frequency going forward, but are they? Depends on the natural disaster, and the evidence isn't nearly so clear-cut.

Nobody is being dishonest here. Bernie was Bernie. He made a bad post. The GND is criticized because it is incredibly expensive and highly unrealistic. Pointing to a few natural disasters and demanding an extreme solution is not an argument, but it's par for the course for America's comrade.