If you only do one thing today, let it be watching that nice old man Bernie Sanders, who totally would have won the American President contest, host everyone’s favorite pop scientist Bill Nye for a conversation on Global Warming.
The fact-laden conversation goes down live, today, on Mark Zuckerberg’s devious platform, at 10:30am eastern.
If you only do two things today, let the second be to inform the biggest conservatard in your life that this live event is going to be lit (you may have to translate ‘lit’ to ‘a real sock hop’). Perhaps it will trigger them so they can look like a dumb galoot over on Facebook.
Here’s a link to Uncle Bernie’s Facebook page, the venue for today’s free show:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Global warming
Right on
There is no debate when the 2 are on the same side. Waste of time.
because it’s not really a debate to begin with….Ask a gardener, or better yet look at what grows in my backyard. If I were a conspiracy theorist this is something that would interest me on why the Right can’t wrap their heads around it. Is it because changing climate in the bible is supposed to bring on the end times everyone is so excited about? Maybe. Just like Israel only matters because that’s where Space Jesus will land his MAGA rocket ship.
Most conservatives I know agree with the science of global warming, they just disagree with the prediction models themselves… that isn’t all that much unlike having issues with future results of applying a backtest and assume the past will predict the future, but not necessarily having a problem with the process of statistics itself.
Certainly there are some on the right who are underinformed on the issue as well who could care less or by default just repeat a talking point or two, but that only represents a small amount of people.
In my experience liberals are attempting to cast conservatives or “conservitards” as “antiscience” to discourage actual reasonable discussion. No one wants to have a legitimate intelligent conversation if it is nothing but name calling and otherising.
Even skeptics who disagree with the CO2 argument (which in my small group of friends and associates are in the minority) either challenge the notion that it is the only possible explaination and/or actually support science such as orbital variations and solar flares and the thermodynamic nature of the 300year cycle of the sun and rigorously studies of ice core samples showing recurring ice ages and warming periods throughout history.
Conservatives see technology and the private sector improving things and I think they would be willing to have a conversation about climate change if there were actually proposed solutions that are worth the cost.
We can agree the problem is a hard one to solve like other slow moving problems of the past that will require our attention and energy in years ahead. But I would probably disagree on most proposed solutions out there.
Let me know if there is a legitimate solution, but so far all I’ve heard as suggestions is reducing energy production. The problems with that are:
1)Reducing US production in energy will not reduce global production. It will simply help India, Brazil, and other emerging markets have cheaper and more access to fuel at cheaper price and make more drivers on the road more viable.
2)impoverished in the 3rd world often resort to burning cow chips so they do not freeze. This is one of the dirtiest greenhouse gas per heat units produced possible and isn’t going to stop.
3)Reducing energy production will actuallly result in more people in the 2nd and 3rd world starving and freezing to death or relying on burning cow chips as a result of decreased energy production due to the alternatives being either less efficient or less able to produce output at as large of volume.
(Note:nuclear energy is quite efficient—although less so than before the necessary safety regulations– and much safer now than ever and might be the one area capable of increasing energy production while decreasing CO2 but the imagistics of putting a nuclear power plant in their city makes it a politically unviable solution for the majority of people. Most people who like nuclear still would prefer it in someone else’s back yard)
4)Lower energy output is actually is linked with lower productivity and innovation which may slow down the impact of climate change, but only at the cost of slowing down our progress to any technological solution. There’s probably no good way of predictingif the tradeoff is or is not worth it.
I would say most of my conservative friends believe in climate change. I think a lot of the non believers are the antiscience/evangelical crowd. I could be wrong, just an opinion. Solution? Boy I wish I had one, even if there is one.
A lot of the “antiscience” conservatives have nuanced scientific views and are then given libelous treatment by New York City socialites masquerading as network anchors who don’t WANT to have a fair discussion of climate change…because they would lose.
Does this mean anything to you global warming misfits?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
Fake news!
Le Fly, I actually work for NOAA and can tell you it’s not a big conspiracy – not even close.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/
Daily Mail. lol
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133612.htm
You’ll get Bill Nye’s undergrad engineering degree worth of material i.e. not much.
Climate Change has morphed from monitoring system feedbacks (sensitivity) and making extreme predictions of death/chaos to (as those forcings have been experimentally tested away) screaming that Fourier was a real human being and the greenhouse effect is a thing (neither of which was ever in doubt).
Which is why the only people left who are excited about climate change are “new model” socialists who love how much leeway the 90’s fears justified them running with their schtick.
Everyone else is going to drop a few thousand bucks over 5 years into a community fund to build up a community seawall or maybe pay a little extra in insurance, then get on with their lives.