Trump (Part 4)

[claig]

Continuing discussion of the Trumpquake and populist rebellions

Bertrand, that would be good but I would still want to pop onto here every now and again to point out the lies.

If we are going to pointlessly swop song lyrics Claig, can I offer this one by Jarvis? (I remember you being a Pulp fan).

"If you thought things had changed,
Friend you'd better think again,
Bluntly put in the fewest of words,
Cunts are still running the world"

Squishy - interesting post on pg. 16. STEM background here too. In fact, whole family is more STEM than the STEMs of STEMsville. Not one believes this bunkum. Clean and green are obviously good and it's how everyone wants to live their life but those who create a moral panic and use it for their own ends ruin it for everyone (even if they are genuinely co-opted into this viewpoint via their research or reading). We've all been waiting for the catastrophes and the terrifying events, but...It's a bit like the Doomsday Clock. The date passes and then we restart the waiting all over again. Still, don't want to hijack the thread with this so perhaps will leave it there.

I am trying hard to understand what would lead a person to believe the fossil fuel industry, even after they have been exposed suppressing their own evidence of climate change for their own obvious vested interests, and putting millions into promoting climate change denial, rather than the overwhelming majority of scientists and the extensive and growing body of evidence.

Was it the impressive figure of Piers Corbyn that tipped the balance?

But why is it bunkum, fourmumy? Like I said, the evidence on one side is much more substantial than the evidence on the other side - that's what I've based my belief on. It doesn't mean that I buy into every "moral panic" nor that I think we're inevitably doomed. Is the basis of your argument that we're not fucked yet, so there's nothing to worry about? Really?

And by the way, I would be willingly to change my mind if I saw enough reliable, contradictory evidence but I haven't.

fourmummy, could you explain why you don't believe what every reputable climate change scientist believes? It's like saying you believe that Earth is flat.

I normally wouldn't rate her, but I have to say I sort of agree with the Mon on this one:

"Monica Lewinsky, in a Vanity Fair piece, [...] "If Time Magazine had asked my opinion about their Person of the Year (and they didn't), I would have told them: The Trolls. If you've been on the Internet at all this year, you probably know that an Internet troll is a person who promotes discord by purposefully posting inflammatory comments or content.""

"And then, of course, there were the gremlins of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The political trolls and bots overpopulated the Internet, feeding on negativity, disseminating disinformation, and becoming more vitriolic as November 8 approached. The effects, from which we are still reeling, have changed our country profoundly."
"Yes, there is still such a thing as an old-fashioned, textbook difference of opinion. But in 2016 trolling became perversely de riguer."

www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/the-year-the-trolls-won-by-monica-lewinsky

We've all been waiting for the catastrophes and the terrifying events, but...It's a bit like the Doomsday Clock. The date passes and then we restart the waiting all over again.

What short term predictions were you expecting that haven't materialised?

'The political trolls and bots overpopulated the Internet'

I agree with Monica. There were a hell of a lot of them, as Southallgirl has previously said, on the EU Referendum threads, but they were defeated by the popular vote.

Piers Corbyn, that great meteorologist known, along with James Madden, for prompting the Express to create crazy weather predictions every season. Just let me remind you of the quality of forecasting the Express achieved last autumn.

Climate change is real, there are very strong indicators that it is currently rapidly changing because of mankinds activities. It already is impacting. Glaciers are shrinking, polar ice has reached a record low this November. Hurricanes are longer lasting, more severe.

Impacts are so far relatively low in the Uk. If you are a low lying island in the pacific you have more to worry about. Also, Climate change will and is having a disproportionate effect on north Africa and the Middle East. Droughts there serve to destabilise those regions by severely affecting agriculture and intensifying political unrest.

Trump nominates Linda Mcmahon for small business administration. This is getting good

What short term predictions were you expecting that haven't materialised?

I was expecting to have at least created a big hole in the ozone layer through my use of Bristows. As a self-respecting goth, I used to get through at least a can a week. School used to make us watch videos about hairspray and fridges. I was told on a weekly basis that I would be dead by 30. I think they've got it in for cows now. At least they are leaving the goths alone...

And just for shits. Hillary spent $556m on the campaign $544.4m on party and joint fundraising committees and $188m on super PACs. Total £1.3b

And they say Trump is bad at business?

Trump is certainly very good at self-enrichment and self-promotion Missswatch.
www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-business-campaign-trail-228500

"I was expecting to have at least created a big hole in the ozone layer through my use of Bristows"

Fourmummy, we did indeed create a big hole in the ozone layer. CFCs were subsequently banned, you had to stop using those CFC based hairsprays, and the hole has gradually reduced.

So what else do you think has not come to pass. What do you think has happened to global average temperatures for example? About the same?

Laws reducing the use of ozone destroying chemicals are why the ozone layer is beginning to heal over the Antarctic where the hole is. Legislation in action undoing some of the damage that humankind caused.

What Kaija and Kitten said.

Or is it that you don't understand the difference between the phenomenon of the thinning of the ozone layer and global warming?

Something similar happened with acid rain. It's not talked of as a problem now because it was caused by pollution. Pollution was controlled and acid rain stopped being a problem.
Good thing regulators listened to those elite scientists.

Or you could go back further to the clean air act:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956
Those bastard elite scientists improving our air quality and health by calling for a load of regulations and red tape!

A more nuanced exposition of where I am currently in my perspective:

I'm happy to observe, label and acknowledge climate changes.
I'm happy to deal with the consequences of climate changes to help communities to deal with them.
I am happy to theorise the causes of climate change.

I am less happy when the causes are theorised in one direction only (but can see the logic of this as it's possibly the only element that humans can control).
I am less happy when politicians step into the fray with doomsday narratives in order to implement taxes and/or other behavioural changes in order to spin the public. Dh thinks that the apocalyptic narratives are necessary in order to control an essentially uncontrollable public (a bit like religion) and get them to change their behaviours for the better because without telling people that they are all going to die, no-one is going to get out of their cars and walk. My position is that I am happy to change behaviours for the better but I object to the way this is done. No-one can disagree with removing diesel cars from our roads - but the machinations involved in putting them on our roads in the first place and then taking them off again are what muddy the waters. I can understand the attraction of believing that the waters are actually clear because it makes life more simple. If anyone can genuinely separate out the numbers from the politics, well...

If you are interested in the way that waters are being deliberately muddied in this area, a good place to start would be looking into Exxon's history.

So basically, you think people should carry on with their planet destroying behaviours because you don't like the way you've been asked to stop?????

I don't really see your point, fourmummy.

Are you saying that politicians shouldn't act on scientific evidence? Or that they shouldn't educate the voters?
Or that the public is happy to act now to prevent something happening in 20 or more years? Because few people are.
Are you saying that the main problem are the pessimistic views rather than the lobbies that think of short term profit (transport manufacturers and oil/gas/coal companies)?

I can sort of see your point fourmummy in that I do find the way scientific issues are often simplified into soundbites and catchphrases a bit frustrating. I can understand that it is often done with the best intentions though (the "carbon footprint" of a chocolate bar, for eg, is an easy concept to grasp but surprisingly complicated to accurately calculate.) I also think that glossing over contradictory evidence or ignoring opposite arguments is counter-productive as it can fuel wacky conspiracy theories (if people sense data/studies have been cherry picked they can put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5,004). See earlier posts on these threads for further evidence.

However, without action we will see increasing negative affects on the environment. We all want an improved quality of life for less money, and while this is an understandable motivation it must not be the only force driving development. The way to improve things for the better is with public education, careful regulation, and investment. There are countless examples of this working, but it will cost money and inconvenience in the short term.

Technology doesn't get developed unless it is financially viable to do so. Businesses don't change their behaviour without regulations, and scientists don't get their voices heard without lobbying.

Just lost my post. Will rewrite later.