This not the case on climate change, the vast majority do trust the scientific message — Punshhh

I said its better to avoid spreading misinformation. You disagree?

Over an area of thousands of square miles presumably. Is it any wonder folk hear that and sigh, saying we really are doomed. — Punshhh

They do controlled burns for the fuel in the ground. Trump was apparently briefed but didnt understand everything that was said. If you think the forest fires are caused entirely by climate change, you're as wrong as Trump.

They were giving everybody decadron at first. They stopped. None of our COVID people are getting it now.

“Panglossian falsehoods convene the crowd, discouraging truths disperse it.” ~Thomas Ligotti — 180 Proof

:up: :cry:

These various “truther” movements, who think that they alone are aware of the secret truth that THEY don’t want you to know, are effectively proto-religions already. — Pfhorrest

Well, you know I have the truth, sir
While all you have is lies
Put on the special glasses
See the reality behind

You know that I'm awake, sir
While you're asleep and blind
How do I know? They told me so
In capital letters in a book I got signed

(Seven Ascended Masters)

Ah. If a politician promised to follow the science, I would remain sceptical until she demonstrated it, but at least relieved they were not promising to ignore the science. Again, even in the most pessimistic situation, there are better and worse outcomes. — Kenosha Kid

A scientific issue that creates political discussion usually means that the topic has a) opposing economic interests at hand or b) some moral issue linked with it that has made a lobby / pressure group to act. Usually politicians don't rock the boat because science. What they are interested is in voters.

The fact is that a majority of issues hardly appear in the media if both the administration and the opposition have nothing against it (and no powerful lobbies create discord), things go through without even notable interest from the news media. And this does happen.

A telling example is ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project started by both US and USSR and other nations in 1985 and now has as member states China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Russian Federation, South Korea, and the United States as members of the project (Australia and Kazakhstan as additional members) working together. The project has cost about 20 billion dollars. To put this into context, the International Space Station has cost over 50 billion dollars and the space shuttle program with it's five shuttles and 134 flights (and two failures) cost a bit over 200 billion dollars. Yet that the US, Russia and China are working together isn't well known... perhaps for the best, that Trump isn't aware of it.

(Reagan and Gorbachev decided in 1985 in Reykjavik "emphasized the potential importance of the work aimed at utilizing controlled thermonuclear fusion for peaceful purposes and, in this connection, advocated the widest practicable development of international cooperation in obtaining this source of energy, which is essentially inexhaustible, for the benefit of all mankind.")


(And now in this Milennium, the experimental fusion reactor taking shape in France.)

Some people think misinformation is good as long as it supports their agenda, but they may be blind to their own engagement in the bamboozle until it's pointed out. Until then, they only see that their opponent is doing it.

This is along the lines of Jungian shadow, isnt it?

A scientific issue that creates political discussion usually means that the topic has a) opposing economic interests at hand or b) some moral issue linked with it that has made a lobby / pressure group to act. Usually politicians don't rock the boat because science. What they are interested is in voters. — ssu

Indeed, hence the default scepticism. But ultimately I don't much give a shit whether a politician acts on scientific advice for moral reasons or for votes. The sad thing is that voteworthy policy isn't likely to include effective climate action, since a-holes aren't going to vote for the person who says you can't drive your 4x4 or have 24-hour delivery anymore because climate change. Maybe the issue is less with politicians than the a-holes who vote for them. After all, if the majority thought that climate change was a priority problem, cynical politicians would adopt climate change policy just to get elected and be judged by their effectiveness on that platform.

I said its better to avoid spreading misinformation. You disagree?

I don't disagree, but I see it more as exaggeration than misinformation. Do you have an example in mind?

They do controlled burns for the fuel in the ground. Trump was apparently briefed but didnt understand everything that was said. If you think the forest fires are caused entirely by climate change, you're as wrong as Trump.

The controlled burns would only ever be effective over a tiny fraction of the area concerned. To use the complacency in carrying out these controlled burns as the cause of the extensive wild fires of the last few years is a form of miss information. Anyway, I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of ecological crises, that is for the climate change thread.

My point was that a leader in a position of power through ignorance is spreading misinformation about climate change and worse still has pulled out of the Paris accord and stopped funding the WHO, for petty personal reasons. In the meantime the Co2 emissions are still accelerating.

After all, if the majority thought that climate change was a priority problem, cynical politicians would adopt climate change policy just to get elected and be judged by their effectiveness on that platform.

The problem in the UK is that to vote for rapid and effective action against climate change the electorate would have to vote Green. But a majority of the electorate will not vote Green because their policies, other than their green policies, are radical left policies, real socialism. The UK electorate is not ready to vote for socialism, so they can't vote for effective action on climate change, hence little change.
Fortunately industry is starting to make the necessary changes, which is a step in the right direction, but it does need political change if we are going to move quickly enough.

The problem in the UK is that to vote for rapid and effective action against climate change the electorate would have to vote Green. But a majority of the electorate will not vote Green because their policies, other than their green policies, are radical left policies, real socialism. The UK electorate is not ready to vote for socialism, so they can't vote for effective action on climate change, hence little change. — Punshhh

Labour under Corbyn did an okay job against Theresa May. Next to Corbyn, the Green Party are centrists. People aren't avoiding the Green Party because of their social democracy views, given that the second and third largest parties in England are also social democracy parties. They don't vote Green because they don't give a crap about the world their great grandchildren will inherit: that is far too abstract and long term for your average Brit. That, and no one's beer-bellied dad ever said "This is a Green Party house and that's the end of it."

So, evidently there are some serious questions regarding when, exactly, Trump knew he had corona. In addition when, exactly, he contracted it. There are a number of people testing positive, including Chris Christy, who looks like someone that may have serious complications. Hope Hicks reportedly self isolated on Air Force One.

Did the Trump kids know that they'd been possibly exposed to Hicks and refuse to wear masks anyway at last week's debate?

Donald Trump sentenced to death

I know how they feel.

I don't disagree, but I see it more as exaggeration than misinformation. Do you have an example in mind? — Punshhh

That scientists are concerned that the earth will become like Venus due to AGW. That's not an exaggeration. It's flat out wrong.

The controlled burns would only ever be effective over a tiny fraction of the area concerned. To use the complacency in carrying out these controlled burns as the cause of the extensive wild fires of the last few years is a form of miss information. Anyway, I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of ecological crises, that is for the climate change thread. — Punshhh

Where did you get your forestry degree? I Reckon University? :joke:

My point was that a leader in a position of power through ignorance is spreading misinformation about climate change and worse still has pulled out of the Paris accord and stopped funding the WHO, for petty personal reasons. In the meantime the Co2 emissions are still accelerating. — Punshhh

I agree. Dictatorship is needed. Hope you're having a wonderful October. Are the leaves changing there?

Donald Trump sentenced to death — Michael

LOL! President Biden's first order of business should be to sign an extradition treaty with Yemen.

So Trump puts people at risk by getting into a hermetically sealed car while being contagious. Nice.

President Biden's first order of business should be to sign an extradition treaty with Yemen. — Relativist

:rofl: :up:

I'll give you the one about Venus, I don't get exposed to notions like that were I live.
It's to early for the fall here as of now, we've just had a week of rain, we get battered by the cyclones coming in off the Atlantic at this time of year. I'm looking forward to a nice autumn in front of a log fire. My qualification at the University was on how to make things out of trees, I'm a cabinetmaker.

Labour under Corbyn did an okay job against Theresa May. Next to Corbyn, the Green Party are centrists.

I suggest you take a look at a UK Green Party manifesto, I'm a Green voter, so I'm happy with it, myself.

I suggest you take a look at a UK Green Party manifesto, I'm a Green voter, so I'm happy with it, myself. — Punshhh

I haven't seen the last couple, but I always used to before every election. Always voted Green locally, never at a GE though. I just skimmed their latest manifesto. What do you think is alarming? Or is it the scale of the reformist ambition, rather than individual policies?

So Trump puts people at risk by getting into a hermetically sealed car while being contagious. Nice. — Benkei

Physician Swipes At Trump
In theory, these SS agents should now be quarantined for 14 days, for an act whose sole purpose was to feed Trump's ego.

How can this stunt possibly be given a pro-Trump spin?

An increase in the greenhouse effect isn't a danger to human life (as far as scientists know). Primates originally evolved during the PETM, an event where the earth became so warm that rainforests extended to the arctic. We can deal with that.

It's the volatility that's going to be a challenge. Our species has survived extreme climate volatility in the past, but we had a very small population and whatever social structure we had, it was apparently sufficient to handle all the migration that would have been brought on by events like the Younger Dryas.

Will civilization as we know it survive the coming changes in coastlines and in the location of arable and inhabitable land? In short, can human civilization adapt to a more volatile climate? Climate scientists don't know. All we can do is speculate. I think the form a person's speculations take will reflect their basic outlook. Pessimists will lean toward "no." Optimists don't even have to think about it. They're sure we'll adapt.

I've come to doubt that the US government, as it is, can deal with the issue effectively. I think push will come to shove in the US and our adaptation will happen as the crisis is unfolding, as opposed to China, which is starting now to deal with it. It's just the way it is: democracy doesn't weather crises very well.

What should we do until then? There isn't a whole lot the average individual can do to influence things one way or another. If you want to position yourself in a safer place, move away from the coast and head north. Otherwise, enjoy life to the max. Life is short.

I'm a cabinetmaker. — Punshhh

Wow! Do you ever make custom furniture?

How can this stunt possibly be given a pro-Trump spin?

As easily as you’ve given it an anti-Trump spin, except without having to use another’s opinion to form ones own.

How can this stunt possibly be given a pro-Trump spin? — Relativist

He is waving thank you to loyal supporters.

What do you think is alarming? Or is it the scale of the reformist ambition, rather than individual policies?

I'm happy with it, so not alarmed. But a universal basic income would turn off the majority of voters in the UK. And yes the scale of the reform and what is implied in its implementation would be scary for many. Definitely moving to socialism more quickly than Corbyn's plans.

I would say though, that I am referring mainly to older voters, the politics of the younger voter is probably far greener.

Now the press secretary has tested positive for COVID.

Wow! Do you ever make custom furniture?

Yes, mostly fitted furniture these days, but occasionally I get a commission for a nice piece of furniture.

In your summary of climate change, I think you missed out the consequence of the mass extinction event we're presiding over. As an example, trees are struggling these days, there are lots of exotic diseases being imported from other parts of the world. We are currently watching all our Ash trees die of Ash Die Back disease, along with Horse Chestnuts trying to survive a voracious leaf minor. There are worrying reports of Oak trees being in trouble next, which will be devastating, as the Uk is populated with a large population of ancient oak trees.

He's a super spreader.

Trump died