What's going to change in a Earth that's 8c hotter?

[AmazonQueen]

Main point is you have to win power to change anything.

Whatever that change is

You don't win by giving up arguing for the things you believe in.
Owen Smith who stood against Corbyn was asked if he believed power or principles were more important. He said power.
Bad answer. Not because power isn't important but because if power is the only thing that's important why should anyone support you?

 

[Zardnaar]

You don't win by giving up arguing for the things you believe in.
Owen Smith who stood against Corbyn was asked if he believed power or principles were more important. He said power.
Bad answer. Not because power isn't important but because if power is the only thing that's important why should anyone support you?

You don't but you don't have to put your principles front and center if they are likely to lose an election.

Use dog whistles. If directly deflect if you can't say something like my personal beliefs is XYZ but I'll support my electorate.

You can always vote differently later might risk you getting voted out but if you can't get elected in the first place it's a moot point.

The DNC learnt this in 2018 they didn't go after Trump directly but focused on things with wider appeal.

Or look at how Bernie is campaigning. He's focusing on things like healthcare and corporations.

 

[Gorbles]

Main point is you have to win power to change anything.

Whatever that change is

Except convincing you that climate change is a real threat and we should do something about it, it seems

 

[Zardnaar]

Except convincing you that climate change is a real threat and we should do something about it, it seems

I believe in it, I just think we're to useless and self absorbed as a species to do much about it.

 

[Gorbles]

I believe in it, I just think we're to useless and self absorbed as a species to do much about it.

I don't understand, you spent an entire page (or more) drawing parallels to the boy who cried wolf, about how people said was going to end years ago and it didn't, and "SJW" messaging. That's putting the fault on the people reporting the issues - not us as a species being useless and self-absorbed.

Why spend all that time criticising people for exaggerating climate change issues? Or talking about Chernobyl and how experts apparently got radiation stats wrong?

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't understand, you spent an entire page (or more) drawing parallels to the boy who cried wolf, about how people said was going to end years ago and it didn't, and "SJW" messaging. That's putting the fault on the people reporting the issues - not us as a species being useless and self-absorbed.

Why spend all that time criticising people for exaggerating climate change issues? Or talking about Chernobyl and how experts apparently got radiation stats wrong?

The experts put a lot of doom and gloom in things to push there view.

NZ was vehemently anti nuclear.

Most of Chernobyl is fairly safe except for a few hotspots or abandoned clean up equipment. Even then unless your basically touching it or licking it it's safe enough.

You would get a higher dose of radiation walking down the street in Australia and New Zealand on a hit summers day.

Nature is bouncing back as well.

But pop culture and hard core anti nuclear people think that it's going to be a radioactive hell hole for the next 20000 years.

Similar thing with global warming you hear stories about the tundra thawing out and Earth will be the next Venus. CO levels have been a lot higher before and no ice caps so I don't think that will happen.

We also need clean energy and short term Nuclear power could be it.

U don't think it's gonna be good with ten billion people or so. But people like Greenpeace have been pushing these horrific stories for so long people just tune out.

A lot if the time it's not what you say but how you say it.

 

[Gorbles]

The experts provide an expert opinion. You need to stop confusing whatever bias you have against these very real problems with the experts themselves being all "doom and gloom". These things are serious! Potentially catastrophic!

The reason why we're even here is because of viewpoints like yours, for the last 30 years or more. "oh, it's not that bad". That kind of thought process is exactly why we're are where we are in terms of public support. There's obviously a lot of corporate lobbying (oil, etc) that also prevents effective change from being legislated as well.

EDIT

Nevermind, I've got a simpler message:

If you believe the experts are promoting "doom and gloom", then you don't believe in the dangers of climate change, so please don't claim that you do.

 

[Zardnaar]

The experts provide an expert opinion. You need to stop confusing whatever bias you have against these very real problems with the experts themselves being all "doom and gloom". These things are serious! Potentially catastrophic!

The reason why we're even here is because of viewpoints like yours, for the last 30 years or more. "oh, it's not that bad". That kind of thought process is exactly why we're are where we are in terms of public support. There's obviously a lot of corporate lobbying (oil, etc) that also prevents effective change from being legislated as well.

EDIT

Nevermind, I've got a simpler message:

If you believe the experts are promoting "doom and gloom", then you don't believe in the dangers of climate change, so please don't claim that you do.

I think we're similar age or I might be getting you confused with another.

Anyway I'm already doing most of the hippies things. I use renewable energy, recycle, don't have kids, don't run a car etc.

I have been hearing the Greenpeace thing my entire life. It's big here.

I vote for the NZ Labour party.

Regardless of what I do or don't do it comes down to China and the USA.

I have a lot of my own problems as well, 3 big ones atm.

 

[AmazonQueen]

You don't but you don't have to put your principles front and center if they are likely to lose an election.

Use dog whistles. If directly deflect if you can't say something like my personal beliefs is XYZ but I'll support my electorate.

You can always vote differently later might risk you getting voted out but if you can't get elected in the first place it's a moot point.

The DNC learnt this in 2018 they didn't go after Trump directly but focused on things with wider appeal.

Or look at how Bernie is campaigning. He's focusing on things like healthcare and corporations.

Certainly you focus on things that are vote winners, but you also campaign on issues that currently aren't because otherwise you are never going to change peoples minds.
What we have ended up with too often in the past is leaders with good intentions but no strong principles who end up drifting to the right because its expedient in the short term.
Neither power or principles is more important because both are needed.

 

[Modder_Mode]

From New Scientist; and that only led me to one document here from the "Royal Society Publishing".

I can't say I am a big fan of a document that regularly mentions the words "suggest", "suggesting", "most likely", "uncertainties", "likelihood", "begs the question", or "assumptions" among others and not be deemed bumptious.

I've read that world has more trees now than pre-industrialism since wood was leaned on more heavily and now trees are replanted more consistently, not sure if that's true or not.

The main reason why there are still large areas with trees especially in Europe and North America is because of the use of coal that otherwise would have led to more trees being burnt en-masse. Coal was the savior on that occasion, the ignorant Greeny won't admit to this though, it hurts their ego too much....

 

[Senethro]

I can't say I am a big fan of a document that regularly mentions the words "suggest", "suggesting", "most likely", "uncertainties", "likelihood", "begs the question", or "assumptions" among others and not be deemed bumptious.



The main reason why there are still large areas with trees especially in Europe and North America is because of the use of coal that otherwise would have led to more trees being burnt en-masse. Coal was the savior on that occasion, the ignorant Greeny won't admit to this though, it hurts their ego too much....

How dare you badmouth this Mr. Greeny when they are not here to defend themselves and have issued no statements!

 

[Zardnaar]

Certainly you focus on things that are vote winners, but you also campaign on issues that currently aren't because otherwise you are never going to change peoples minds.
What we have ended up with too often in the past is leaders with good intentions but no strong principles who end up drifting to the right because its expedient in the short term.
Neither power or principles is more important because both are needed.

They drifted right because they had do, otherwise they get thrown out.

Obama tried but lost control of the house.

Without bipartisan support the next incoming administration will just dismantle whatever you passed.

I expect the Dems to repeal anything Trump did assuming they win 2020.

When you have two diametrically aligned parties you need to win alot so power is more important than principals.

US politics coming second means you're the first loser.

In most cases you have 2 years to pass laws since losing the house is common on midterms.

Trump and Obama are basically dead ducks in terms of passing stuff. I suspect you have to write your policies in opposition and rush them through in your first and second year.

 

[Senethro]

They drifted right because they had do, otherwise they get thrown out.

Obama tried but lost control of the house.

Without bipartisan support the next incoming administration will just dismantle whatever you passed.

I expect the Dems to repeal anything Trump did assuming they win 2020.

When you have two diametrically aligned parties you need to win alot so power is more important than principals.

US politics coming second means you're the first loser.

In most cases you have 2 years to pass laws since losing the house is common on midterms.

Trump and Obama are basically dead ducks in terms of passing stuff. I suspect you have to write your policies in opposition and rush them through in your first and second year.

Thank you, wise moderate, for telling us how the system that you believe shall fail us works.

 

[Zardnaar]

Thank you, wise moderate, for telling us how the system that you believe shall fail us works.

I prefer cynical pragmatist.

 

[Gorbles]

I think we're similar age or I might be getting you confused with another.

Anyway I'm already doing most of the hippies things. I use renewable energy, recycle, don't have kids, don't run a car etc.

I have been hearing the Greenpeace thing my entire life. It's big here.

I vote for the NZ Labour party.

Regardless of what I do or don't do it comes down to China and the USA.

I have a lot of my own problems as well, 3 big ones atm.

And this is what I don't get. If you do these things, vote this way, act on things in this way . . . why argue so much against expert opinion?

It's fair to say "these big countries have the most impact, and I can't change them". I get that. But there's no point in talking about how experts are spreading doom and gloom. It is, rightly in my opinion, quite a doom-y and gloom-y prognosis we have ahead of us! To argue against people for saying how we're accelerating our own destruction is to hand climate change deniers support. Do you see that?

 

[Oerdin]

They drifted right because they had do, otherwise they get thrown out.

Obama tried but lost control of the house.

Without bipartisan support the next incoming administration will just dismantle whatever you passed.

I expect the Dems to repeal anything Trump did assuming they win 2020.

When you have two diametrically aligned parties you need to win alot so power is more important than principals.

US politics coming second means you're the first loser.

In most cases you have 2 years to pass laws since losing the house is common on midterms.

Trump and Obama are basically dead ducks in terms of passing stuff. I suspect you have to write your policies in opposition and rush them through in your first and second year.

Now, that is very true.

 

[Zardnaar]

And this is what I don't get. If you do these things, vote this way, act on things in this way . . . why argue so much against expert opinion?

It's fair to say "these big countries have the most impact, and I can't change them". I get that. But there's no point in talking about how experts are spreading doom and gloom. It is, rightly in my opinion, quite a doom-y and gloom-y prognosis we have ahead of us! To argue against people for saying how we're accelerating our own destruction is to hand climate change deniers support. Do you see that?

I probably wouldn't campaign on it. Anyone who cares enough will know which way to vote.

Most people can't really comprehend the world in 50 or 100 years time.

It took decades here for the Greens here to shake off that hippie kook stigma and that's in NZ not the USA. Even then they kind of dumped some of the more extreme members.

It's a problem if messaging.

 

[Zardnaar]

Now, that is very true.

Without power you're basically pissing in the wind.

Even now most Democrats can't figure out why and how they lost to Trump.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Without power you're basically pissing in the wind.

Even now most Democrats can't figure out why and how they lost to Trump.

And without principles you might as well vote Tory or Republican for all the difference you actually make.

 

[Gorbles]

I probably wouldn't campaign on it. Anyone who cares enough will know which way to vote.

Most people can't really comprehend the world in 50 or 100 years time.

It took decades here for the Greens here to shake off that hippie kook stigma and that's in NZ not the USA. Even then they kind of dumped some of the more extreme members.

It's a problem if messaging.

I think that's the difference, then, for me. People aren't always going to know which way to vote, especially in an age where we have people claiming climate change isn't that much of a deal. That's why I argue its importance.

And secondly I don't think "stigma" is something that works here. There shouldn't be any stigma about supporting action around the impact of climate change on our (currently hospitable) planet. The fact it's even become synonymous with any kind of political message (which it has) is the problem - not the existence of stigma itself. Why is there stigma? Who benefits from climate change activists being stigmatised (or worse)?