Well south park looks like they finally gave in

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Scuzzlebutt

a reply to: proteus33

Matt Stone and Trey Parker don't "Give in". Either they were giving a sarcastic portrayal of what they see going on it the country, or they legitimately changed their minds.

Either way, they are notorious for not caving to the pressure. They don't give a snip.

a reply to: proteus33

For the record I am not saying the climate is not changing because it is and has been from day one of earth I am saying that man made global warming from greenhouse gas emissions from cars is not the main reason the main reason the climate gets colder or hotter is this big ball of hydrogen and helium we call sol. ...

Better call Sol.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

BTW...paragraphs are your friend. Makes for much easier reading.

a reply to: muzzleflash

It's been the truth since Socrates, but I prefer to hear it from OpIvy, All I know is that I don't know nothin'

a reply to: Bluntone22

Dontcha know, Dentists are also Chemists and various other sciencey things so they'd know.

Just like how putting on a badge instantly makes anyone becoming a police officer honest.



As for OP.
Call me short sighted but by the time we have any real proof global warming, global cooling, climate change or whatever buzzword is the current term for it is real, I'll be long dead.

Not seen the latest episode of SP so cannot comment on it.Often find that like the Bible or Q'uran, much often comes down to personal interpretation of the show.

Often find friends come away with different takes of the 'moral' than I. Have they given in, or have you missed the joke?

Dammit now I have to find somewhere to watch it so I have some context.

a reply to: Lysergic
I wonder if they were able to save Patrick Duffy after Stan's uncle shot scuzzlebutt for coming right for them. Maybe they can turn that into a sequel and he can become part of manbearpig.

South Park is too damn funny.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Your definition of "overwhelming" and the actual accepted definition of the word seem to be two entirely separate things.
www.forbes.com...

This indicates 43% of the scientific community surveyed is entirely convinced global warming is man made, 3% are convinved it is not, and the remaining 54% are in the middle. The fact that the 43% have attacked any questioning or investigation further indicates an absence of the scientific method and some shakey ground there....

Issues like NOAA making up data to meet their hypothesis are much more to credit for debunking the AGW myth than any "but it's cold outside" arguments. Those arguments are being used as scapegoats because they are far easier to laugh off than doctored data sets are.
www.forbes.com...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I've been around long enough to know that debating it is pointless. Many ATSers live in a world where climate change is a hoax designed to steal their taxes. That world's environment won't have any significant impacts on humanity in the next few decades. Ice caps aren't really melting, people won't be moving away from flooded areas, it's 'arrogant' to think people can change the environment etc. You can look out your window and just *know* it's all a lie. Have I missed any off and does it even matter?

In my experience, no, it doesn't matter at all on message boards. I'll stick to my views and you stick to yours. Maybe we'll compare notes in 40 years? In 40 years some people will still be licking a finger and holding it out their window to prove/disprove whatever they believe.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Well, I think you're hard-over in the other direction, but okay, let's see if we can agree on something...

I think the real core issue, if we could ever distill it down that far in debates, is NOT the fact that there are changes happening in the environment, but rather that MAN is the sole cause of them. Of course mankind plays a role! And so does every other living thing, and dead thing, and planet, and Sun...and, and, and.

I think you'd be able to find a whole lot more people who were willing to discuss this topic rationally if Al Gore hadn't tried to attach a tax to something mankind quite probably can have little influence on. It's like creating a "Sunrise tax". Mankind can do little to prevent the Sun rising tomorrow, but we CAN do things like curbing pollution and not trashing everything. All Al Gore did was to weaponize taxes to strangle business.

Let's look at the extremes (always a good place to start in protracted arguments). If environmentalist's could have their cake and eat it too there would be no industry, there would be no houses, no cars, not a single mechanized thing. Humans would be vegetarians who consumed only 100% sustainable, non-GMO, crops which were fertilized with all natural products, etc. At the other end of the spectrum we have China (just as an example), who doesn't give one flying foo-fah about the environment. They run factories at full bore spewing every chemical imaginable, invade the planet with non-biodegradable plastics and chew up natural resources like there's no tomorrow making rubber dogs# novelty items which sell for .02.

Are either of those rational postures? Certainly not! In the middle lies the rest of the world. And, it's 'the middle' in more ways than one. Most importantly, it's the middle class, the last bastion of wealth on planet earth which hasn't been raped and pillaged. The super-elite have insulated themselves (and their money) through legislation and other protections. And, the poor are defenseless, but they have nothing to steal. That leaves the middle class. BOOM! Enter Global (I'll be nice) "Climate Change". You can't fix a problem unless you fix the outliers first, and you certainly can't fix the outliers by using the money of the guys in the middle (which is exactly where Al Gore and others go) when the outliers are dug into their fortifications and just flipping the rest of the world off.

In order to have meaningful discussions we as a species need to be able to agree that we will do the best we can do. The threat for failure cannot be weaponized taxes (which fix nothing, and go to whom?) as an enforcement tool. The real enforcement tool is condemnation and shame. Only when it becomes un-cool to support people who destroy the Earth will things change. BUT, we have to look at people too, because sometimes it costs more to be 'cool', and as long as people are selfish and okay with being un-cool to save a dime nothing will change.

Agree?

I'm starting to think whoever watched this episode and thinks they sold out didn't get the premise.

a reply to: Kandinsky

...and then there are those folks like myself who work with data like oceanic water level elevations and permafrost in their daily careers who can tell you the science behind AGW is sketchy and manipulated AF... but we get lumped in with the "uneducated deniers" because our views don't support the narrative. And yes, AGW is a massive global taxation scheme. We cannot stop the cycles of Earth's temperature changes any more than we can cause them to accelerate.

You're right, though, arguing it is akin to trying to get someone to change religions. That makes sense since the two sides of the argument have essentially become religions.

a reply to: okrian

Reality sucks sometimes

This

It's amazing how contorted our thinking gets when we don't want to deal with reality