[OPINION] Climate Change Has Run Its Course

I don't subscribe to conservative bingo phrases so "virtue signalling" isn't a part of my world really.

Anyway, want to talk about climate change or you want to crybully because you hate gays and women? Same question to Mr. Hayward really...

When it comes to climate change though do you reckon anyone who dares question consensus science is a "climate denier"? And how dare they question something so well meaning that will save us all right?

There's a phrase for that ...

EDIT: To answer your question though, I'd love for the climate change debate to become an adult one driven by common sense and backed up by hard science. The factors that Hayward alludes to have made that impossible to date.
 
Last edited:
I can see why NBFTW quoted this article.

Frankly it is a new low. The moron who penned this (and who seemingly has tenure at Berkley??) not only makes the most idiotic proclamations, he also slips in some Trump apologism and slanders Al Gore (as if having dropped out of divinity school somehow precludes a sober analysis of climate change) ...it is utter drivel.
 
Frankly it is a new low.
Virtue signalling

The moron who penned this (and who seemingly has tenure at Berkley??) not only makes the most idiotic proclamations, he also slips in some Trump apologism and slanders Al Gore (as if having dropped out of divinity school somehow precluded a sober analysis of climate change) ...it is utter drivel.
Ad hominem attack

That all you got?
 
When it comes to climate change though do you reckon anyone who dares question consensus science is a "climate denier"? And how dare they question something so well meaning that will save us all right?

There's a phrase for that ...

EDIT: To answer your question though, I'd love for the climate change debate to become an adult one driven by common sense and backed up by hard science. The factors that Hayward alludes to have made that impossible to date.

Morons like the one you've posted here make that impossible. An educated man like that clearly understands his intellectual dishonesty in making claims that he knows are preposterous but will certainly ensnare a subset of the ignorant masses.

Virtue signalling


Ad hominem attack

That all you got?

Shem.
 
The idea that measurements of the subduction zone and subsea permafrost are linked to feminism and LGBT+ rights is a typically idiotic and transparent attempt at misdirection.
Ironically what you are doing is a typically idiotic and transparent attempt of misdirection

Opening paragraph of the article.
Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue.

What the author is actually alluding to is that people on the left are infusing what should be a science only field with Identity politics.

You want an example of this? I give you feminist glaciology.
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368

The author rightly points out the effects of this problem:
A case in point is climate campaigners’ push for clean energy, whereas they write off nuclear power because it doesn’t fit their green utopian vision. A new study of climate-related philanthropy by Matthew Nisbet found that of the $556.7 million green-leaning foundations spent from 2011-15, “not a single grant supported work on promoting or reducing the cost of nuclear energy.” The major emphasis of green giving was “devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry.”
 
Looking to get schooled in facts pulled directly from legislation again? :whistle:

I must have missed your schooling?

I was commenting on my lack of surprise that you would choose a piece written by a Libertarian writer, that echoes well within you chamber.
 
I was commenting on my lack of surprise that you would choose a piece written by a Libertarian writer, that echoes well within you chamber.

An interesting demonstration of your own bias then, I merely picked it because it was published in the WSJ ;)
 
An interesting demonstration of your own bias then, I merely picked it because it was published in the WSJ ;)

Yes you picked it because it agreed with your views, otherwise you would not have given it second thought. Noting that it was written by a professed Libertarian demonstrates how his view echoes within your chamber.
 
Am I the only one on the web that never looks at who wrote an article, then do a full historical research into them and then judge the article based on what my research brings up?

Edit: I've mentoined this a while back too, when did we enter a point where it doesn't matter what someone is saying, fact or fiction? only thing that matters nowadays is who is saying it, and who they voted for
 
Last edited:
Sources people!



Emphasis mine.

Good on the WSJ for catering t all viewpoints but to consider that the question of climate change is so inextricably linked to identity politics that it is essentially "over" is typically moronic conservative BS.

The idea that measurements of the subduction zone and subsea permafrost are linked to feminism and LGBT+ rights is a typically idiotic and transparent attempt at misdirection.

What an utterly transparent parade of foolishness.
Triggered snowflake meltdown lol. Read again. Climate change as an issue for SJWs is over. As an argument for globalist action it is also over. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Triggered snowflake meltdown lol. Read again. Climate change as an issue for SJWs is over. As an argument for globalist action it is also over. Deal with it.

Because one guy writing for the WSJ said so?
 
The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise POLITICIANS are tuning out.

FTFY.

The “nonbinding” pact

Germany: "Not every country has the funds to meet the Agreement, so we should allow poorer countries who can only afford fossil fuel sources to continue to use those as long as their economies get on track by, say... 2030?"

climate action must include concern for “gender equality,empowerment of women

France: "It's probably a good idea to allow for women to have some sort of role in these legislated climate change policies that we're all proposing, right?"

and intergenerational equity

Denmark: "Look, it just makes sense that if we save the world in the next few decades that we don't end up hopelessly bankrupting future generations by making our future horribly expensive to exist in."

as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’

USA: "Yay, we've saved farming in the US and Georgia! However those African countries over there, they're starving because they can't water their crops thanks to droughts, which we were thankfully prepared for. Maybe we should hel-OH RATS COCA-COLA BOUGHT UP ALL THE FREESTANDING WATER SOURCES NOT OWNED BY GOVERNMENT. Too bad, I guess? A few million less people on this earth wouldn't hurt..."
 
Please don't let facts get in the way of your feelings...

Lol it is you who is letting feelings get in the way of facts with your usual ill thought out immigration rant. You're using faulty comparisons. What you should be looking at is renewable energy as a percentage of output.

Germany 35%
Syria 13% (2014)
Ethiopia - Lol i like how you cherry picked that one.

France: 19.5%
Algeria 0.4% (2014)
 
Am I the only one on the web that never looks at who wrote an article, then do a full historical research into them and then judge the article based on what my research brings up?

Edit: I've mentioned this a while back too, when did we enter a point where it doesn't matter what someone is saying, fact or fiction? only thing that matters nowadays is who is saying it, and who they voted for

Considering the number of people who have been financed by oil companies to spread drivel regarding climate change, its only natural to invest some time into finding out who people are and what their motivations might be.

Which makes the article all the more ironic when its right wing orginasations who have been making the topic about anything but the hard science.
 
Sources people!



Emphasis mine.

Good on the WSJ for catering t all viewpoints but to consider that the question of climate change is so inextricably linked to identity politics that it is essentially "over" is typically moronic conservative BS.

The idea that measurements of the subduction zone and subsea permafrost are linked to feminism and LGBT+ rights is a typically idiotic and transparent attempt at misdirection.

What an utterly transparent parade of foolishness.

Pretty much. It's pretty damn easy to at least try to understand why these things are being taken into account with regard to climate change.

https://unfccc.int/topics/gender/the-big-picture/introduction-to-gender-and-climate-change

Climate change has a greater impact on those sections of the population, in all countries, that are most reliant on natural resources for their livelihoods and/or who have the least capacity to respond to natural hazards, such as droughts, landslides, floods and hurricanes. Women commonly face higher risks and greater burdens from the impacts of climate change in situations of poverty, and the majority of the world’s poor are women. Women’s unequal participation in decision-making processes and labour markets compound inequalities and often prevent women from fully contributing to climate-related planning, policy-making and implementation.

Yet, women can (and do) play a critical role in response to climate change due to their local knowledge of and leadership in e.g. sustainable resource management and/or leading sustainable practices at the household and community level. Women’s participation at the political level has resulted in greater responsiveness to citizen’s needs, often increasing cooperation across party and ethnic lines and delivering more sustainable peace. At the local level, women’s inclusion at the leadership level has lead to improved outcomes of climate related projects and policies. On the contrary, if policies or projects are implemented without women’s meaningful participation it can increase existing inequalities and decrease effectiveness.

You do realise climate change is a global issue right? So considering the EU generally has cleaner energy sources than third world countries, if anything they are helping climate change by getting more people onto their power grid. This is however such a silly stick to try and beat people with.

It's Malthusian nonsense, anyway.

We can’t solve our climate-change problems by having fewer babies.

Not to even mention the negative consequences of declining population.

You want an example of this? I give you feminist glaciology.

I know you prefer feeding your own confirmation bias, but if you'd care to spend 5 seconds on Google you could have understood what it's about.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...study-reflects-sudden-appearance-culture-wars

We chose the title “feminist glaciology” to provoke discussion about who is producing knowledge about glaciers and what the implications of that existing knowledge are, including whose voices are left out and what types of scientific questions are asked (and which ones might thus be ignored). We also wanted to present a variety of different sociocultural forms of glacier knowledge that go beyond science, to generate discussion. Our goal was to ask questions about the role of gender in science and knowledge—to start a conversation, not conclude the discussion.

...

If one goal of glacier research is to help the people living in places like the Alps and Alaska adapt to shrinking glaciers—and the associated floods, landslides, and seasonal variation in water flows for irrigation and hydroelectricity generation—then it is important to study more than the physical properties of ice. Social scientists like myself work to understand those complex societies, their politics and economies, their cultures, and, yes, their gender relations because patriarchy and sexism marginalize certain segments of the population, just as racism marginalizes indigenous, Latino, and other peoples.

Our paper argues that social science and humanities research can contribute to the development of appropriate strategies for specific and diverse societies to adapt to change. A woman’s experience securing postdisaster aid, rebuilding a home, and raising a family after a glacial lake outburst flood has destroyed her community is different than those of men.
 
I know you prefer feeding your own confirmation bias, but if you'd care to spend 5 seconds on Google you could have understood what it's about.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...study-reflects-sudden-appearance-culture-wars

If one goal of glacier research is to help the people living in places like the Alps and Alaska adapt to shrinking glaciers—and the associated floods, landslides, and seasonal variation in water flows for irrigation and hydroelectricity generation—then it is important to study more than the physical properties of ice. Social scientists like myself work to understand those complex societies, their politics and economies, their cultures, and, yes, their gender relations because patriarchy and sexism marginalize certain segments of the population, just as racism marginalizes indigenous, Latino, and other peoples.
All that is not climate science. It is politics. Which exactly proves the author in the OP's point.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X