Climate Change

[timisimaginary]

Let's talk California, where 11% of Americans live, where most of the wealthy lives, and where Democrats have a tight grip on all levels of government. California is the second highest emitter of CO2. Los Angeles has the largest urban oil field in the United States, smacked right in the middle of the city, a total eye sore. California has the worst and largest wildfires in the country. California is in a quasi-permanent state of drought. Also, California is on its the 5th largest economy in the world. But yea, the climate change deniers rednecks rolling coal are the ones keeping the country from addressing climate change.

wait, are you actually trying to say that because CA is more affected by climate change, that means they're more responsible for creating climate change? talk about naive...

[Dave B]

Just last night I saw a guy walking outside alone while wearing a mask. Science has spoken on the issue but hes not convinced. I felt sorry for him coz hes definitely the fruit of consistent fearmongering and unfortunately fell to the brainwashing. I blame the likes of CNN.

CDC guidelines still recommend masks and social distancing for the unvaccinated. Did you ask if he was vaccinated or just assume he was a brainwashed CNN viewer? Perhaps you should give this person the benefit of the doubt and offer them some respect instead of judging them based on a chance encounter that lasted no more than a few seconds.

Elitism can go both directions.

So can absurd non-scientific thinking. He clearly stated the walker was outside and alone. Both of those parameters clearly would not require wearing a mask. Unless of course one was completely brainwashed, overwhelming their rational thinking. Just saying.

No, the CDC guidelines specifically state that masks should be worn outside the home if unvaccinated. Period. There are no clearly stated exceptions for when alone or outdoors. So, this person was following CDC guidelines verbatim*.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... ntion.html

*this post is not an endorsement of following CDC guidelines verbatim

[timisimaginary]

Just last night I saw a guy walking outside alone while wearing a mask. Science has spoken on the issue but hes not convinced. I felt sorry for him coz hes definitely the fruit of consistent fearmongering and unfortunately fell to the brainwashing. I blame the likes of CNN.

CDC guidelines still recommend masks and social distancing for the unvaccinated. Did you ask if he was vaccinated or just assume he was a brainwashed CNN viewer? Perhaps you should give this person the benefit of the doubt and offer them some respect instead of judging them based on a chance encounter that lasted no more than a few seconds.

Elitism can go both directions.

So can absurd non-scientific thinking. He clearly stated the walker was outside and alone. Both of those parameters clearly would not require wearing a mask. Unless of course one was completely brainwashed, overwhelming their rational thinking. Just saying.

you also have no idea where he was going to or coming from. maybe he was just coming back from visiting his cancer-ridden mother in the hospital and had other things on his mind besides ripping off his mask at the first opportunity. or just got off a 10-hour shift at a job where he has to wear the mask all day and has gotten so used to it after doing so for over a year that he sometimes forgets he's even wearing it.
there are plenty of times i've worn my mask while alone in my car because i'm driving from one place that requires a mask to another place 5 minutes away that also requires a mask, and it's easier just to keep the thing on a few extra minutes than to be constantly taking it on and off the whole time. if someone only saw me while i was driving, alone, in my own car, with a mask on, they might think i'm crazy or "brainwashed by CNN" too, with no context on which to base their judgment.

[Scott P]

Did you work in one of those mines near Price?

Craig, Colorado.

[painless4u2]

"Masks may not be necessary when you and the person you are caring for are outside and away from others."
[/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... dance.html]

You guys keep digging. Your non-rational thinking is getting you a deeper hole.

[rijaca]

"Masks may not be necessary when you and the person you are caring for are outside and away from others."
[/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... dance.html]

You guys keep digging. Your non-rational thinking is getting you a deeper hole.

Maybe this man was immuno-compromised (like me). Or maybe he forgot he has his mask on. There wasn't context provided with the statement except for KerQuack's wild assumptions. To be critical of someone that chooses to wear a mask during a pandemic (even if appears were reaching 'the end'.), is the epitome of non-rational thinking.

I have a ex-neighbor/friend who's father is in the hospital with COVID because he refused to get vaccinated. Another consequence of non-critical thinking. The family still has members that refuse to get vaccinated.

[Bale]

Exhibit A: “this is why the country is divided, can’t we all just get along.”
Then immediately proceeds to directly bash the “other side”.

[crossfitter]

Option E) Climate change is real and man-caused and generally negative, but the true extent of the crisis is unknown, generated by models of dubious accuracy, and likely exaggerated in both timescale and severity, as is every other mass hysteria (see: Corona). Most of the proposed solutions suck and are varying combinations of impractical, ineffective, or sufficiently austere as to generate similar levels of human suffering as climate change itself.

It's not going to be mad max. Wealthy countries will build, innovate, and adapt. Poor countries will suffer, and more people are probably going to die from human conflict than they will from a climate apocalypse. We're certainly not all gonna die in 12 years.

I find it quite amusing that the same people that think we're going to make shithole Mars habitable don't think we can deal with a 2C higher global temperature, and that CO2 is going to bring about the end times, but it's still not worth considering nuclear as a way out.

[cottonmountaineering]

Option E) Climate change is real and man-caused and generally negative, but the true extent of the crisis is unknown, generated by models of dubious accuracy, and likely exaggerated in both timescale and severity, as is every other mass hysteria (see: Corona). Most of the proposed solutions suck and are varying combinations of impractical, ineffective, or sufficiently austere as to generate similar levels of human suffering as climate change itself.

It's not going to be mad max. Wealthy countries will build, innovate, and adapt. Poor countries will suffer, and more people are probably going to die from human conflict than they will from a climate apocalypse. We're certainly not all gonna die in 12 years.

I find it quite amusing that the same people that think we're going to make shithole Mars habitable don't think we can deal with a 2C higher global temperature, and that CO2 is going to bring about the end times, but it's still not worth considering nuclear as a way out.

the future i see is that most poor countries will have food/water/energy shortages and their citizens will migrate. the "border crisis" as is reported by right wing outlets will look like a joke to what is going to happen in the future. Americans are also dumb in groups, so if there is any resource scarcity people will hoard, we had a shortage of toilet paper for months just based on rumors/hoarding.

most countries are using up their groundwater at unsustainable rates, rivers fed by glaciers are in decline, and you cant pump desalinated water thousands of miles inland efficiently

[highpilgrim]

most countries are using up their groundwater at unsustainable rates

Take a look at the desert southwest. Golf courses, green lawns and swimming pools abound. Lake Mead is at record low levels. Last year, huge stands of Joshua Trees were burned because the microclimate they reside in is very sensitive to temperature swings like we're encountering.

Wealthy countries will build, innovate, and adapt.

And the wealthy people in those countries, including ours, will do ok. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in our country who will not have access to the resources that this wealth provides. Accountability is coming for us, like it or not. But not in fair measure to all...

[crossfitter]

Option E) Climate change is real and man-caused and generally negative, but the true extent of the crisis is unknown, generated by models of dubious accuracy, and likely exaggerated in both timescale and severity, as is every other mass hysteria (see: Corona). Most of the proposed solutions suck and are varying combinations of impractical, ineffective, or sufficiently austere as to generate similar levels of human suffering as climate change itself.

It's not going to be mad max. Wealthy countries will build, innovate, and adapt. Poor countries will suffer, and more people are probably going to die from human conflict than they will from a climate apocalypse. We're certainly not all gonna die in 12 years.

I find it quite amusing that the same people that think we're going to make shithole Mars habitable don't think we can deal with a 2C higher global temperature, and that CO2 is going to bring about the end times, but it's still not worth considering nuclear as a way out.

the future i see is that most poor countries will have food/water/energy shortages and their citizens will migrate. the "border crisis" as is reported by right wing outlets will look like a joke to what is going to happen in the future. Americans are also dumb in groups, so if there is any resource scarcity people will hoard, we had a shortage of toilet paper for months just based on rumors/hoarding.

most countries are using up their groundwater at unsustainable rates, rivers fed by glaciers are in decline, and you cant pump desalinated water thousands of miles inland efficiently

I agree. Which would imply that it would be prudent to have a strong military and border controls to ensure our own survival and success. Ideally we mitigate that outcome, but it's good to have a plan B just in case plan A doesn't work out.

[Dave B]

but the true extent of the crisis is unknown, generated by models of dubious accuracy, and likely exaggerated in both timescale and severity

I dunno man, they seem pretty damn accurate to me (assessment of accuracy from climate models included in 2004 IPCC report):

ClimateModels.JPG (103.66 KiB) Viewed 2279 times