4 ms·

Yeah, at this point climate change has kinda become nuclear fusion – always 10 years away from the end. Not that we shouldn't do anything, because climate chan

Yeah, at this point climate change has kinda become nuclear fusion – always 10 years away from the end. Not that we shouldn't do anything, because climate change is real. It would just be nice if people could stop being so fire and brimstone about stuff that turns out not to be the end of the world after all (like ACB getting confirmed to SCOTUS). The society that cried wolf.

dgritsko 6y ago
I mean, Barrett was sworn in less than a week ago. Regardless of how you feel about her, it's far too early to make any kind of judgement about the implications of her confirmation.
- fastball 6y ago
  There is no possible way the implications will be anywhere near the level of dire that you'd believe after reading the news articles and seeing people's internet comments and tweets. I mean, people are talking about an overturn of Roe v. Wade, somehow failing to realize that RvW was ruled on by a SCOTUS with a conservative majority. If Obergefell gets overturned (it won't), an actual law can be passed this time, hell maybe even a constitutional amendment, since nearly a supermajority of Americans outright support gay marriage.
  - wycy 6y ago
    The concern is less that Roe v Wade will be overturned outright so much as it will be de facto overturned by death by a thousand cuts. Dozens of abortion-rights cases are heading toward the Supreme Court, and Mississippi's attempt to pass a 15-week abortion ban is just the start.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Not sure why you think all the originalists on the SCOTUS would want to death-by-a-thousand cuts Roe v Wade. If states pass constitutional laws, I'm sure they'll be upheld by the current SCOTUS. If laws are unconstitutional, I'm sure they won't be. What is the problem here? That originalist conservatives won't be legislating from the bench as has been happening? If abortion needs to be a protected right then amend the constitution.
      - wycy 6y ago
        The idea that the conservatives on the court are "originalists" is a complete farce. Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is of course despite the fact that (a) there is no such law, (b) none of the founding fathers could have ever imagined TV networks calling elections day-of, (c) and election results are routinely not known for many days/weeks after an election. This bizarre opinion is just one of countless that disproves the "originalism" myth. And as for legislating from the bench, few are more guilty of that than Alito and Thomas.
        fastball 6y ago
        Um. What? The case I think you're talking about (DNC v WSL) was literally about whether or not state legislatures can decide when to require ballots. Wisconsin's legislature decided election day. A lower court said this was unconstitutional, but it's not, so the majority opinion was for WSL. Please show me where in this opinion the assertion was made that election results must be called by TV networks on election night.
        wycy 6y ago
        https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-rights.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-right... Also funny about his opinion is that he doesn't seem to understand that states rarely (never?) "definitively announced results on election night." States typically don't certify their results for weeks. Only TV networks call elections on election night based on projections of what the final results might be after states count all their legally cast ballots. Kavanaugh either doesn't understand or has a problem with how elections in this country have always worked.
        fastball 6y ago
        Huh, literally nothing about announcing results on TV. How can you straight-facedly opine on the opinion when you clearly haven't read it? Instead of reading a NYT article, which is basically a partisan rag at this point, try reading the actual opinion. And then you can quote back to me the parts about television. Except you can't, because they're not there. > Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is a lie. Stop lying.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    There is a difference between a conservative court and a conservative court that has been litmus tested on a specific issue.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    >If Obergefell gets overturned (it won't), an actual law can be passed this time, hell maybe even a constitutional amendment, since nearly a supermajority of Americans outright support gay marriage. While that sounds good on paper, 50 percent of people in this country live in 9 states. The population distribution is not compatible with passing legislation in that way. Edit to add: those 9 states only have 44.5 percent of the electoral college and 18 percent of the Senate.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Are you asserting that all 100% of those in the 9 states are the gay marriage supporters?
- themaninthedark 6y ago
  I'll bite, how about all the dire predictions that Trump would start a war with North Korea? Or that he was going to crash the economy right away? I am someone who does believe that we are having an impact on the global temp. and I do think we need to do something about it. Screaming the sky is falling is not helping. Stonewalling any other source of power except Solar and Wind is not helping. Suggesting that we cut back farmland drastically, in a move that would kill a bunch of people is not helping. Telling people to give up cars and planes is not helping. We need to work to come up with solutions that will work for everyone, not just San Fransisco, New York, Amsterdam. We need solutions for Valdosta, GA, Snowshoe, WV, Salmon, ID. These solutions can not be "Just move out of dying places". That is just as bad as telling coal miners to learn to code. That means that different regions will have to have different standards, something we have not seem to come to grip with here in the US.
toolz 6y ago
It seems that predictive modelers seem to often come to conclusions that put them in the spotlight and elevate the status of their field of research. It it probably more fair to say that scary models get more attention and thus incentivize scary modeling though.
NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
Not this time as all parameters are worsen by each year, Australia and California wildfires, lose of ice, most significantly thawing permafrost at Siberia that contains potential of 100 - 1000 Gt of CH4 (Methane 75 times more potent than CO2 currently there is only 5Gt of methane in atmosphere) which would be enough to tip things over instantly ... In fact it was never "always 10 years" as tipping point has been considered 450 ppm (it could be sooner), and CO2 is steadily increasing currently is 412.16 ppm. https://www.co2.earth/ https://www.co2.earth/ So we can estimate how much time is left by progression.
- quixoticelixer- 6y ago
  Regarding California and Australia they might not be as big CO2 emitters as you might expect as long as the forest grows back well after fires.
  - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
    Young trees cannot not sequester amount of CO2 as mature forests. Not even close. And trends are showing that droughts will continue, so there will be not enough water for them to grow.
    - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
      No, but young forests grow into old forests and while they don't hold as much CO2 they sequester it much much faster. (assuming of course that there is good regeneration after fires.)
      - bandushrew 6y ago
        unless they burn every year.

dgritsko 6y ago

I mean, Barrett was sworn in less than a week ago. Regardless of how you feel about her, it's far too early to make any kind of judgement about the implications of her confirmation.

fastball 6y ago
There is no possible way the implications will be anywhere near the level of dire that you'd believe after reading the news articles and seeing people's internet comments and tweets. I mean, people are talking about an overturn of Roe v. Wade, somehow failing to realize that RvW was ruled on by a SCOTUS with a conservative majority. If Obergefell gets overturned (it won't), an actual law can be passed this time, hell maybe even a constitutional amendment, since nearly a supermajority of Americans outright support gay marriage.
- wycy 6y ago
  The concern is less that Roe v Wade will be overturned outright so much as it will be de facto overturned by death by a thousand cuts. Dozens of abortion-rights cases are heading toward the Supreme Court, and Mississippi's attempt to pass a 15-week abortion ban is just the start.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Not sure why you think all the originalists on the SCOTUS would want to death-by-a-thousand cuts Roe v Wade. If states pass constitutional laws, I'm sure they'll be upheld by the current SCOTUS. If laws are unconstitutional, I'm sure they won't be. What is the problem here? That originalist conservatives won't be legislating from the bench as has been happening? If abortion needs to be a protected right then amend the constitution.
    - wycy 6y ago
      The idea that the conservatives on the court are "originalists" is a complete farce. Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is of course despite the fact that (a) there is no such law, (b) none of the founding fathers could have ever imagined TV networks calling elections day-of, (c) and election results are routinely not known for many days/weeks after an election. This bizarre opinion is just one of countless that disproves the "originalism" myth. And as for legislating from the bench, few are more guilty of that than Alito and Thomas.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Um. What? The case I think you're talking about (DNC v WSL) was literally about whether or not state legislatures can decide when to require ballots. Wisconsin's legislature decided election day. A lower court said this was unconstitutional, but it's not, so the majority opinion was for WSL. Please show me where in this opinion the assertion was made that election results must be called by TV networks on election night.
        wycy 6y ago
        https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-rights.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-right... Also funny about his opinion is that he doesn't seem to understand that states rarely (never?) "definitively announced results on election night." States typically don't certify their results for weeks. Only TV networks call elections on election night based on projections of what the final results might be after states count all their legally cast ballots. Kavanaugh either doesn't understand or has a problem with how elections in this country have always worked.
        fastball 6y ago
        Huh, literally nothing about announcing results on TV. How can you straight-facedly opine on the opinion when you clearly haven't read it? Instead of reading a NYT article, which is basically a partisan rag at this point, try reading the actual opinion. And then you can quote back to me the parts about television. Except you can't, because they're not there. > Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is a lie. Stop lying.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  There is a difference between a conservative court and a conservative court that has been litmus tested on a specific issue.
- selectodude 6y ago
  >If Obergefell gets overturned (it won't), an actual law can be passed this time, hell maybe even a constitutional amendment, since nearly a supermajority of Americans outright support gay marriage. While that sounds good on paper, 50 percent of people in this country live in 9 states. The population distribution is not compatible with passing legislation in that way. Edit to add: those 9 states only have 44.5 percent of the electoral college and 18 percent of the Senate.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Are you asserting that all 100% of those in the 9 states are the gay marriage supporters?
themaninthedark 6y ago
I'll bite, how about all the dire predictions that Trump would start a war with North Korea? Or that he was going to crash the economy right away? I am someone who does believe that we are having an impact on the global temp. and I do think we need to do something about it. Screaming the sky is falling is not helping. Stonewalling any other source of power except Solar and Wind is not helping. Suggesting that we cut back farmland drastically, in a move that would kill a bunch of people is not helping. Telling people to give up cars and planes is not helping. We need to work to come up with solutions that will work for everyone, not just San Fransisco, New York, Amsterdam. We need solutions for Valdosta, GA, Snowshoe, WV, Salmon, ID. These solutions can not be "Just move out of dying places". That is just as bad as telling coal miners to learn to code. That means that different regions will have to have different standards, something we have not seem to come to grip with here in the US.

toolz 6y ago

It seems that predictive modelers seem to often come to conclusions that put them in the spotlight and elevate the status of their field of research. It it probably more fair to say that scary models get more attention and thus incentivize scary modeling though.

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago

Not this time as all parameters are worsen by each year, Australia and California wildfires, lose of ice, most significantly thawing permafrost at Siberia that contains potential of 100 - 1000 Gt of CH4 (Methane 75 times more potent than CO2 currently there is only 5Gt of methane in atmosphere) which would be enough to tip things over instantly ... In fact it was never "always 10 years" as tipping point has been considered 450 ppm (it could be sooner), and CO2 is steadily increasing currently is 412.16 ppm. https://www.co2.earth/ https://www.co2.earth/ So we can estimate how much time is left by progression.

quixoticelixer- 6y ago
Regarding California and Australia they might not be as big CO2 emitters as you might expect as long as the forest grows back well after fires.
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  Young trees cannot not sequester amount of CO2 as mature forests. Not even close. And trends are showing that droughts will continue, so there will be not enough water for them to grow.
  - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
    No, but young forests grow into old forests and while they don't hold as much CO2 they sequester it much much faster. (assuming of course that there is good regeneration after fires.)
    - bandushrew 6y ago
      unless they burn every year.