Says the guy who got Pluto fired

Feb 7, 2017 1:22 AM

Camelspotting

Views

2452

Likes

87

Dislikes

38

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I always upvote DeGrasse.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

We are impacting the climate. But when facts are being exaggerated/manipulated by both sides, it's hard not to confuse it all for politics.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It is inherently political because it requires state and international cooperation to manage a response.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I get his point. Though if E=ML(oseyourjob), it would be political too

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

He's saying he politics should be how to deal with it. Because if your job depends on plants or animals or living on a coast....

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's only political because it threatens oil and coal companies

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

Well it threatens entire state and country economies disrupts power structures, threatens food chains and requires international cooperation

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

i think he forgot about the so called scientists who were caught misrepresenting the data.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 6

Read this and report. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

OR you could accept the word of literally 98% of the scientific community instead. And we might not lose 1/4 of the human population

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It's not near 98%. But go ahead a follow the crowd. It's more comfortable.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Pardon. 90%. And you understand what consensus means? You think believing in an oncoming and preventable extinction event is comfortable?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Hype.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You're nuanced and fact based rebuttal is so trenchant. OR we are already into a mass extinction as described in peer reviewed journals.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Oh, there are people choosing sides. Its just that one side is scientist and people who arent dumb, and the other side is... Week wrong

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

E=mc^2 has neither an economic nor religious impact, or you BET idiots and assholes would be debating it.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

That equation literally laid the groundwork for nuclear weapons. So it has quite a bit of economic and military impact.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The existence of it has an impact, the fact of it does not. It serves no interest to claim E != mc^2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And it serves no interest to demonstrate that the ice caps have receded, average temp is up, and ocean acidification is increasing. AllFacts

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Does switching to renewable energy have religious impact?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No... just as the age of the Earth has no economic impact, but is subject to 'debate' by creationists.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This guy needs to take the nomination from Cruella DeVos and revamp our education system. Seriously.

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 4

That is silly. Just like her, he is not qualified. The difference is that he knows it. (Adminstration is different from teaching)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That would make sense. Hence, it has no place in politics, much less in current administration.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Wouldn't the switch to renewable energy maintain and expand on the number of jobs in the industry already? Honest question.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes, but not in the same places. Coal country isn't wind or solar country. The necessary changes will.destroy whole states economies.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Btw, by saying that I just mean that we should respect how brutally hard this will be on a lot of places.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No I totally get it! But I feel like the change is inevitable.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It is. The open question is will it break us because we have been preparing for anything but the realities.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The switch from coal or oil to renewable wouldn't be immediate. Surely the time it takes to change would give states a chance to change?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

adapt.* I mean changes like this have happened before.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I mean this is going to be some Grapes of Wrath shit. People just leaving states because there isn't work or money for schools

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The change is going to hit either way. But it is worth really feeling just how unbelievably bad this is going to be for a lot of people.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

some people don't believe it today, but your kids and grand kids will,if it's not to late for them..

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Some people still believe the earth is flat. Fucking people believe al sorts of stupid shit.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

Some people still believe the earth is flat. Fucking people believe al sorts of stupid shit.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

You can largely thank Al Gore for politicizing environmental issues.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 9

That is an absolutely idiotic thing to believe. Do you think Oppenheimer politicized the A-bomb?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Do you recall how environmentalism was not tied to the Democratic party before his presidential campaign?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You mean how the ozone hole and nuclear power were not politicized? Oh wait....

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They were heavily politicized, but environmental issues were not identified exclusively with the Democrats until Gore.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It doesn't help that the republicans don't even use logic when defending their stance. The logical argument would be that the government

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

That's largely because Gore made it an identity for the Democrats, so the Repubs have to disagree, but they really agree. So chaos.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

should have no part in climate change prevention. If the people want ecofriendly stuff, they should only buy ecofriendly stuff, then

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

the oil and coal industries will have to change drastically or fail, resulting in only ecofriendly things being produced. But they don't

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

mention this. They just keep supporting the oil and coal industries and denying climate change like a bunch of idiots. Also, to be fair,

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

the government would waste a ton of money for no reason in their attempt to prevent climate change.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

What about global warming is a stark better alternative to global freezing half the planet used to be frozen for millions of years fuck that

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

This what we are worried will happen again. The Gulf Stream will stop spreading warm air to the north.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

And that'll stop happening cause everything is warm anyway? You lost me...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

The warmth will release a pool of cold water held in place by ice, directly into the gulf stream. This will in theory stop it.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ahhh makes sense.... I'm guessing that effect would only be temporary as when all that ice melted for the great flood and here we are now

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It would be temporary for a couple of hundreds or thousand years.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0