Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

I will just leave this here as I touched on it previously. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/12/world/midway-plastic-island/

No one wants to give up what they have or other things that make life easier so we have this, where we may end up eating what we leave behind.

No point has been missed, you're simply attempting to blame humans being omnivores and their "desires" instead of the forced market that exists in America. The "desire" for most people is simply cheap, affordable sustenance, which due to legislation has allowed the over production and over consumption of meats.

Again, such as any other commodity meat production is based off of supply and demand. If PEOPLE cut back on eating meats in the US we wouldn't be producing as much as there would be no such demand for that type of production. Enough with the omnivores, I know what a humans diet consist of. However, before we began mass producing live stock we didn't eat as much meat in the state of nature as we do now. You keep speaking of other reasons, but at the end of the day if people stopped buying meat the supply side would not be producing just for the hell of it.

You can regulate all you want, but if there is a market for meat, someone will produce it, end of story. If you want to get down the slippery slope of the government coming into the market and dictating the live stock amount than that is for another discussion.

Alright it seems we have to go over the details again.

1. Its not meeting supply and demand, its over production. Over production means over production, it means its beyond supply and demand. The reality is, even with our over eating of meat, it should not be causing the environmental problems it is. Im editing this right now and dont have time to find the exact article, but it was called something like... Correcting Farmings pollution and emissions or something like that (this could be the title of the peer review actually). I think it was TIME that published it, but in the article it links to the peer reviews you really should be reading.

2. The over consumption aspect of meats, has been artificially created due to political corruption. In turn, its created meat products that are far cheaper than they should be and we have not focused as much on public information regarding its over consumption.

3. The reason we know its this corrupted system and not the people and their "demands" that is the problem, is because meat consumption in the US has reduced by 15% and seafood by 14% over the last 8 years while estimated production has increased by 22%.... again... their response to people eating less meat, has been to produce more. If we were sticking with supply and demand then we would see a dramatic decrease in production by at least 10% and then a continued decline in order to keep up with the real supply and demand so that you are not over producing. Instead what we see is extreme overproduction designed to over-saturate a market in an attempt to create a false demand for increased sales.

There is a nasdaq publication that dives pretty deep into these numbers. I tired to link but for some reason its one fo those sites that will only take you to the main nasdeq.com site. So just go to the site and search for the article "How the Death of Meat could Affect your Portfolio" and then click the study thats linked in the article.

I will also mention that Mexico is currently going through the same artificial increase of meat supplies that we went through (in the late 70s and 80s then totally ramped up in the 90s). And you can find plenty of articles and studies detailing this situation.

That's absurd. You know why? Because we dont see this in other countries and we didnt see this in America when we did eat properly, which was a product of proper regulations and btw... we already regulate and dictate the live stock market. Why is it you slippery slope/gubment intervention guys never seem to be able to grasp that the government is already involved? That they are already regulating and controlling, already picking winners and losers and the topic is really how and what is appropriate. And what exactly do you think your solution entails? It will be one of two things that i can reduce down and suggest either mind control or slippery slope government action.

Tell me, what exactly would it matter if a catastrophe was new or not? What does it matter that we've seen them over and over and over throughout history? The point is, they pose a threat to the continuation of our species and if there is one thing that we know all species have in common and the "meaning of life" that most everyone can agree to, its the continuation of the species. We do our best to avoid these things. This is the point you seem to be avoiding with nonsensical rebuttals. New, old, done ten times or done fifty times, global or local, better or worse than another instance, these "points" do absolutely nothing to escape the simple fact that we avoid these things because it puts the continuation of our species at risk. If you want to mention or focus on what is "natural" or not to us as a species or the world, avoiding the potential annihilation of your species, is as natural....errr.... is as ingrained into your genetics, as it gets. Its the definition of what you are as a species.

I mean.... are you being serious right now?

Do you think we call them "catastrophes" because they are not bad?

You know... i see what youre trying to do. You're attempting to put a universal value on this. When the reality is youre not going to do that with any other subject because it creates for a inappropriate argument. Yah, in the context of the universe, none of this matters, none of it is good or bad, it just is what it is.

But that is not how we view things, its not how we solve our problems. And the application of this context is irresponsible, nonsensical and is as......anti-life, as it gets.

We have the context of the survival of our species. As conscious beings, we are also aware of other species survival and the importance of them in our current natural world. You can try to be as emo and pathetically nihilistic as you want, but this is the one context all species and humans would have in common. And in this context that everything in life is held to.... yes, catastrophes (not called, flavorful "chocolate covered gummy bears") are inherently bad. Again, its because they put the continued survival of our species and many other species, at risk.

I do not even know what to say to this. After re-reading your post as im responding i..... im almost at a loss for words and it seems like i would just continue to repeat myself as you would then continue to repeat yourself and your attempt to suggest that i guess we should start viewing our lives and survival of our species, as a 5 billion year old god made of pure energy who is just sitting back and watching the universe unfold at his own whim, would view it.

Jesus tap dancing christ man.... no one is confused or does not understand what you're attempting to say. Its simply a stupid thing to say when attempting to address anything involving our species.

.....And i cannot believe i have to explain this to an adult (or even near it)... When people talk about "saving our planet", its not in some literal sense, maybe you should attempt to pay attention to what is said instead of walking away with some term and some how being confused by it.

Im not sure if you being confused by the very well stated and obvious is worse than you simply being obtuse, but.. its definitely one of them.

No one has ever attempted to make the claim that if we do not stop burning oil and coal at the rates we are, the earth will implode and then be sucked up by the sun. No one has ever suggested if we do not reduce or emissions rates, then a living planet will come along, find us attractive and then eat us and the planet no longer exists. This is not what people are saying when they say "save the planet" and in order to be confused by this, you literally have to see the three words and do not read anything beyond that and then, lastly, put zero thought process into it...... Im actually done here. I was going to go into a further explanation but you seem to already know these things, you're simply attempting to intentionally muddy the water.

Stop trying to bring this up as some valid argument or point against what people are saying. The only reason you seem to think this is something you can mention is due to your own absurdities that create bullshit semantics that no one has ever suggested. As for the rest of your post, ive already had to take four Ibuprofens because of your first two paragraphs and i dont want to take any more.

That IS selfish. Your issue is that you seem to me to be operating under the implicit notion that selfishness is a bad thing. It's not, dude. Every living thing on this planet has instincts and/or tendencies which lean towards self-preservation, that's how species keep from going extinct.

You want to really get down to what beefs me off about this "save the planet" stuff? It's implying that we CAN'T act in an environmentally responsible manner without getting all emotional about this stuff.

No one "likes" living in LA? Okay, fine, but that's an emotional thing and has no bearing on what's best for nature. Now, one could RATIONALLY decide that certain actions are against our own self-interests in that they objectively harm our own species chances of long term survival, but that's a RATIONAL determination and doing the rational thing may very well require doing things that we do not like.

I mean, people seem to have a BIG problem with my position that attempts to increase our species' chances of long term survival can equally well be accomplished with a cold and calculating risk vs reward analysis. At no point have I ever said anything contradicting the notion that we shouldn't drastically change the planet because doing so isn't in our self-interests. Yet the mere fact that I'm taking a cold approach and not phrasing it in terms of "think of all the cute little animals" is rubbing people the wrong way. You don't see how that might be disturbing to me? You don't see how someone might take that as a dismissal of cold rational pragmatism in favor of hasty appeals to emotion?

Let's put it this way: my basic overall worldview is based on the notion that I am not special. God did not put the Earth at the center of the universe. My race was not created to be superior to others. My skills and talents don't make me better than you or anyone else (in a general sense, since someone who is objectively better at playing basketball is clearly better within the specific context of basketball games). I'm not better than someone else just because he's dumber than me or less educated than me, or hasn't had the privilege of having the same upbringing. I don't have the special privilege of using my free speech to criticize people, while thinking that THEY are opposed to freedom of speech when they exercise the same freedoms that I choose to exercise as well. I realize that I will eventually die, and that ultimately my death will be utterly insignificant to nearly everyone on Earth, much in the same way that shitloads of people die every day and I don't really care about THEM. I realize that nearly every species that has ever lived has gone extinct, that ours will do the same. I realize that the universe is MOSTLY devoid of life, and that that ISN'T "a waste of space", because calling a dead universe a waste of space entails believing that there's some ultimate PURPOSE to the emergence of life, that it isn't just chemistry and physics.

For someone who types so much, you have a very serious lack of reading comprehension. Because NOTHING I have typed in this entire thread has argued for apathy or that we should avoid protecting our own kind.

The very fact that you could read my posts and take that point from that illustrates my entire point. I was the one initially f***ing arguing for self-preservation. I've been arguing for self-preservation from the very goddamn beginning, that self-preservation is our entire f***ing goal. That was my entire goddamn point all along, and I have been VERY clear on that the entire time.

but, but...holy shit! I stated that exact same thing without appealing to saving the planet or serving as the arbiter of what's right for all life, I stated that exact same thing while recognizing all species' biological imperative to act according to their own self-interests, and now you are trying to refute my argument by stating the exact same thing that I've been saying all along.

This proves my point 100%. NOTHING I have said here is in disagreement with your general premise, you're simply getting pissed the f*** off because I'm framing the problem in rational and objective terms (namely, that this is objectively a problem of self-interest). You seem so appalled at the idea of this being an issue of self-interest, that you felt the need to argue with me by framing this as a problem of self-interest and not having any goddamn idea that you're actually AGREEING with every single thing I said.

Completely ignoring emotions over cold rational pragmatism is not a good thing, it's actually a key characteristic of a sociopath. You need a balance.

IMO he is being intentionally obtuse about it.

The thing is, you dont have the scientific understanding that at the end of the day none of this matters to the universe, while also not understanding why it matters to us as a species and why combating these possibilities is as natural of a reaction as it gets. I think he understand the latter, he is simply intentionally ignoring it because for some reason he thinks that acknowledging it would make him seem less scientifically rational. There is also the possibility that he is just repeating someone.

Pretty much.

My bet is he got the idea from George Carlin, the thing is that he's a comedian, you aren't meant to base your life philosophy on what he says.

This is because you've taken this weird stance where you attempt to really say neither. You're not saying that we should not take efforts, but you're also not recognizing the reality of the situation or youre attempting to define it with some weird, philosophical pretense. You're not as clever as you think you are, just look at the post above for a more detailed evaluation of what you're obviously doing. You actually remind me a lot of the 8th and 9th graders who take a field trip to our lab to see if they really want to get into one of the fields of biology. The kids who may be interested in the career, but dont quite have a grasp on even the basics.

That was my entire goddamn point all along, and I have been VERY clear on that the entire time.

So what, its a coincidence that most people who have responded to you are taking issue with this? Its everyone else who is having reading comprehension issues or maybe youre making weird, fairly nonsensical arguments?

but, but...holy shit! I stated that exact same thing without appealing to saving the planet or serving as the arbiter of what's right for all life,

See. You want to say that everyone else has the comprehension problems when in reality you dont even understand what i was very clear in attempting to correct for you. Which was not that i thought you said something different, it was addressing how horrifically bad your response to a 3 word phrase was. And how you valued this response as a valid point to make.

As for the last part of that sentence, you once again hit that weird wall.

I'm not ignoring that at all, my entire freaking point is based on the fact that self-preservation is a NATURAL response. This isn't some kind of noble cause, it isn't charity or pity towards the cute little animals of the forest. It's self-preservation, pure and simple, and I get f***ing annoyed when people don't cut through the bullshit and get to the point. If this is about self-preservation, then frame the damn issue in terms of self-preservation and stop messing around with hoity-toity self-congratulatory bullshit about "protecting the environment."

And to toastburner, I never even mentioned George Carlin until the OT hippies blew up at another dude for making the factually correct statement that we can't destroy the planet. Once this community decided to attack someone for making factually correct statements that weren't politically correct, then you're goddamn right that it's relevant to bring up a famous stand-up routine about the issue.

Ever had a goddamn vegan lecture you about how it's wrong to kill as you're trying to enjoy your fried chicken, and then seen him take a bite of salad that has been treated with pesticides? Then you know EXACTLY the kind of annoying self-righteous hypocrisy that I'm talking about. You're just pretending that you don't.

So far, not a single damn person has shown what I've said to be incorrect, they're merely taking objections on philosophical grounds. Do you think it's a coincidence that people have been arguing against me this entire time, and yet not a single person has actually shown my statements to be incorrect? The people here LOVE proving people wrong, and so far not a single person has even tried.

@MrGeezer: The worst thing about the climate change "issue" is that it became a partisan issue rather than a science issue.
Giving people the opportunity to ignore scientific data based on party affiliation is really the biggest problem climate change faces.

Why shouldn't he? He is to old to be affected by the consequences.

No i dont think its a coincidence, i think you think you've said things that you have not actually said. And you think youve taken a certain position but none of us see it and this is because of how youve worded and stated things.

Again, you seem to think that everyone else is misreading you or misrepresenting you some how, when the fact of the matter is, you're not saying what you think.

Let me just quote you here: "yes, catastrophes (not called, flavorful "chocolate covered gummy bears") are inherently bad. Again, its because they put the continued survival of our species and many other species, at risk."

I'm pretty sure that nearly all of the environmental "catastrophes" that have ever happened here haven't put the survival of our species at risk AT ALL. Why? For starters, because they happened before our species ever existed. And furthermore, our species was only able to exist because those catastrophes happened.

It's just really weird that a big-ass rock could fall from outer space and wipe out a shitload of species very quickly (cataclysmic asteroid impacts are not usually a gradual process, and don't give many species a chance to adapt to the fireball that is now incinerating their entire species without any previous notice), and that the fact that such a rapid mass extinction actually majorly contributed to the fact that we even exist. Yet, somehow, the very mass extinction that allowed us to exist was "inherently bad" because it put the "continued survival" of "our species at risk"?