which stated that "we only have until 2030 to enact policies to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees by 2050"

Sounds pretty tame in comparison to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18

So yes, it's not just the "republican party having a problem with delusions". It's democrat doomsayers going too far and receiving a pushback.

Progressives discredit the entire issue when they try to blow it out of proportion.

come on dude

shes clearly exaggerating for rhetorical purposes

anyone who references "12 years" is talking specifically about the IPCC report

which doesn't predict "the end of the world"

(for what its worth, i'm a fan of rhetorical exaggerations on climate change because being moderate clearly hasnt fucking worked to institute the change necessary)

also, just through introspection, i have found the arguments/speeches that affected me the most on climate change weren't the "matter-of-fact" rhetoric i was exposed to, but the more impassioned and probably exaggerated rhetorical points. That doesn't mean i base my opinions on those things, but rather they geared my emotions up in a way that drab autistic appeals wouldn't, and made me more engaged/alert to the climate change issue, far more, as a whole.

No.

Nuke the Icecaps.

Periodt.

now, im a student of mathematics and computer science, so im not a typically emotional person, but if their impassioned appeals can generate emotions in someone with as flat an affect as me, then its bound to be even more effective on normal people

Clevor mans

Goud smort

> shes clearly exaggerating for rhetorical purposes
What can I say, she shouldn't have done it. Neither should she disregard the fact that China, Russia and the muslim world are competing with the US for world dominance.

Uniting them all under the banner of fighting the common threat is a great idea, but you can't use exaggerated threats to do so.

Keep in mind that this rhetoric did not just motivate your research on the matter. It also created rabid lefties and gave a weapon to discredit the entire thing to opposition, no matter how unreasonable and unscientific.

So we have one side having a seizure while the other one is like "just look at them".

GG @SonicAF, you just advanced to level 2!

> but you can't use exaggerated threats to do so.

sorry bud, but the United States did this with the Soviet Union for 45 years, and it worked *amazingly*

> It also created rabid lefties

these idiots would exist regardless of AOC saying the world is ending in 12 years

AOC has only existed for 1 year, rabid lefties have been around for half a decade

also, the rhetoric AOC is using *was already being used by rabid lefties BEFORE the IPCC report came out*

*the reason politicians started using this rhetoric is because rabid lefties already adopted it long ago and generated grassroots pressure for dems to declare a climate crisis*

so you have the causation the wrong way around

>gave a weapon to discredit the entire thing to opposition

*the opposition's position has become MORE amenable to the science over time, not less*

10 years ago people used to deny global warming itself

now the most pushback you get is "but it might not be man-made!"

which means there's no empirical evidence that the left's approach is failing

> sorry bud, but the United States did this with the Soviet Union for 45 years, and it worked amazingly
In the atmosphere of informational isolation and for more tame goals than uniting the entire world.

> these idiots woul<...>wrong way around
Sure. I am not saying something is wrong with her existence, even 3 million american looneys deserve political representation. I am saying that the democratic party, thanks to AOC, does not sound very rational either.
In reality one side wants to squeeze fossils' as much as they can before it becomes actually dangerous and other superpowers can't abuse them either, while the other one demands unity right now. Good luck to the latter.

> the opposition's position has bec<...>he left's approach is failing
What is important is not the most pushback you can find. The important part is how much ground you can give before collapsing. Now, thanks to AOC, we can completely drop the conversation, point the finger at her and shout "look at this liar!" even when she says half-truths. Hysteria feels weird. It's alienating.

>before it becomes actually dangerous

*its already dangerous*

> Now, thanks to AOC, we can completely drop the conversation, point the finger at her and shout "look at this liar!"

but this doesnt show up in opinion polls/surveys. most people are realising the serious issue that climate change is, and even the skeptics are changing their arguments. the only people pointing at AOC and shouting are retarded conservative commentators who dont actually represent the true beliefs of the populace. you have to recognise hardly anyone pays attention to these guys. america has 330 million people, and people like shapiro and crowder have around 1-2 million subs *not necessarily even from the US*, not to mention both them and fox news would find another fringe scapegoat if AOC didnt exist. We're talking about a small echo chamber compared to the actual voting base of america, who would be completely misled *regardless of AOC's existence*.

>In the atmosphere of informational isolation and for more tame goals than uniting the entire world.

we're not talking about uniting the entire world, we're talking about convincing *the american populace* of the seriousness of the issue. uniting the entire world is necessary, but thats not the purpose of rhetorical strategy in america itself.

> its already dangerous
Well, it's still profitable to bun fuels, so...

> retarded conservative commentators
> dont actually represent the true beliefs of the populace
Well, this is what they say about AOC. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯

> we're not talking about uniting the entire world, we're talking about convincing the american populace of the seriousness of the issue. uniting the entire world is necessary, but thats not the purpose of rhetorical strategy in america itself.

I am not sure you can separate one from the other. Imagine, you convince american people that it's the real deal and they have to stop. You can't do it without being thorn apart by other superpowers. So what's the point?

the point is that its a first step

america cannot institute real change without the voting base becoming aware of the actual danger involved with inaction

also its important for leverage in international conferences

back in the 2015 paris conference, india's big issue leading into it, and still is, was "american citizens are burning 34x more carbon than we do, so why should we be forced to restrict our usage?"

"especially when we're underdeveloped"

>You can't do it without being thorn apart by other superpowers.

you can actually