https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/01/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-democrats-rudy-giuliani/index.html

So, they finally wanna do it?

I also like this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

Look at the timeline <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

When you realize that the Democrats are seriously behind financially then the impeachment proceedings make a lot more sense. https://ballotpedia.org/Party_committee_fundraising,_2019-2020

There needs to be a "stonks" meme for political fundraising.

Man, the people in <#598799722324688927> are fucking weird

Heh. Gee, I wonder why.

How many of them are probably Nazis?

Like 1488 (((they))) style /pol/ type Nazis.

I mean, just go look at the chat over there

Nah. More like extreme tardlets and autists.

That's possible

Some climate zealot on Reddit the other day called me a "boomer-brain" and a member of a "denialist clan"

Kek.

Just goes to show how tribal people can get.

I thought it was funny that he associates "climate denial" with Baby Boomers only

Just because I don't agree with the lefties' idea of how to combat climate change, doesn't mean I deny it is a thing (and that humans have played a hand in it).

We know it's a thing, there's hard data to back it up from multiple independent sources. It's just a matter of what we do about it. I for one support grassroots efforts, not this mad rush toward socialism.

The science is murky

The climate has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age

It's also possible that, if the Industrial Revolution hadn't happened, the Little Ice Age could've become a real one.

That's more a hypothesis, though.

All I was saying is that in John Cook's "consensus" meta-study, that only 0.5% of the papers reviewed claimed that human activity made up the majority of the influence on warming

That's actually a much smaller percentage than the ones that said we had no effect at all

Fair enough. The degree we've influenced it is up for debate, true. But we're not exactly "killing" the planet.

The vast majority of the papers either didn't mention it, or fell in the 1%-50% range

Anyway, that was enough for him to start raging on me

Which is dumb of him.

Indeed

It's actually a really interesting subject

I wish we didn't all have to be divided into these "for" and "against" camps

One of my favorite channels that covered the debate was potholer54. He didn't just cite studies, but showed how the data was acquired and other such related topics.

My take on it is this: whether it's our fault or not, stewardship is a good thing and we should strive to be as eco-friendly as possible, within reason. Resources are finite, after all.

I'll agree with that - seems pretty reasonable

Cheers.

As said earlier, IMHO the best way to go green is from the ground up. Top-down impositions don't work, and only breed resentment, because they're almost always done in a heavy-handed, non-nuanced sort of way, like carbon taxes/credits. Political and capitalistic will can be a powerful motivator for change, for example with electric cars and alternative fuel sources.

IMHO, we really need to go nuclear.

nobody gains any power or control from bottom-up solutions.

I think you need to separate the science of climatology from the political movement of Greens. They're not the same thing and in fact often contradict each other. Greens almost completely ignore nations where emissions are going up and attack nations where they are going down. Greens oppose nuclear and fracking both of which reduce CO2.

And neither of them do cost-benefit analysis so their projections are usually wrong.