Media/Journalism Cringe Megathread - Hot off the Presses

[Bacle]

And how many of those had bipartisan support? Or in the case of oil drilling in Anwar were a huge mistake?

The Right hated expanding the Endangered Species Act, bitched about restricting off-shore dumping, didn't care to stop atmo nuke testing and only accepted it as part of a Treaty with the Soviets grudgingly, doubted the ozone hole even existed, didn't like expanding Nat'l Parks (saw it as Fed landgrab), and didn't say shit about the shark overfishing from what I remember.

Also, drilling in ANWAR was killed, multiple times, because it endangered habitat that was already threatened elsewhere by the other permitted drilling ops on the North Slope, and horizontal drilling cannot go more than a few miles from the wellhead. ANWAR was put aside because there was drilling in a lot of the rest of the Alaskan Arctic already.

 

[LordSunhawk]

And how many of your examples do not empower federal bureaucrats and left wing activist groups at the expense of everybody else for very dubious benefits?

 

[Bacle]

And how many of your examples do not empower federal bureaucrats and left wing activist groups at the expense of everybody else for very dubious benefits?

...so it matters not if the issue was legit and needed addressing, only if it gave power to the gov or proved the Left correct/Right wrong.

And preserving biodiversity and trying to keep blatant and damaging pollution in check are not 'nebulous benefits'.

This is why the Left will continue to control the public narrative and actions on this stuff, because to the Right, it doesn't matter if the issue needs addressing, only partisan the politics of the issue and kneejerk opposition to any thing the Left puts forward on the environment.

This was one issue where Trump was a breath of fresh air; he wanted to actually see what could be reasonably done to address issues, rather than just continue to deny they exist.

 

[prinCZess]

Also, drilling in ANWAR was killed, multiple times, because it endangered habitat

That's the bullshit used to sell it, yes. Meanwhile, the caribou concerned congressmen drone about to justify opposition to it use pipeline to scrape velvet off their antlers.

Drilling in ANWR was killed, multiple times, for the same reason the Keyston pipeline was killed--or nuclear energy plants. People are ignorant of the actual situation (much thanks to media/journalism misreporting and slavish adherence to party-line bullshitting) of safety and environmental impact and politicians of a certain bent exploit that for votes and donations because some people think they're saving the pretty woodland critters when they're only incentivizing more, less dramatic, environmental harm across thousands of roadways or rail-lines where oil gets spilled or explodes.

 

[LordsFire]

Guess what, environmental science rarely comes with the certainties you are demanding for 'credibility', even in academic papers. Environmental science is always evolving, always refining itself, and they only use the certainity you want is when shit has already happened.
It is not all alarmism, that is Right wing cope used to not address things and dismiss even examinimg issues to see what solutions can be found.

Name a single one of their doom-and-gloom environmental catastrophe predictions that has come true.

Just one.

Practically speaking, they should have a 'accurate more often than not' if they want to be treated seriously, but let's start with one.

 

[Bacle]

Name a single one of their doom-and-gloom environmental catastrophe predictions that has come true.

Just one.

Practically speaking, they should have a 'accurate more often than not' if they want to be treated seriously, but let's start with one.

Dude, if one of their's came true in a way obvious to people like you, it'd be too late to do much about it. We got lucky the ozone hole had the easy fix in banning CFCs in refrigerators.

The Left are trying to keep those dooms from coming true, which requires being proactive on environmental issues, instead of reactive as you and the others insist is the only reasonable way to treat these issues.

Can mods please move all this shit to the proper environmental thread, so we stop clogging this one up.

 

[LordsFire]

Dude, if one of their's came true in a way obvious to people like you, it'd be too late to do much about it. We got lucky the ozone hole had the easy fix in banning CFCs in refrigerators.

The Left are trying to keep those dooms from coming true, which requires being proactive on environmental issues, instead of reactive as you and the others insist is the only reasonable way to treat these issues.

Can mods please move all this shit to the proper environmental thread, so we stop clogging this one up.

If we're going to accept the 'by the time we have proof, it'll be too late' argument, then that can be used to justify literally anything.

Which is of course the point.

That said, your response here isn't a valid argument. Politicians and scientists both have made very specific claims about 'By X date (or range of dates),' and every single one of them so far has been wrong. That is a track record of being either utterly incompetent, serial liars, or both.

When you're wrong every single time, you don't get to hold any credibility on policy related to that subject on any level, especially not on the level of 'demolish and rebuild every single structure in our nation' or 'fundamentally transform how the economy works.'

It is not wise to trust habitual liars.

 

[Bacle]

I knew responding to the first bit was a mistake, I should have just let the dogpile do what it wanted and not replied at all.

We have a thread for all the environmental stuff, where I have tried multiple times to bridge the gap and explain nuances in environmental issues.

But few on this forum want to hear it or deal in nuance in this issues, even when it might help depower the worst of the Left's ideas on how to handle things.

Fuck it, I'm done.

 

[Robovski]

Remember when acid rain was the thing? I was reminded of that when I watched Scrooged again on Christmas Eve. It was probably one of the last media mentions I can recall, and it's in a scare roll farce.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Remember when acid rain was the thing? I was reminded of that when I watched Scrooged again on Christmas Eve. It was probably one of the last media mentions I can recall, and it's in a scare roll farce.

Despite my scepticism of leftist alarmism even I acknowledge that comparing climate change and the problems of Acid Rain, the ozone layer and smog of LA in the 60's is a bit disingenuous.

The attitude of the left is that they always have to be the hero of some climate crisis manufactured or otherwise and the problem with the Smog, ozone layer and acid rain problems was that they chose to champion fixing a cause which ended all to easily and to soon for them to truly milk for anything worth while.

By contrast 'climate change' is an ill defined and purposely vague by definition as well as designed for long term political capital usage be it real or fake.

 

[LordsFire]

We have a thread for all the environmental stuff, where I have tried multiple times to bridge the gap and explain nuances in environmental issues.

No matter how much you try to cast yourself as the hero on this topic, you are not. You haven't come in here (the forum in general) and nobly tried to convince people of the truth, you've either made an effort you know is lacking the critical information, or you've just fallen back on excuses (can't access the data to prove your point) when the holes in your argument were pointed out.

The entirety of the political power of the environmental alarmism movement rests on two legs; fear, and an opportunity for people to see themselves as the heroes.

Neither of them are true.


Show me an actual, tangible problem. Like Shackleford said just above, things like acid rain. Those can be grasped, addressed, and resolved.

The ever-shifting never-quite-here-yet apocalypse of 'climate change' is not such a thing. It's a tailor-made cause against which political activists can eternally crusade, and demand more power to deal with.

 

[GoldRanger]

And we are still on coal, and they've never even tried to push for Nuclear.

Things that don't actually cost anything and things that people wanted anyway. The only time they ever seem to want to do anything about the things they claim will cause "THE WORLD TO END IN TEN YEARS!!!"(every ten years on the docket) is when it'll meaningfully increase government power over individuals or make life harder for individuals.

I don't think any actually reputable research institution ever claimed that "the world is going to end in 10 years" (yellow leftist sites trolling for clicks notwithstanding). That's a huge misrepresentation of what climate science claims.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

I don't think any actually reputable research institution ever claimed that "the world is going to end in 10 years" (yellow leftist sites trolling for clicks notwithstanding). That's a huge misrepresentation of what climate science claims.

The people who could be pushing Nuclear are the ones who are yelling about the world ending in 10 years, that's the POINT.(literally on floor of Congress)

It doesn't actually MATTER what the science says at this point frankly, I, and others, am well past the point of being convinced by any but the most comprehensive evidence. Because there's just too much alarmism, too much contradictory behavior(climate "activists" buying beachside property in Miami anyone?), too many convenient power grab laws that don't actually do anything, too much holding specific groups to account and ignoring everyone else.


EDIT: and frankly, if you did convince me, I still wouldn't be voting for "green" candidates, because their policies are stupid and don't fix things.

 

[Doomsought]

That's a huge misrepresentation of what climate science claims.

I am not convinced that any climate science exists. As far as I know all our knowledge of climate comes from deduction, not science.

 

[GoldRanger]

I am not convinced that any climate science exists. As far as I know all our knowledge of climate comes from deduction, not science.

Science IS literally deduction...

 

[LordSunhawk]

Science is deduction combined with experiment and falsification, 'climate science' is unfalsifiable as a rule, as the 'climate scientists' will simply adjust the data to fit the theory, rather than the theory to fit the data.

 

[Robovski]

Climate change is real, this is an interglacial period. We have geological evidence of periods when the Earth is generally cooler or warmer than it is currently. What we don't have is any real proof that Anthropocene Climate Change is real. The environment is complex and the models are (IMO) bad. You can think of some general loops and operations, like greenhouse gases do heat the Earth and what produces those gases (as an example) but that is one of many many parts of the whole we do not fully understand as it is very likely too complex to model accurately. Does that mean we should not care for the environment? No! But we can take action based on real expectations and events and try to be responsible stewards of our world instead of being messy teenagers and doing a lot of feelings based activism.

 

[Sobek]

The problem isn't climate change, it's that the people claiming to want to "solve/stop" it are obvious hacks wanting to push their own technocratic bullshit ideas under a excuse.

 

[Bear Ribs]

There are plenty of genuine environmental issues that don't involve climate change, though. Extinctions are pretty visibly happening and losing a species forever isn't good. Acid rain was a very serious issue that's been dealt with to a great improvement of millions of people's lives. Getting plastics out of the oceans and ending desertification are hard to argue as anything but good goals.

 

[Cherico]

There are plenty of genuine environmental issues that don't involve climate change, though. Extinctions are pretty visibly happening and losing a species forever isn't good. Acid rain was a very serious issue that's been dealt with to a great improvement of millions of people's lives. Getting plastics out of the oceans and ending desertification are hard to argue as anything but good goals.

in general like a lot of decent ideas its ruined when you go full retard, and there are a lot of retards.