“You clearly haven't read much about climate change, or the case FOR why THIS cycle is anthropogenic. Scientists who make careers of studying this stuff have pretty well pinned down the mechanisms that led to past CO2 increases. And those past factors are truly not present today. There's no "maybe" about it, unlike your assertion. They actually DO understand the geophysical past, far better than you.
Science is pretty dang certain that sunspots and volcanoes aren't causing today's CO2 spike, which coincides closely with the dawn of the industrial age. Annual levels rise predictably as humanity extracts measurable amounts of fossil fuels from the earth and combusts it. If you'd actually read some of the science, you might understand this. Instead you prefer these facile "We aren't sure and it's a conspiracy!" arguments. This makes your brand of denial so irritating - you think you know more than you do and won't admit to that.
Too-rapid climate change will cause social/ecological upheavals we cannot fully predict and control. Past climate changes took A LOT longer to happen than this cycle, and evolutionary processes won't adapt that quickly. Much will be lost because this spike is catastrophically big and fast, unlike the much more gradual ones of the past.
Apparently flooding out a billion people in coastal cities from Miami to Shanghai and hoping the Arctic can support farming is better than improving our course. This makes you a huge part of the problem. Sickening ignorance and blithe magical thinking.”
“In some areas I believe so, but over most of their range no. They live in a wide-ranging and sparsely-populated habitat and over the vast majority of their range reliance upon natural reproduction is required. (Just like it is for most species.) There are revegetation projects in places where Joshua trees are established from nursery grown plants, however, just not in a majority of them.”
“One perfectly clear thing from the climate record (ice cores, fossil pollen, tree rings, sedimentary varves) is that warming climates have been strongly correlated with CO2 increases, and cooling ones with decreases. There've been different causes of GH gas increases/decreases in the past. Humans are the obvious cause of THIS TIME.
Your blithe, utterly faulty assumption that "we don't know what caused past climate change" is what's so ignorant. We DO know! The source of the CO2 is secondary to its presence, and WE (humanity, collectively, globally) are causing the current spike. Your attempt to dismiss this as "politically correct" is nothing more than denial. It's ugly and it's in the way of getting a grip on the problem.
The bigger point is that we're NOT going to like the future ocean level, future droughts and floods, future species extinctions, future inability to conduct agriculture on the scale required to feed our current population, and future temperatures. We're failing to arrange for alternatives, and failing to address the root cause - the CO2 spike we're causing.
The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming by those who've spent careers studying it. Yet the presence of a small percentage of cranks is what you choose to listen to instead. That might be fine (there are still actual flat-earthers no one takes seriously) but the problem is that your type makes so much noise and offers such fierce resistance to seeing reality that socioeconomic/political progress on the issue is impossible.”
marksatirv on Dec 5, 2013 at 13:56:02
“Since CO2 levels have fluctuated throughout the earth's history and scientists do not know why, there is no no basis to conclude that current CO2 levels are caused by humans. Perhaps whatever caused these fluctuations in the past is causing them now. Without understanding the underlying natural cycles, we cannot tease out what is caused by humans and what is not. If climate fluctuations have occurred repeatedly over the eons, something else seems to be at work. We certainly can't blame humans for the dinosaur extinction or the ice ages.
Alarmist predictions of disasters like flooding, species extinction, and food shortages are just hype designed to brainwash the public. Previous global warming and cooling cycles have occurred repeatedly over millions of years, and each time, the flora and fauna of the world adjust. Some species die out and some new ones flourish. Habitats change or move and animals adjust or migrate. It's part of the natural cycle. Adjusting to changing conditions is an essential concept in evolution.
In a warming cycle, some areas dry up and are less conducive to agriculture, but colder latitudes warm up and become suitable for agriculture. The equator might become too hot but the poles might become habitable. Ocean levels might rise, as they have repeatedly in the past. So what? The change is incremental. It's not a disaster but probably a normal climate variation. Even other planets have variable climate cycles. Is that our fault too?”
“The climate change we're kicking off will lead to changes totally incompatible with our current modes of agriculture and the positions of coastal cities, among other effects. The civilization we're used to isn't going to function in the future we are creating. Climate has changed in the past - and you know how you know that? Because SCIENTISTS TOLD YOU SO. Got that? You're super-obtuse to use that as an argument that those who are sounding the warnings are ignorant, Red Stater. You can't have that both ways.
If you see 100 doctors and 90 of them agree that you have cancer, do you listen to the "controversy" of the 10 who think that you're fine, that it's no big deal? Or do you go with the overwhelming consensus of people who study medicine for a living and seek immediate treatment? Why, I'll bet you'd do the latter! Because that is what you're doing with the 95% of multidisciplinary scientists who agree that today's round of climate change is being inspired by the carbon humanity is burning from various sources, along with methane, nitrous oxide, and more.
You'll never get 100% of people to agree on something as complex as climate change. A preponderance of the evidence SHOULD lead you to conclude that we have a serious problem requiring immediate action when 95% think so. But you hate the diagnosis so you prefer to create silly conspiracies. You'd prefer to be deadly wrong in a comforting belief. How admirable.”
“There are several factors. Rainfall needs to be timed right (mostly late summer and fall) to allow the seeds to germinate and survive for at least a few months until they get large and tough enough to survive inevitable droughts again. With droughts becoming more frequent in the southwest and elsewhere, and more intense and longer-lasting when they do occur, seedlings are having trouble staying alive until the next rainfall cycle.
Fires due to invasive weedy grasses are also sweeping through the desert, which is normally too dry to support fires. Normally desert vegetation is too sparse and widely-spaced for fires to spread far. Weeds close the gap, carrying flames through the Joshua trees and cacti, when it never did before. They have no fire tolerance and are killed by this unnatural event.
Finally, long droughts that kill the Joshua tree's only pollinator, a small insect called the yucca moth, prevent the trees in some places from setting seeds even when they do bloom. The pollen is specifically adapted for the moth, and bees and other insects are not capable of actually fertilizing the flowers even if they do visit them.
These are among the factors that are preventing successful reproduction on the scale required to keep populations stable. Over time, reductions occur as old trees die off and few new ones are in the pipeline to replace them. It's not happening everywhere, but it is happening many places in their range. Declines may take decades to become visible.”
cgert88888 on Dec 2, 2013 at 07:42:25
“Has anyone tried growing seedlings and transplanting them?”
“Wow, you sure are sensitive. Perhaps if you dropped your prejudices you could actually appreciate a bit of difference in the plant life. You know, just because it's interesting and unique. Dr Seuss saw it, why can't you?”
Heather Nicole Spiers on Dec 16, 2013 at 17:24:17
“You're the one accusing me of being prejudiced against a tree...I'm gonna say you're the one that's sensitive. I don't like sunflowers either. Are you going to get angry with me about that?
“The entire point of concern over climate change is that we are WELL AWARE that it has happened before, and that it has led to radically different climates from the one we are currently accustomed to and the one we have structured all of our civilization within and around. What human carbon emissions are doing to the stable, benevolent climate and current ocean levels is going to lead to changes that will upend the society we have created in multiple ways.
I'll put a very sharp point on it: You are the ignorant one, not the scientists who are warning about the obvious and predictable physics and chemistry that is going to happen. We're not going to like the climate we are creating globally in the next 50-100 years. Scientists KNOW that the climate has changed - that is the POINT!
I feel that arguing with your brand of denialism is fruitless, but since no one else responded to your vapid dismissal (and you got 4 "likes" for your comment) I decided to puncture at least one small hole in your wall of thought separation. You'll seal it back up, I am sure, but I hope this grain of sand will irritate you to form a pearl of wisdom within your shell someday.
The scientists already know what you said about past climates. The only reason you can reference them is because they have already studied it. Sheesh.”
marksatirv on Dec 2, 2013 at 11:22:15
“If you read my comments carefully, I did not deny that the climate is changing. I accept that the climate is warming slightly. What I challenge is the attempt to pin it all on human activity. Plus the issue is being hyped and exaggerated. The issue has become a political football and that's not where these issues get the scientific scrutiny they need,
The earth's climate has been continually changing since the dawn of time and no scientific explanation of this continual change has ever been put forth. Underlying changes in the natural world are the main cause of historical climate change. These changes have not been clearly identified but a few possibilities are changes in the earth's axis, reversal of the poles and sunspot activity on the sun. Nobody really knows why the earth's climate has gone through dramatic periods of warming and cooling in the past and until they understand that, I will not accept the politically-correct theory that people are the cause today. Were too many SUVs the cause of global warming during the dinosaur era? Did trash recycling cause the great ice ages? If nobody can explain these past events, how are they qualified to comment on current events?
"Climatology" is not a highly regarded field in the scientific community. And the community of climate experts is not in agreement on this issue. Are you unaware that there are scientists who oppose your viewpoint?
If Al Gore is your leading climatologist, you are in big trouble.”
“It's a silly riddle and the fun is actually in joking around with your friends and seeing what type of giraffe photo they select for themselves. There's an opportunity for humor and connectivity that is greater than whether you got the answer right or wrong. The door or eyes answer isn't really what this is about.
I got it wrong and selected a ridiculous giraffe photo that drew lots of laughs, which was far funnier than the riddle itself could be. That's more the point for most of us: Laughing makes us feel good and connect more with our FB friends.”
Pam Shipp on Oct 30, 2013 at 01:23:34
“yep.. and for fun I changed mine through out the day, so many funny pics out there”
Annabel Ghastly on Oct 29, 2013 at 22:20:02
“I was looking for one with the silliest expression I could find. How'd I do? I get to be myself again tomorrow. ;)”
“On this notion of "labels" - we need and use labels all the time to define things in common terms of understanding. This is required to effectively communicate. I am typing on this thing we "label" a "computer" which is sitting on a "table" and connected to "the internet". There, labeled.
What people probably mean is that they don't want to judge via labeling, and perhaps also that they do not wish to limit themselves to one category if there is some crossover between two or more camps that fit you. This is reasonable. But when applied to arenas such as sexuality and politics, where many people are not entirely at home on any one category, some try to say "I don't want to label myself" when in fact what they mean is "I have more than one opinion/feeling/concept about this issue". The social value judgments of of good, bad, better, evil, disgusting, etc and narrow categorization without variance is the problem, not the fact that we use specific terms to "label" something.
“Santorum says it would be "suicidal" for the GOP to embrace marriage equality. He's right. It's also suicidal for them NOT to embrace it because the trends are shifting so fast on this issue, faster than any other major social change towards equality and minority empowerment in history.
Suicide if you do, suicide if you don't. I am glad to see your party suffering like this. Feel free to join the modern era anytime you want, Rick and the deluded conservatives party.”
“How dismissive of you. I am gay myself and have not changed my profile picture to the red equal symbol, but that's because I decided long ago to not post political type stuff on my own page. However many of my friends, both gay and straight, did change it. I interpret it as a touching show of support and solidarity.
For you to impugn anyone's motives for why they changed it as automatically being "sheeple" is rude and thoughtless. Many of my friends who changed it did so because they felt it was important and gave it consideration – and they wrote articulate status updates as to why. Others, including some gay people such as myself, did not change it even though we clearly support equality. We all have reasons for why we did or didn’t, and we aren’t acting like sheeple in either case.
Bottom line: Not everything that gains traction in social media is due to "herd mentality". And my critique of you is that setting yourself apart as superior won't gain you many friends or meaningful connections. How about you actually ASK why people changed it if they did, and listen to their reasoning? Give your friends some credit rather than condescending to them. And don’t overestimate your “independent thinking” ability when it masquerades as judgment.
Moreover, most people will return to their normal profile pictures in a few days. This was a message to their friends and loved ones. No more, no less.”
“I think the bigger issue here is that these people aren't hearing what they WANT to hear, so they are going to where they can. This didn't used to be so easily possible pre-internet, and pre-search engines, which can filter out every different idea as effectively as it can expose you to them.
The difference is that some people seek out information that purposely doesn't jibe with their prejudices because they are interested in learning something new. And some are not, preferring to stick with their biases and only things that already mesh with their desired worldview. These Tea Party types are generally in the latter category. Their icebergs are melting out from underneath them, just like it is for the polar bears in the global warming that is such a "liberal hoax".”
“I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Westboro Baptist Church for advancing the cause of gay rights and helping to increase public sympathy for the challenges and mindless discrimination faced by LGBT folks.
I would like to thank you for being so outrageous and so over the top. I appreciate the fact that you blame EVERY problem on gay people in conjunction with "God's punishment", no matter how minor or major, and no matter what the other conventional sources of blame may be.
Let me express my appreciation for your picketing of military funerals and blaming gays for the wars started under Bush. I am sorry that the families of those funeral victims had to deal with your toxicity, but public disgust and outrage at your message and tactics has surely undermined your ultimate cause of keeping gay acceptance to a minimum. Gay acceptance grew as a direct result of your odious treatment of military families with no direct links to LGBT people.
As a result of your abominable actions, many fence-sitting people who might otherwise think or care very little about LGBT people have had to think about it; and they have in many cases come down on the side of fairness and justice.
Your methods and behaviors have failed brilliantly to advance your cause. But they sure have advanced ours!
“I think a huge part of why so many people find Westboro so distasteful is because of their linking EVERY single thing amiss in America to homosexuality and God's punishment. There is not a single thing wrong in this country today that cannot be blamed upon gays and acceptance of same-sex marriage and couples in their ridiculous minds. It's so over the top that they have brought many people who would rarely or never think of LGBT people and issues into some awareness of the barriers faced.
If they were quietly homophobic rather than outrageously so, they would have contributed to the status quo. Instead, they have inadvertently pushed a number of fence-sitting and indifferent people onto the "what's so awful?" side of acceptance.
Thank you Westboro for picketing military funerals and blaming gays for it. Your tactics failed brilliantly to advance your cause. But they sure advanced ours!”
“I love it - it's tasteful and sends a positive message. The WBC has done its share towards promoting gay rights, ironically, because of the extraordinary stances and tactics they have adopted. Their extremism has actually helps advance the cause of equality farther than it has stymied it in the long run. This is the way of the world, and the arc of justice that MLK spoke of.”
Toru Huy on Mar 20, 2013 at 18:31:41
“Totally, their tactics totally bit them in their tails. Amazing how this one hate group have turned so many against them. What irony.”
“I hope this leads to enough discomfort in Rob Portman's life that he reconsiders the "choice" of becoming a Republican conservative, and "converts" to independence or maybe even being a conservative Democrat. (I think asking for him to realize his true "orientation" of being a liberal is too much to ask for.)”
“I am glad for the change of heart. It could've should've would've been better for him to do it differently, but hey, change is good in this case. This kind of conversion from within the GOP has a greater impact in certain regards than when Dems help legislate it via the judicial system. We need both, actually.
So I am glad to hear this, even as I do say, "What took you so long and why does it matter when it directly affects someone you love, versus some faceless other." Let's let Portman answer that as we also thank him. We can't criticize new allies too hard in the end.”
“I would hate to see you put out of business, but the fact remains, religious bigotry hurts and is unreasonable regardless of how nicely and how smiling you say it.
You do not have unlimited "freedom of religion". Supposing your religion said, "Thou shalt sacrifice babies every new moon". Would you have freedom to do that? NO! And while discriminating against LGBT people in the name of your religion is not as bad as human sacrifice, it's still not morally right.
Once again, I don't really care how nice and gently you tell me you don't think I am equal. How you think you are superior. How you don't want anything to do with me. You can smile all day long and say you're not judging me, but you are. And I might even sometimes tolerate that abuse in the name of avoiding conflict. But none of that will stop me from seeing you as a sanctimonious coward who has got his "fear of god" wrapped up in the wrong arena. Because if this is really going to be judged by god, then it's none of your business. You don't need to do the judging, your jerk of a god will. And personally I severely doubt your god exists in the way you think of him.
Besides, you are still violating the law as well as basic moral principles such as the golden rule.”
allspiceJR on Feb 5, 2013 at 07:22:48
“The fact is freedom of religion means that the gov't can't prevent him from practicing his religion. Which it doesn't. The moment his religion infringes on another's civil rights, or the law of the land, he's wrong, as you very nicely pointed out.”
“It's a combo of both speed and quantity training. Methods vary as you might imagine but it typically involves ingesting huge amounts of food at fast paces. Obviously one doesn't just enter a Denny's and try to eat 9 plates of food and more in 20 minutes without having practiced first. Different foods require different techniques too. Prizes can range from a free t-shirt up to thousands of dollars for a win. If you're good, it can be worth your effort.”