As the Seas Around Them Rise, Louisiana Fisherman Deny Climate Change (1 Viewer)

[brandon8283]

Are you saying climate change isn't a politically charged topic?

No. He's asking WHY it's a politically charged topic. What motivation do climate scientists/CNN have for suggesting that man-made climate change is negatively affecting our environment other than a legitimate desire to report facts?

It's pretty obvious what the motivation is for deniers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lades]

Are you saying climate change isn't a politically charged topic?

I don't think you understand, or want to understand, the difference between science and politics.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8MqTOEospfo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

ETA: seems I neglected to quote bclemms

Um...I was saying that intensesaint was implying CNN buried the lead
I was pointing out the silliness of that claim

CNN has become an easy target for the alt but I don't know of any liberal who uses it as a news source, much less as some cult
Sounds like you might be drawn into the false "fair and balanced" binary and just make the pat assumption that it the right is doing it on one side, then the left must be doing the same on the other
Do better

But the larger point, if you want to argue FOR increasing the scope of the conversation to include other contributors to coastal land loss, don't do it by arguing against one of the other contributing factors
Feels agenda-y

If we were talking about campus sexual assault, and your reply was, "hey lots of females sexually assaulting males goes unreported" it sounds like you're trying to undermine the original discussion not adding to it

 

[DaveXA]

Um...I was saying that intensesaint was implying CNN buried the lead
I was pointing out the silliness of that claim

CNN has become an easy target for the alt but I don't know of any liberal who uses it as a news source, much less as some cult
Sounds like you might be drawn into the false "fair and balanced" binary and just make the pat assumption that it the right is doing it on one side, then the left must be doing the same on the other
Do better

But the larger point, if you want to argue FOR increasing the scope of the conversation to include other contributors to coastal land loss, don't do it by arguing against one of the other contributing factors
Feels agenda-y

If we were talking about campus sexual assault, and your reply was, "hey lots of females sexually assaulting males goes unreported" it sounds like you're trying to undermine the original discussion not adding to it

I don't think he's arguing against it as much as much as simply putting it in it's proper context among the possible list of causes, which are myriad. Climate change is a complicated subject with a lot of moving parts, and as such, should consider those factors in what could be causing the very real coastal erosion.

Now where it should be ranked in term of setting priorities can be argued, but I think we can all agree that there are a number of variables contributing to coastal erosion.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

^ he's argued against it before in this same kinda sorta 'I'm no fancy lawyer' way

 

[mt15]

You can use all sorts of arguments to "sit on the fence" and delay doing something about man made climate effects. I look at it this way: what are the consequences of doing nothing? Well, they range from "no harm" to "total catastrophe". What are the consequences of working to reduce mans' effects on air and water quality? They range from "developing clean fuel alternatives" to "saving the Earth".

IMO, we need to not put this off for our children and grandchildren to deal with. Even if the Earth itself is not in danger, we will end up with brilliant alternative energy options. There may be some short term costs, but I look at it as a good investment in the future.

 

[bclemms]

No. He's asking WHY it's a politically charged topic. What motivation do climate scientists/CNN have for suggesting that man-made climate change is negatively affecting our environment other than a legitimate desire to report facts?

It's pretty obvious what the motivation is for deniers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There isn't one.

CNN does have a clear agenda to toe the Democratic Party line to cater to democrats to increase ratings. It worked so well for Fox News that CNN has followed suit and I don't think anyone here will even attempt to deny CNN or Fox bias. The agenda here is two fold. It's to create a click bait article and mislead readers to believe a very partial truth. The second is to cater to the left, their main viewer base, by pushing a hot topic with very misleading information. Either way, the agenda is money. There is so much fact based stuff they can be pushing in regards to climate change but instead they insist on ignoring the main causes of wetland loss in Louisiana to try and show how climate change is already impacting the US. They also paint the very people they are interviewing as deniers for saying there are multiple things at play and only one person they interviewed outright denied it. They have a scientist and never questioned him about how carving canals or redirecting the largest river in the country has had adverse impacts. They use numbers from Tulane University on water rise rates of the gulf but never once use numbers from the massive amounts of studies that have shown what the main causes of wetland loss in Louisiana are.

They mention how much wetlands were lost from 2004-2008 but fail to mention that a massive portion (almost all) of the wetland loss during that time came from a historic stretch of major hurricanes directly impacting the area. Katrina was particularly damaging followed by Rita which came right on the heels not allowing any recovery of vegetation that helps protect the wetlands during hurricanes. Then you had Gustav and Ike that didn't do a whole lot of additional damage but unwound the 3 years of recovery after Katrina.

Since 2009, Satellite images show very little in the way of wetland loss and even show expansion in some areas.

So, did they ignore all that because they are stupid? Because they are horrible journalists? Because they lacked a budget? Or did they ignore all that to suit their own needs and wants (agenda)? I'm really not sure how that is hard to see.

Don't want to believe me? The USGS says the same thing. LSU, Tulane and even SLU have conducted large government funded studies on wetland loss, the causes and how to fix them.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/la-wetlands/

Want to fix the wetlands, it's pretty simple. Knock down all the levees and let the wetland building process (Ms river) get back to work. Bet you wouldn't want that though since they protect your homes.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

There isn't one.

CNN does have a clear agenda to toe the Democratic Party line to cater to democrats to increase ratings. It worked so well for Fox News that CNN has followed suit and I don't think anyone here will even attempt to deny CNN or Fox bias.

here is where you fall in to your own trap
the "Democratic Party" as it exists now, is still pretty 'neo-liberaKArl Rove'l - essentially pro-corporate with socially liberal positions
it's quite the stretch to say the Party has a anti-industrial position
a LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE position would want to check dinosaur fuel growth/development for clean power but as you and all saw when Hillary beat Bernie - the progressive wing does not control the party

there isn't a Roger Ailes+Karl Rove analogy on the Left/Dems

plus let's be entirely clear, there aren't "sides" in this debate - there is verifiable data and there is denial of verifiable data
just like evolution, there aren't "sides" - there is hypothesis based on verifiable date and there is mythology
it's not even apples and oranges. it's apples and Farmville

 

[Heathen Saint]

bclemms

Your responses remind me of sundevil's in another thread. You're channeling anger at CNN, which is fine, for reporting a story with a synopsis that is supported with scientific data. I think every network tries to cater to its consumer base, so it's nothing new.

I want to get down to the crux of the issue here. You previously said that man made climate change isn't a top 3-4 issue in Louisiana. Clearly, the evidence disagrees with your claim.

You seem to be angered at a consensus with only partial evidence yourself. Yes, it's obvious that there are other factors besides anthropogenic global warming that contribute to coastal erosion. The CNN story actually alludes to this several times. You'd have to have an "agenda" of your own to read it and say they tried to frame climate change as the only contributor to coastal erosion. I think another main part of the article is the widespread denial about scientific data on man made climate change that is also brought to the forefront.

Poe, who "lives and dies with the weather" and who has seen the lake level rise where he takes his boat out each day, does not buy the argument that we're witnessing irreversible changes.
Yes, the oysters have been dying, but that may not be caused by the changes in the sea level or how much saltwater is in the lake.
Yes, climate change is happening, but it "can change and go the other way, too."

Dotson doesn't believe climate change would negatively impact the fishing industry on the Louisiana coast. Not based on what he's seen.
"It doesn't concern me. What is science? Science is an educated guess," Dotson says defiantly. "What if they guess wrong? There's just as much chance as them to be wrong as there is for them to be right."

"I work outside in the weather on a boat, and it's all pretty much been the same for me," Dotson says, standing on Jetty Pier in Cameron, gesturing toward the ocean. "The climate is exactly the same as when I was a kid. Summers hot, winters cold."
Any changes to the coast are simply "the world changing back and forth," he says.

Leo Dotson is among the skeptics. He's been shrimping in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, for 54 years and he'll admit the coastline has changed.
"It's moved," he says.
But that has nothing to do with man-made climate change, he adds.

Dotson gets red in the face, repeating that scientific studies showing climate change as affecting weather patterns or warming the Earth are simply wrong.

I've encountered this attitude with many folks, mainly conservatives. The arguments against are usually "they have an agenda" or "they werent' there x-amount of years ago".

Your own article from the USGS actually says what is relatively known and has been echoed in most every scientific research on our planet's climate--that other natural processes contribute to coastal erosion, but that sea level rise caused by "Human activities during the past century have drastically affected the wetlands".

http://www.nola.com/coastal/index.ssf/2008/12/part_1_because_of_subsidence_a.html



So here's a synopsis: You're angry with CNN for reporting what you deem to be sensationalist because though man made climate change is a factor in louisiana coastline erosion, to you it isn't a top 3-4 issue. Furthermore you are angry with CNN for framing the folks interviewed as unintelligent because they report on their attitudes toward global warming, which is by all major accounts a major issue.

Now please tell me in where and when I've misinterpreted you thus far.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

comment

*reads comment*

 

[tenordas]

No. He's asking WHY it's a politically charged topic. What motivation do climate scientists/CNN have for suggesting that man-made climate change is negatively affecting our environment other than a legitimate desire to report facts?

It's pretty obvious what the motivation is for deniers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's called money. Or have you forgotten the enormous amounts of cash that were given to "green energy" companies by the last administration? Companies that were insolvent, and failed anyway? Follow the money.

It's not that climate change doesn't exist; it's that corporations are exploiting peoples' fear of it to profit off of them. And these types of misleading stories only help them exploit the public.

 

[Utah Saints]

I laugh inside every time my deep south climate change denying relatives call and complain about the heat. Every year they sound a little more down about it, a little more desperate to escape it, and talk about how much hotter it is now.

Republican Projection Syndrome at it's finest. The actual conspiracy is being perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry, in collusion with the GOP. That is where all the money is, untold amounts of it, being protected with lies, conspiracy and collusion.

But no, it's definitely a worldwide conspiracy by green energy companies, unrelated scientists from every country, in every research facility in the world, and democrats.

Republicans here in NC banned even studying rising water levels on the coast. That's how bald faced and corrupt they are. Then all their programmed lackeys come to the internet and start obfuscating, talking about conspiracy theories and corrupt green energy startups!

lol

Exactly the same pattern with other issues. Like all my racist relatives using the n word their entire lives, glancing sideways with squinted eyes at every black person they meet, then turning around in a political discussion and trying to act like its all about the philosophy of states rights, or taxation, or anything other than their racism and complete disdain for the less fortunate. Like you're supposed to take what they say in a vacuum.

Doesn't work like that.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

It's called money. Or have you forgotten the enormous amounts of cash that were given to "green energy" companies by the last administration? Companies that were insolvent, and failed anyway? Follow the money.

It's not that climate change doesn't exist; it's that corporations are exploiting peoples' fear of it to profit off of them. And these types of misleading stories only help them exploit the public.

way, way too pat an answer
clean energy subsidies vs fossil kick backs are hard to compare (mostly b/c the kickbacks are well hidden) but if we want a snap shot of subsidies over time

 

[DaveXA]

way, way too pat an answer
clean energy subsidies vs fossil kick backs are hard to compare (mostly b/c the kickbacks are well hidden) but if we want a snap shot of subsidies over time

That's hardly surprising. It's going to take a long while for alternative energy to catch up. Their portion of that chart will grow in the future. It's inevitable as those alternatives benefit from improved technologies and efficiency.

That said, our reliance on fossil fuels and natural gas is still quite high and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

I'd love to own a Tesla though. Those cars look amazing.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

That's hardly surprising. It's going to take a long while for alternative energy to catch up. Their portion of that chart will grow in the future. It's inevitable as those alternatives benefit from improved technologies and efficiency.

That said, our reliance on fossil fuels and natural gas is still quite high and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

I'd love to own a Tesla though. Those cars look amazing.

some countries are already at or near 100% renewable
the next 2 advancements in battery/storage technology will see those numbers jump dramatically
i doubt renewable energy subsidies will ever come close to fossil fuel since drilling/exploration and clean-up are HUGE chunks of that money and similarly the need for subsidies will diminish over time and will probably only surface when a newer technology comes on line

but the larger point that gets missed in all of this too often - is that we had a 40 year head start on this. the 70s gave us a wake-up call. the oil embargo gave us very clear warning about dependence on fossil fuel & Ozone loss was an emerging concern
where we are now, we could have been 40 years ago instead of having this ridiculous "argument" that really isn't one