RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "'If you don't believe in climate change, you don't believe in facts, and science, and empirical truths,' he said. 'And, in my humble opinion, [you] should not be allowed to hold public office.'"

Leonardo DiCaprio. (photo: Stephen de Ropp)
Leonardo DiCaprio. (photo: Stephen de Ropp)


Leonardo DiCaprio: Climate Change Deniers Should Not Hold Public Office

By Catherine Shoard, Guardian UK

04 October 16

 

In what has been interpreted by some as an attack on Donald Trump, actor makes remarks in a speech at the White House

he actor Leonardo DiCaprio has said he thinks that those who don’t believe in climate change should not hold public office.

Speaking at the White House ahead of a screening of his new documentary, Before the Flood, DiCaprio said such rejection indicated an inability to engage with the rational world.

“If you don’t believe in climate change, you don’t believe in facts, and science, and empirical truths,” he said.

“And, in my humble opinion, [you] should not be allowed to hold public office.”

The words were interpreted as a slight against presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has frequently tweeted his scepticism – despite denying he had made such claims in last week’s presidential debate.

The film, produced by Martin Scorsese, intends to raise public awareness of climate change. Its director, Fisher Stevens, has said he intends to screen it on college campuses and across swing states, including Florida, where Senator Marco Rubio is up for re-election.

“Rubio is a climate change denier, and we want to get these deniers out of Congress, to make them understand the Paris [climate] accords are important and that we need to do more,” Stevens said.

Before the Flood premiered in September at the Toronto film festival, where DiCaprio told the audience: “We cannot afford, at this critical moment in time, to have leaders in office that do not believe in the modern science of climate change.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+55 # Dust 2016-10-04 11:15
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive ."
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTru mp) November 6, 2012

The ignorant bastard is unaware that the first person to suggest human-produced CO2 might affect climate was Svante Arrhenius in the late 1890s, building on earlier work by Fourier (who is the reason, among other things, you have MP3s).

Had Trump's 'advisors' even bothered to do a basic Wikipedia search, they'd know this.

I'd also change DiCaprio's statement: "If you don’t believe in climate change, you don’t believe in facts, and science, and empirical truths,” he said.

I would remove the word 'believe.' The implication and subtext is that the arbiter for holding public office is a correct faith statement in some set or series of statements and world views.

That simply means that 'faith' in AGW is no different, in epistemological terms, than 'faith' that AGW doesn't exist.

A more accurate statement might be "Those who reject science in favor of a faith statement should not hold public office", because there is a massive body of science supporting AGW, but very little (if any) for the opposite. Thus, rejecting AGW IS a faith statement, and not subject to scientific correction regardless of facts.
 
 
+17 # guomashi 2016-10-04 11:19
Quoting Dust:

A more accurate statement might be "Those who reject science in favor of a faith statement should not hold public office"...


Very good!
Unfortunately, it is unconstitutional.
Which is just one more reason why we are, quite literally, toast.
 
 
+55 # Working Class 2016-10-04 13:54
Voting the deniers out of office is quite constitutional however. Educate, Mobilize, then Act.
 
 
+11 # economagic 2016-10-04 19:52
It would only be unconstitutiona l in the sense that a religious test is prohibited, and at the time the Constitution was written that term had a fairly narrow meaning. Nevertheless, today it would certainly go to the Supreme Court, which could easily argue that since there is no mention of science at all in the Constitution, it would require an amendment. I would support such an amendment, and I suspect the Founders, most of them rationalists par excellence for their day, would have agreed.
 
 
+12 # guomashi 2016-10-04 20:06
I would support an amendment as well.
There is no way in {ahem} hell that one will get passed with our current crop in office.
Would Ryan even allow it to the floor?
 
 
+12 # economagic 2016-10-04 20:22
Of course the only amendment Ryan would support would be one to make him king -- or more likely, for sake of appearances, to make McConnell king!

But we're fantasizing here. Remember, I'm the one who doubts that we can get out of this hole without a collapse of serious proportions, and certainly not through electoral politics. If that comes to pass, the question will not likely be whether a person rejects the most reliable knowledge of her or his era, but "What crops can we get to grow right here under these conditions, given that the conditions will be significantly different next year?"
 
 
+7 # guomashi 2016-10-04 21:35
Quoting economagic:
Remember, I'm the one who doubts that we can get out of this hole without a collapse of serious proportions, and certainly not through electoral politics.


Correction, you are not 'the one'.
You are at least one of 'the two'.
Welcome to the hole diving team!
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-10-05 09:14
Touche!

I often feel like the voice crying in the wilderness, and I'm sure everyone who recognizes the larger problem does as well. In the face of well-understood global climate change -- regardless of the state of mind of the dimwits who deny it, and ignoring the dozen or more other critical global systems also stressed to the breaking point -- the ongoing food fight over which evil is lesser is essentially irrelevant.

And DiCaprio is right about what should be, independent of what actually is, making our comments about why it isn't equally irrelevant.

Electoral politics is also but one rear-guard action among many, and I consider these forums another. For now, the significant and growing number of us who do take the long view are probably facilitating some awareness among the willing, including ourselves: Because of Dust's comment I looked up Arrhenius, enabling me to connect several loose factoids in an area of interest to me.

But less than a year into retirement I'm feeling like I'm spending way too much time "thinking globally," at least in this venue, and am already in the process of pulling back in order to spend more time "acting locally," especially on local food (slow food, slow money) and education.
 
 
+5 # Dust 2016-10-05 12:44
I think that's a vital response - acting locally. Pete Seeger would agree!

My mother was an environmental activist her entire life, working on redwood preservation issues in Redwood National Park, salmon and steelhead water quality and habitat, and running a homeless shelter. All of those were very specific local issues, but made a huge difference for the people living there.

I'm going to be in a position soon where I will be traveling pretty much all the time, and my local choice is to figure out how to do that in the most non-destructive manner possible (if there actually are any - moral culpability is a pain! :-p )
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-10-05 21:15
That's a tough one: Lots of variables, but as many if not more constraints. I'm afraid we are not going to be able to back all of them down before the non-destructive solutions are forced upon us, but I'm not willing to speculate on just how that will unfold.
 
 
+3 # BlueMorpho 2016-10-06 06:51
@Dust,
Your mother sounds like a lovely earthling. And you've mentioned something I need to consider: how to get to Dakota in a way that bruises Mother Earth the least, but in a way that I also don't have to deal with swollen ankles, etc., by the time I arrive. I'll just have to work it out. They need people and one way or another, I am going.


Moral culpability a pain? After reading your comment and replies, I wonder if considerate responsibility would apply (perhaps more than the term "culpability") re: your decision to integrate how to get to your destinations.
 
 
+1 # BlueMorpho 2016-10-06 06:36
Quoting guomashi:
Quoting Dust:

A more accurate statement might be "Those who reject science in favor of a faith statement should not hold public office"...


Very good!
Unfortunately, it is unconstitutional.
Which is just one more reason why we are, quite literally, toast.



Sometimes I wonder if we don't need a new constitution, full stop. Even so, can our Great Mother Earth afford to wait? Can we earthlings afford to wait?
 
 
+3 # Elroys 2016-10-07 17:58
It's not really about the earth - she'll shake us off like a minor case of fleas and regenerate her own health within a few 1000 years, max. There will be virtually no sign of our human ignorance nor the utter corruption of "leaders". Climate change will make life miserable for those who survive, destroy most of humanity and all species and then all will be peaceful on our planet earth as other life forms evolve. We had such potential as a species - why do we allow morons like Trump and Pence get in the way, why do we allow Exxons rule and "leaders' destroy life. We are truly nuts
 
 
+14 # Floe 2016-10-04 13:55
I'd like to know how they intend to compensate us if they happen to be wrong.
 
 
+12 # guomashi 2016-10-04 14:05
Quoting Floe:
I'd like to know how they intend to compensate us if they happen to be wrong.


not clear whom 'they' refers to in your sentence.
if the deniers are wrong, they won't have to compensate us, unless you want to pry it out of their cold dead hands with your own cold dead hands.

if those who assert climate change are wrong?
they are not wrong.
 
 
+4 # Brice 2016-10-05 16:52
-- I'd like to know how they intend to compensate us if they happen to be wrong.

Not at all ... or the same way they have with everything else they have gotten wrong ... by stalling complaining, whining, threatening and in general making the problem worse.

All the problems in this world generate from the same people who manage all the big blocks of capital and industries to keep their monopoly afloat.

The question is - what other kind of socio-economic security organization of civilization is possible and implementable in order to be able to enlist political power to overturn the status quo.
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-10-04 15:40
Quoting Dust:
Had Trump's 'advisors' even bothered to do a basic Wikipedia search, they'd know this.

- beg your pardon - rump's advisors DID the search - but it didn't come out right
 
 
+11 # economagic 2016-10-04 19:18
Quoting Dust:

[T]he first person to suggest human-produced CO2 might affect climate was Svante Arrhenius in the late 1890s, building on earlier work by Fourier (who is the reason, among other things, you have MP3s).


Woohoo! I remember Arrhenius, probably from HS Chem, and I remember that he is important, but could not have cited this gem. I'm looking forward to looking him up.
 
 
+35 # librarian1984 2016-10-04 11:34
What about someone who says they believe in global warming but then goes about pushing fracking on nations who don't want it?

What about someone who takes tons of money from the fossil fuel industry when we need to be moving to renewable energy?

I don't think THAT person should hold office either.
 
 
+18 # guomashi 2016-10-04 13:07
Another good point!
Which is worse? Stupidity or lying?

In any event, current circumstances won't give way to incremental change. It's either whole hog or lights out.
 
 
+9 # wcandler1 2016-10-04 15:03
You could have said you are glad he cannot have a third term...... But the Energy companies have two equally bad successors lined up... Really, vote Green right down the ticket!
 
 
+4 # BluePill 2016-10-04 16:07
I think Lib is referring to HRC. I have contemplated voting Green. But in the end it always comes down to money. And if Trump wins everyone's savings go down the drain. It makes me sick that here in PA it's that important that we can't vote our conscience but have vote for the LOTE. This sucks and there is no end in sight as far as I can see after all we have learned about how Bernie was screwed by DNC & HRC.
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2016-10-08 00:37
HRC does NOT "PUSH" fracking on anyone anywhere.
 
 
-10 # Robbee 2016-10-04 15:43
Quoting librarian1984:
What about someone who says they believe in global warming but then goes about pushing fracking on nations who don't want it?

What about someone who takes tons of money from the fossil fuel industry when we need to be moving to renewable energy?

I don't think THAT person should hold office either.

- don't sweat details - in short run jilliebots are all dead - right?
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-10-05 10:30
Is that a threat of some kind? What are you saying?
 
 
-2 # Robbee 2016-10-06 10:22
Quoting librarian1984:
Is that a threat of some kind? What are you saying?

- yes, i refer to your threat of war with russia - as in

# librarian1984 2016-09-07 18:11
I do not want the Clintons enjoying power. I do not intend to sit still for more war.

lib - if hill would not start war on russia, as you believe, you make the gravest of errors

if hill gets to be prez - and if she does not, as i pray, start a war - fate allowing, i will be here to accept your apology to hill

# librarian1984 2016-08-24 10:10
hey, r. and i'll be here to accept yours if she's elected* and starts a war with russia? i'd rather be wrong.

- we have dueling apologies floating over whether hill or rump starts was with russia

in a sense jilliebots' concern with imminent death mandates a jillie vote - in effect a rump vote - and obviates any other concern over rump! - will he torture? so what! - will he ruin the planet starting with its climate? so what!

how silly is it to wring our hands over fossil fuels when we are all doomed? the end of all life? circle your calendar for 2017?

is it some kind of threat? yes! yours! - vote jillie or die!
 
 
+2 # Brice 2016-10-05 16:48
What about them?

Do you imagine that all carbon based energy is going to cease the moment there is 50.0000001% political agreement on climate change? Maybe it should, maybe it should have before there ever is consensus, but it will not, and we all still need fossil fuels for some interim transition plan, not to mention remediation.

I think reversing desertification around the world and reducing the human footprint, as for example E.O. Wilson has suggested would reverse climate change and do the right thing for bio-diversity ... but someone will have to tell me how to force my opinion on everyone else?
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-10-06 10:45
Librarian, hi! Fully agree and would add politicians who speak, promote or practice racism, misogyny and homophobia--als o those who attack unions and education. Have advocated this for a long time. Adding climate deniers makes perfect sense. Also religious fundamentalists who push their 'religion' on others in the form of anti-abortion laws, anti reproductive choice and rights.
 
 
+26 # moreover 2016-10-04 13:12
I agree with the sentiment but not the wording. The word "believe" doesn't cut it because you can believe whatever you like. Human made Climate Change is a fact, and this needs to be reflected in how we talk about it.
 
 
+19 # oakjoan 2016-10-04 13:14
Global warming is the only reason it's not so bad to be old and, therefore, closer to death.
 
 
-8 # Femihumanist 2016-10-04 13:42
As much as I wish those idiots wouldn't be elected, you can't start saying that someone who doesn't agree with something so rational can't hold public office.

Where does it end? If I don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God? If I don't think that Israeli Palestinians who don't accept a Jewish State shouldn't be eligible to be elected to the Knesset?
If someone doesn't agree that men should be head of their households?

I don't trust any decision-makers or even voters to make such decisions
 
 
+14 # Floe 2016-10-04 14:00
Well we don't need someone to make these decisions for us now that we have the internet. Politicians don't save us any time. We are capable of deciding ourselves on project teams that can handle the stuff we want done. We don't need tenured criminals to vandalize nature and humanity paying them salaries even if they mismanage their jobs spectacularly. We'd be better off without them and placing our attentions towards advancing humanity socially and technologically . We can't be steeped in this old-fashioned fossilized thinking that has neither thought nor done, an innovative thing for the last 30 odd years.
 
 
+5 # guomashi 2016-10-04 14:11
Quoting Femihumanist:
As much as I wish those idiots wouldn't be elected, you can't start saying that someone who doesn't agree with something so rational can't hold public office.

Where does it end? If I don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God? If I don't think that Israeli Palestinians who don't accept a Jewish State shouldn't be eligible to be elected to the Knesset?
If someone doesn't agree that men should be head of their households?

I don't trust any decision-makers or even voters to make such decisions


false equivalence
AGREE with something rational
is not equivalent to
BELIEVE in Jesus as the Son of God
etc.

pretty much renders moot everything else you have to say on the matter.
 
 
-4 # Femihumanist 2016-10-04 19:12
We may know what's rational and what isn't. THEY believe they are the rational ones and we aren't: HOW IRRATIONAL is it to not believe in God? I've been asked that kind of question.
 
 
0 # guomashi 2016-10-04 19:26
Quoting Femihumanist:
We may know what's rational and what isn't. THEY believe they are the rational ones and we aren't: HOW IRRATIONAL is it to not believe in God? I've been asked that kind of question.


If you can't answer the question, do some research.
Responses include:
intelligence renders action less efficient.
Since everything in nature appears to be governed by the four fundamental forces and the principle of least action, there is no evidence of intelligent intervention.

Etc.
 
 
-38 # brycenuc 2016-10-04 14:21
If Leonardo DiCaprio were a real scientist, he would be a skeptic of man-caused global warming.
 
 
+19 # Texas Aggie 2016-10-04 14:31
Just like all the other real scientists, right?

Why is it that when these deniers go on about how "I'm not a scientist," they refuse to listen to people who actually ARE scientists and instead, try to pretend that they somehow have the TRUTH™ and all the people who have spent years studying the situation are somehow mistaken?

This business about how it is not settled that this Pence person spouts is the same thing. He refuses to listen to anyone who knows what's going on and instead listens to his puppeteers. Upton Sinclair had it right when he said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." or in this case, his political donations.

That brings up the claim that somehow someone who remains nameless is paying off the thousands of scientists in the world who have been studying global warming, but they totally ignore the millions of dollars that EXXON and the Kochs and others like them have actually been paying to deniers like Willie Soon along with the multimillions that have been going into lobbying against anything that might counteract global warming. If they believe that payoffs that are determining people's positions, then they just lost the argument because the payoffs have been coming from the denier side.
 
 
+22 # guomashi 2016-10-04 14:59
Quoting brycenuc:
If Leonardo DiCaprio were a real scientist, he would be a skeptic of man-caused global warming.


All real scientists are skeptical of everything.
That's why they have done so much research, to investigate the issue.
The actual evidence dispels all skepticism.
 
 
-25 # brycenuc 2016-10-04 15:29
Actual evidence shows that the feedbacks from increased CO2 are negative which prevents any temperature runaway.
 
 
+8 # BluePill 2016-10-04 15:57
Quoting brycenuc:
Actual evidence shows that the feedbacks from increased CO2 are negative which prevents any temperature runaway.

What evidence? Source please.
Here's a source

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2007/10/common-climate-misconceptions-co2-as-a-feedback-and-forcing-in-the-climate-system/
 
 
+10 # Dust 2016-10-04 16:26
When he says "actual evidence", he is referring to a paper he wrote a while back, modeling CO2 atmospheric dynamics. He is a retired nuclear engineer and in no way stupid. But if someone had handed me his paper to review prior to publication in a scientific journal, I would have rejected it after the first two paragraphs.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-10-04 19:35
"Woohoo" again! That explains a lot: I've been at pains to figure this guy out, as he does often seem to be quite intelligent, yet at other times he spouts utter nonsense (in the sense of massive evidence to the contrary), not confined to this subject. I am well aware that great intelligence and even expertise in a highly technical field does not necessarily imply common sense, or even the ability to reason coherently in unfamiliar situations in the field of expertise, much less other areas. Apparently this is a classic example.

(That all feedbacks from a given input in a complex system would ever have the same sign is extremely unlikely.)
 
 
+14 # Dust 2016-10-04 16:20
BWAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!

Please.

Almost every single real scientist on the damned planet has concluded that human beings affect climate.

But you don't, based on your paper that was never published.

So.

Based on your post, every single one of those scientists who HAVE published papers on AGW must not be 'real scientists'.

Be sure to tell them that.

Actually, you've never quantified here - given that nobody is stating that planetary temperatures will exceed those observed in the past (in terms of geologic cycles). but merely that the planet will return to those temperatures due not to Milankovich cycles but human activity, how is it that you equate the limitation of a feedback loop with a negation of AGW?
 
 
+6 # Brice 2016-10-05 16:45
-- If Leonardo DiCaprio were a real scientist, he would be a skeptic of man-caused global warming.

Do not try to put on scientific airs ...

... you cannot know that DiCaprio is not skeptical or to what degree he is and was skeptical. He has clearly processed the data and come to what is a generally accepted informed consensus on the issue.

Your attitude is not just a climate change denier, it is a science denier.
 
 
+5 # Ted 2016-10-04 14:52
Look, the reality is that they are republican and democratic polititions so they don't know or care either way about anything except the bribes they get from the corporations who profit off of destroying our only life support system.

Vote Green.

Jill2016.com/platform
 
 
-1 # Brice 2016-10-05 16:41
Believe Green ... but do not vote Green or you will elect Trump.
 
 
-6 # Krackonis 2016-10-05 00:30
Belief in this religion does not make the science any more real. If it was a predictive science we would already be underwater in 2010.... They simply have an incorrect theory. The one who is always right in his predictions Peirs Corbyn does not work in the old victorian gas model, he works in the correct model.
 
 
+5 # guomashi 2016-10-05 06:23
Quoting Krackonis:
Belief in this religion does not make the science any more real. If it was a predictive science we would already be underwater in 2010.... They simply have an incorrect theory. The one who is always right in his predictions Peirs Corbyn does not work in the old victorian gas model, he works in the correct model.


I recall no predictions that "we" would be underwater in 2010. Can you cite them?

The predictions I do recall from the early 90s were less dire than what is already happening.

There are places which are now under water fully or partially for extended times during high tides, including Venice, Italy and parts of Florida. That is only getting worse.
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-10-05 07:09
Just another Krackpot whom we have seen before.
 
 
+6 # Dust 2016-10-05 09:40
Can you cite some peer-reviewed papers that suggested "we would already be underwater in 2010?"

Not to mention quantifying "we" and "underwater"

Piers Corbyn is always right? Well, no, not really.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12216605.200-feedback-/
 
 
+1 # Brice 2016-10-05 16:33
There are very very very very very few areas of science that are as exact as you seem to expect to be able to demand. In reality, science and its understanding is an art, and that fact is ignored in favor of some kind of 1st grade Mr. Science version of the world that is sold to particularly gullible, and psychotically clever people.

Like the medical or police dramas on TV to bolster the images of doctors and the police and justice system.

You have to grow up to be able to live in a multi-factorial world where there are few absolutes.
 
 
+5 # tanis 2016-10-05 08:42
and another thing........sc ientists I have heard lately are not calling it climate change, CLIMATE DISRUPTION! If people could see how we have affected the atmosphere, that is, how great the change in the atmosphere is from a single exhaust, and how it remains there, they might just change their view.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-10-05 09:34
I've seen that once or twice, and it should become the norm because the actual effect of the rising AVERAGE temperature is increased VOLATILITY in every aspect of the system.

The "We make our own reality" crowd (Rove, also Trump except that he doesn't acknowledge it, Brycenuc, Krackonis, many others) probably won't change.

But for people capable of recognizing evidence for or against a claim, the page below illustrates the temperature rise that drives the disruption as well or better than anything I have seen in 44 years of attention to the subject.

http://xkcd.com/1732/
 
 
+1 # Dust 2016-10-05 09:49
I love xkcd!
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-10-05 21:25
Yeah, a student put me on to it several years ago, probably the highest raw IQ of any student I ever had, yet still relatively sane. It took me a while to figure out what he was doing, and a lot of people my age and even younger don't get it at all! That link came through a Scientific American newsletter.
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2016-10-08 00:47
Thanks, # tanis, for the great phrase: "CLIMATE DISRUPTION". It's accurate and it stresses the foolish and destructive human effort that causes it.
 
 
0 # newell 2016-10-05 11:35
It doesn't matter what DiCaprio is or isn't. He just has a big microphone that if anyone can afford, can have. His message either holds water or it doesn't. It doesn't matter who wrote "War and Peace" or "Mein Kampf". They are what they are. Even though he forbids himself to discuss human numbers--his message holds water to most in the world.
 
 
+1 # Brice 2016-10-05 16:27
I agree with the sentiment but I cannot think of a way to execute on that idea that would not go off rails at some point into craziness. It's always like, let some subset group of very smart people run the world ... as long as they are smart people who agree with me? Or agree with scientific consensus, or some or another group of beliefs. I have great faith in myself and maybe Leo to figure that out, but no one is perfect and consequently no group is perfect.

If we are going to have some form of democracy we need to recognize that and decide what the basic values are and put bounds on what we do and do not do. Clearly polluting the entire planet with poison and exploiting all forms or life and killing it was not a good idea and should be reversed as quickly as possible ... at least in my book.

But sadly enough I don't think I am with a majority on that - which I cannot believe.
 
 
+5 # Brice 2016-10-05 16:39
It is not even "climate change" that should be the issue here.

It should be the,

'' get an idea,
develop a technology,
use it despite whether it makes any sense or not,
never-mind whoever it hurts,
and then dump the waste products
and external costs on to other people
and into the environment
mentality that is virtually world-wide
and is killing us all that is the real problem.''
 
 
+2 # BlueMorpho 2016-10-05 21:29
DiCaprio, like others here, I'm with you. But I'll give you benefit of the doubt and consider "believe" a slip of the tongue. Belief has zilch to do with fact(s). Climate change is fact.

Leo, you're one of the protectors and one of my heroes. Well done, my brother and keep it up!
 
 
+1 # BlueMorpho 2016-10-06 06:54
Quoting oakjoan:
Global warming is the only reason it's not so bad to be old and, therefore, closer to death.



My God, how depressing. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree with you. But what you've said is very, very depressing.
 
 
+1 # BlueMorpho 2016-10-06 06:58
Quoting guomashi:
Quoting Floe:
I'd like to know how they intend to compensate us if they happen to be wrong.


not clear whom 'they' refers to in your sentence.
if the deniers are wrong, they won't have to compensate us, unless you want to pry it out of their cold dead hands with your own cold dead hands.

if those who assert climate change are wrong?
they are not wrong.



Thank you Guo!
 
 
-1 # Patriot 2016-10-06 07:06
Gee, a few days ago commenters spent hours arguing about and endlessly disecting "narcissistic". Today, it's "believe".

In both cases, the crux of the matter that SHOULD have been discussed was nearly ignored.

Sigh.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-10-06 09:18
You mean like, what do we propose to do about it? As you know if you have read my comments for a while I have no faith in electoral politics for solution to this or any other issue. Our misleaders are cowards, eager to play straight men (good cops, lesser evils) to the vandals, who are for nothing and against everything.

I think the matter of climate collapse is most likely a matter of degree and timing, primarily because it cannot be slowed, much less stopped without acknowledgment and major effort by the US government, the actions of which are instead the major roadblock. At some point the vandals will all be rounded up and neutralized, when the problem gets so big that the cowards decide to act. Or not.

The focus, as far as I'm concerned, is on building or rebuilding local communities and economies for resilience (mutual support, interdependence ) in rapidly changing conditions. If we want any of our grandchildren to survive to fight the next battles we are going to have to do it ourselves, starting in our own neighborhoods. When the excrement really DOES hit the ventilator, merely stockpiling water, dried foods, and ammo will be seen as having been utterly ludicrous.
 
 
0 # Patriot 2016-10-09 22:59
And where did those posts go? Other gone-missing posts have been restored; why not those?
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-10-10 20:59
I brought this to Marc's attention -- both sets of deleted comments -- and requested explicit Guidelines with strict enforcement, along with a couple of related issues. I will be watching tomorrow to see if these now get deleted.
 
 
0 # Patriot 2016-10-11 02:06
E, the profile pages still seem to be inaccessible--a nd I've never had any indication that a PM I sent another RSN reader went anywhere but onto my own page.

Since we shouldn't post e-mail addresses, I have an idea how we can get in touch, if you're interested. Id like to continue our conversation. I was very interested in what you're doing, and I'd like to hear more, and have other ideas I'd like to bounce for your consideration. Please go to flowersforums.c om, register as a member, and post a question as economagic. I'll see your question & send you a PM.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-10-11 16:45
Thanks -- will do this evening. I've never figured out just what the guidelines for the profiles are, although I do seem to recall a discussion of one between two regulars not long ago. Not much on mine!
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-10-11 19:23
You weren't kidding: an actual forum about flowers! I think I'm in, with a query about what people are thinking w/r/t how to preserve our gardens as climates continue to change.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN