Ilhan Omar tweets and other news

the problem is very, very few of us are competent to really weigh in on these issues. You're saying Os is too wrapped into politics is akin to saying you are an expert on these issues and you have a legitmate opinon on what is happening.

I don't. No offense, but unless you are a genius scientist, you don't.

You just happen to be weighing in on side of the side of "the majority of scientists."

Totally respect that. But science is wrong all the time. Really, really bright people in their fields are wrong -- whether or not they are biased by dollars thrown at them.

If we were debating flat earth a few centuries ago, so many of the same posters could mock the position that Earth was approximately a sphere.

You were an idiot to posit differently. Edit: this came off as a total ass sentence. Sorry. I think I was saying "one was an idiot back at the time if one said the Earth was a sphere. But, I really don't know. In any event, it was either poorly written or an ahole statement. My bad. @ThatBoyNick

Serious question: how many posters on this board believe they have even the minimal qualifications to weigh in on this issue??

Much less the more nuanced issue of, assuming global warming, what to do about it.

Having an opinion, is simply not the same thing as your opinion having any value at all.

Harsh. Same with me. But, I am getting SO TIRED of righteous people who couldn't have passed organic chemisty if their life depended on it, weighing in with righteous certainty about scientific issues.

 

The"you were an idiot" line was competely unwarranted. I like your posts.

 

The thing is this isn't a scientific debate that up in the air, arguing against climate change being classified as an emergency/crisis is more akin to your exact example, arguing the earth is flat, except not centuries ago, more so today.

I mean, you might as well call me out for not being a genius scientist if I tell someone smoking cigarets are bad for my health, because after all science is wrong all the time and I may not be competent enough to have an opinion on it.

If I were to oppositely argue that cigarettes are healthy due to - let's say a hypothetical banning being politicized... that would be me becoming too wrapped up in politics by ignoring the scientific consensus of cigarettes being unhealthy.

What I mean by saying OS is too wrapped up in politics, is that he's doing exactly that, being dismissive of the scientific consensus that climate change is an emergency/crisis, and it seems rather obvious that his focus on politics is behind it, due to the context.

Politics just don't trump scientific concensus.

 

You mentioned it before.

Do people find you tedious?

 

You make good points. I recognixe you and enjoy you. But, how are your arguments different from the flat earthers who were the vast majority of accepted scientists.


Time will tell. I don't think we ever know who is right until a lot of time passes.

That being said, I do believe we are contributing to climate change. I wish I knew how much was human based versus changed in the Earth over time. I also wish I knew what would actually help.

I respect the conviction of your views; I just don't know if I believe as you do. I truly wish I knew.

 

Time will tell the severity, for sure, if models are too extreme, or too optimistic. But again, the debate isn’t about it being real, or an emergency within the scientific community.

And we know what will help, reducing carbon emissions.

 

He's actually the most successful troll this site has ever produced.

 

What are you trying to weasel out of here... that ecosystems aren't being destroyed at record rates? That 1/4 of the insect population has been wiped out? Do you think humans can live without insects or bee's?

The only reason this is a debate is because you think keeping your boss' wallet safe is more important than your kids living a healthy life.

 

Well, I didn't realize that I was driving the debate....

I don't know you obviously, but I kind of doubt that you are a scientist with particular expertise in climate changes, and what to do about them. My only point is that there are plenty of people with incredibly strong opinions who really aren't qualified in the area.

There are other threads devoted to climate change so I will drop out arguing about it here when I'm not sure we even disagree on the existence of climate change. I just don't have any idea how severe it will be, what can reasonably done about it, etc. and I doubt we will solve those issues on this site.

 

I'm not sure why she would delete the tweet. Maybe it is because other people mistook an earlier tweet of hers criticizing a lobby as being antisemitic. So now she's being overly cautious? Who knows?

 

Aye!

 

I believe I know the reason.

 

So if Muslims can't criticize Israel without being called anti-Semitic, white conservative evangelicals in the US can't criticize Muslim countries like Saudi without being called "Islamaphobes".

 

(((Dual-Loyalty)))

 

where in that tweet did she say dual loyalty?

 

I graduated with an env. science degree. But that was a long time ago before I sold out to become a IT geek. I can't argue wind patterns and solar flares anymore, and I doubt I tried here since it began (because it's time consuming and the payoff is little to none)

The field is mutlidisciplinary, so just understanding one thing (like an economist binge reading some IPCC report) leaves context off the table.