Home | About | Donate

FactCheck.org Ridiculed for Claiming Sanders Use of 'Existential' Misleading Because Climate Crisis May Not 'Obliterate All People From the Planet'

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/16/factcheckorg-ridiculed-claiming-sanders-use-existential-misleading-because-climate

I get it.
So if some of the 1% can survive it (based on their rehabbed-minuteman silo-condos) it’s not REEEEALY a threat.
As @reader321 stated in another thread

FACTCHECK shot themselves in the foot on this one.

6 Likes

The first order effects of climate change are as follows:

  1. The world’s wheat belts dry up. The U.S. West needs water to grow vegetables. Himalayan streams dry up in summer.
  2. Almost all of the world’s forests become dead sticks because trees can’t migrate north as fast as climate change moves.
  3. The ecosystems go crazy because all of the predators aren’t coping well. Crops can be eaten by hordes of bugs.
  4. That leaves floods, vicious droughts and wind and hail damage. Oh, and more powerful storms create later last frosts and earlier first frosts. It doesn’t take that much of a dice roll to discourage the marginal farmers.
  5. Don’t expect the oceans to have much food either.
  6. The world’s rice bowls are in deltas at sea level and are subject to salt water intrusion.

So, the first order problem is a human population crash. A population crash technically isn’t existential, except we don’t know how to crash Eaarth’s population quickly, cleanly and successfully. So we must ponder the second order problems. If your part of the world is rather uninhabitable and our part might be habitable, will a billion people come running for their lives? In a nuclear world, will a fair bargain be driven or will we try a one-off form of brinksmanship?

Will there be enough people left to not go extinct? Probably. Will any of your grandchildren be one of the survivors? Don’t bet on it. Now that’s a practical definition of existential, whether any of your own particular DNA shall continue to exist.

5 Likes

Piddling over what “existential” threat to life means - life radically diminished vs. no life? Depressing.

There should be a time capsule so the deniers’ and abstainers’ children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and so-on can look in impotent judgement back on their forebears’ liberal apologetics and hairsplitting-in-the-face-of-disaster and comprehend the cumulative - but also individual - failures that let the predicted apocalypse happen.

2 Likes

Morons …

4 Likes

In 1914, you could have shot the last passenger pigeon in captivity in a Cincinnati zoo.

So technically, they weren’t extinct.
Thus, the liars complaining about not being to shoot passenger pigeons in 1914 get 4 Pinnochios.

This piece of historic accuracy brought to you by the good folks at Fact Check…

5 Likes

Fact-check. Org. Brought to you by the billionaire Annenberg family. Friends of Ronald Reagan. Funders of the worst PBS has to offer.
Why would anyone want to fact check something there? Might be our right wing MSM like to get their facts there.

4 Likes

Well… It all depends on what your definition of

is, is !

2 Likes

Sad when the “factcheckers” need factchecking.

1 Like

to all the people whom die in climate change related disaster… it is certainly an existential threat.

2 Likes

Thoughtful and well written PaulK. Leaves an impression you can’t easily forget.

Yeah Paul,
I admire your ability to accurately depict a future we all really do not want to live into.

  1. Those who manage to survive 1 through 6 will eventually be wiped out by either cholera or an influenza epidemic.

why hello there my fellow alternet refuge…

Lest anyone think this is a new phenomenon: outright dishonesty by so called fact checking outlets, here’s this bit from 20 December 2011:

"Politifact, which is supposed to police false claims in politics, has announced its ‘Lie of the Year’ -and it’s a statement that happens to be true, the claim that Republicans have voted to end Medicare.

…Republicans voted to replace Medicare with a voucher system to buy private insurance — and not just that, a voucher system in which the value of the vouchers would systematically lag the cost of health care, so that there was no guarantee that seniors would even be able to afford private insurance.

How is this not an end to Medicare? And given all the actual, indisputable lies out there, how on earth could saying that it is be the “Lie of the year”?

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/politifact-r-i-p/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

1 Like

Population crash is nearer to the start of the problem phase than anywhere near the end. Much of what you suggest could well come to pass in the next 30-80 years. The impacts of what we’ve already added to the active carbon cycle have primed the climate to not reach equilibrium (if we could magically stop all further human emissions today) until sometime a few centuries from now unless we’ve already tripped a tipping point we are not yet aware of. Given that magic isn’t very prominent in our version of reality we probably won’t stop even most of our emissions until the population crash occurs If that is 30, or 80, years from now, we could easily have baked in not just an accelerating climate change for centuries, but likely over the course of several millennia at least, and a likely new condition of equilibrium that is much different than the one our species evolved and existed within. There may be some scattered artificial habitats where some few straggling survivors could persist, for a few decades, or more, but long-term, the survival, much less the thriving, of humanity would not rate as a very high probability likelihood.This is the very definition of an existential threat.