Everyone who lives in California: WHY?

As far as consumption, I'd start with severely restricting the amount of advertising we are exposed to on a daily basis. Admittedly this will not solve the climate crisis but excessive exposure to advertising is one of the roots of a disease that's rotting this country.

lklklklk wrote:

Curious why you think the Paris Agreement is a bad idea?

The Paris Agreement is astronomically expensive and would do close to nothing to fix the root cause of climate change: people's desire for a high quality of life.

Its a sad truth that us humans are lazy and greedy. 1 gallon of jet fuel spews more CO2 than 30 cars. Are people going to stop flying around the country simply because an agreement is signed? Sure, you might say that we could mandate to make plane tickets more expensive or taxing people to drive into the city. But that doesnt stop people from doing it anyway.

There are 7 billion people on the planet. What if the millions of people in india and china who have worked hard to get out of poverty want to buy cars and houses? Who are we to say they cant?

If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

I think the issue might be in people's definition of a high quality of life. Advertising creates that definition. The underlying goal of advertising is to create 'need' and dissatisfaction with your current life. Can't imagine being exposed to that 5,000 times a day is good for anyone.

Fat hurts wrote:

The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Given that fact, there are three possibilities:

1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.

2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.

3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.

Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."

Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"

Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.

^This.

MurderDub wrote:

Where does Thomas Sowell live?

The vast majority of conservative pundits live in CA, NYC or D.C., or somewhere on South Beach, the purported liberal hellholes that they claim to hate. Curiously, I can't think of one of them that lives in Biloxi, Mississippi or Topeka, Kansas. Curious.

Podunk U. wrote:

MurderDub wrote:

Where does Thomas Sowell live?

The vast majority of conservative pundits live in CA, NYC or D.C., or somewhere on South Beach, the purported liberal hellholes that they claim to hate. Curiously, I can't think of one of them that lives in Biloxi, Mississippi or Topeka, Kansas. Curious.

Kiddos let me introduce you to Rush Limbaugh.

If you need to know about the world, politics or economics then tune into his radio show or catch him online.

He live in Florida.

Do you all remember when Rush of Florida auctioned off a Smear letter from HArry Reid. Reid was probably smearing US Soldiers Veterans.

I think Rush gave all the money to US Soldier Veterans.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Eb_PLLNoVxw/VUkiGA93RQI/AAAAAAAADKY/fyFfPLiQgVg/s1600/HarryReid-exerciseaccident.png

https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/blog_post/primary_image/rogers-journal/a-letter-to-rush-limbaugh/primary_EB20100114OPINION100119985AR.jpg

And more, it took Rush like 12 years and 18 different ways to Prove to NYC and the IRS that he no longer lived in Manhattan.

They practically tortured Rush. He is glad to live in Florida.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/10/22/harry_reid_smear_letter_postmortem/

You do realize that pointing out that Limbaugh moved from NYC to Florida (Palm Beach) actually further substantiates the claim I made, don't you?

Thomas Sowell has lived in California since at least the 1970s, by the way. Milton Friedman chose to retire in San Francisco. Ben Shapiro apparently resides in Los Angeles as well, as his legal consulting firm is based there. Jesse Lee Peterson lives in L.A. There are others, many others. Ann Coulter has homes in NYC, Palm Beach and L.A., but none in Kansas or Wyoming. Curious.

Oh no, it’s ^this guy again wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.

Given that fact, there are three possibilities:

1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.

2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.

3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.

Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."

Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"

Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.

^This.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who can't solve a partial differential equation seem to think that they are entitled to have an opinion on climate change.

Haters want to Hate. There is nothing a reasonable person can say to change that. To them it is black and white, no grey. No pros and cons, no nuance.

They have decided that CA is the root of all evil in America and everyone who lives there is a pariah, then want to quote people who live here to support their argument. They are disgruntled Americans and probably rightfully so because those in power have left them behind. They see the politicians as overstepping their power. At the same time, they are listening to Rush Limbaugh, et. al. and being convinced that they need put MORE power in the hands of FEWER people and give MORE money to the corporations that have outsourced their jobs, cut pension programs, and suppressed worker wages while spending millions lobbying and supporting Rush Limbaugh, etc.

It is a strange country.

CA native.

Weather

Acceptance

Food

Wine

Beer

Ocean

Mountains

Wide open space

Desert

Careers

Culture

I lived in WA for 6 years. No thanks.

HatersWantToHate wrote:

Haters want to Hate. There is nothing a reasonable person can say to change that. To them it is black and white, no grey. No pros and cons, no nuance.

They have decided that CA is the root of all evil in America and everyone who lives there is a pariah, then want to quote people who live here to support their argument. They are disgruntled Americans and probably rightfully so because those in power have left them behind. They see the politicians as overstepping their power. At the same time, they are listening to Rush Limbaugh, et. al. and being convinced that they need put MORE power in the hands of FEWER people and give MORE money to the corporations that have outsourced their jobs, cut pension programs, and suppressed worker wages while spending millions lobbying and supporting Rush Limbaugh, etc.

It is a strange country.

Right. It's certainly a complicated situation. As a lifelong CA resident, I know that this place has its goods and its bads. I largely continue to live here for the same reason that most people in Arkansas or Wyoming or Nigeria continue to live where they do: This is where most of my family lives. This is where my significant other, her family, and all our friends live. Although I'm politically mostly liberal, I don't live here to breathe fire at Donald Trump, or to marry gay people in my house full of illegal immigrants while I celebrate the latest tax increase and whatever other stereotypes you can throw in there.

I like CA. It's a great place. It's also far from perfect. Both things are true. It is also true that the vast, vast majority of truly powerful people of all political persuasions, particularly in media and technology make their homes here or in other deep blue metropolises.

Moved to San Diego from DC metropolitan area in 2005. Real estate prices here are pretty insane but not much worse than where I moved from.

But....weather here is also insane. Crime is almost non-existent in my area (a few miles from the coast). Run all year round outdoors in great weather.

But yes, don't move here for sure. It sucks.

Coach Cookie wrote:

Washington Born and Raised wrote:

It’s so freaking expensive, there are crazy liberals and potheads, and crime is sky-high. Don’t forget about the 25% income tax and the crappy healthcare.

So, all California residents of LetsRun, who forced you to move there? And why do you willingly live in one of the worst states?

I’m dumbfounded. Help me learn.

It's a horrible place. I'm happy I don't live in California and don't understand why would anyone move to California. I hope everyone reads this thread and stays out of California.

It's literally in the 60s, 70s, and 80s the entire time, has excellent mountains, not to mention the beach options. I'm not sure you can ask for better weather. If you don't want winter...which I sure as hell don't understand why anyone would, you're basically looking at the southern locations.

Phoenix/Tucson type places work, but then you pay in kind with scorching summers, and the scenery leaves something to be desired. Florida has a more moderate climate, but you get lots of 70s/80s with humidity...and let's be honest it's flat as phuck and pretty boring terrain. Texas and other southern states? Same issue. Really hot muggy summers, coupled with boring terrain.

California not only has the best weather in the US, it also has some of the best outdoor activities and scenery in the US. Parts of Washington/Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, etc all come close; but you have to put up with sh*t weather for half the year to benefit from that. Pretty huge downside if you ask me.

It's a combination you can't find elsewhere. Maybe Hawaii but I haven't been or lived there. I live in Colorado and largely love it, but this winter crap seriously sucks.

Is it really that difficult to understand that people with sufficient money to avoid the crap neighborhoods would be willing to put up with a little traffic and some whacky people to live in a place that has an outdoors to die for combined with an ideal climate?

Anyone who would willingly live in a terrible place economically, socially, and politically just so they don't have to wear a jacket is a certified wimp.

I can understand a well-reasoned choice to not live in Minneapolis, Seattle or Buffalo due to poor weather. But to insist that you HAVE to live in California because you can't handle weather that's not 100% mild and perfect is impossibly beta. I pity you.

By the way, Colorado winters are nothing. Especially this year. It's only snowed once, there's abundant sunshine, and the highs are consistently above 40 degrees.

Washington Born and Raised wrote:

Anyone who would willingly live in a terrible place economically, socially, and politically just so they don't have to wear a jacket is a certified wimp.

I can understand a well-reasoned choice to not live in Minneapolis, Seattle or Buffalo due to poor weather. But to insist that you HAVE to live in California because you can't handle weather that's not 100% mild and perfect is impossibly beta. I pity you.

By the way, Colorado winters are nothing. Especially this year. It's only snowed once, there's abundant sunshine, and the highs are consistently above 40 degrees.

Colorado winters are nothing...compared to other places in the world or in the US. This is true, but utterly irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that weather in the 50s is not that great, and anything colder just outright sucks. I'm not sure how toughness comes into play. It's not like the weather prevents you from doing things. It's how much better being in good weather feels. The feeling of a nice 85 degree day out in the sun is borderline euphoric.

As someone who lives in Fort Collins, this winter hasn't been bad. To be honest, most Colorado winters aren't bad. You get hit with snow a few times a year, but it melts quickly most of the time and the majority of days see highs in the 40s, with occasional days 50-upper 60s. Probably preaching to the choir though, since it sounds like you live here or have lived here. However, "not bad" is a far cry away from "amazing".

Whether California is bad socially is up for debate and depends on who you are. Saying that as a fact is being dramatic. With numerous cities of millions of people there are going to be tons of various social bubbles and spheres. Economically...yea, it's a mess. Then again, if you have a good job and options you can pretty effectively just live in your little bubble and ignore that. Same goes for politically, up to a point. Moreso if you're a person not heavily into politics.

Truthfully though, your response misses the major. It basically assumes everyone assigns the same value to the things you do:

" Anyone who would willingly live in a terrible place economically, socially, and politically just so they don't have to wear a jacket is a certified wimp. "

Aside from missing the point about why you'd want different weather, it totally ignores that various people value things much differently than others. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that for one person, living in a place with an incredibly social atmosphere, or an ideal political climate for them might be much more important than outdoors/weather. Or that, for someone else, having a gorgeous backyard to play in with perfect weather year round might be far, far more important and easily outweigh putting up with a shitty political and economic climate.

[/quote]

Anyone who would willingly live in a terrible place economically, socially, and politically just so they don't have to wear a jacket is a certified wimp.

I can understand a well-reasoned choice to not live in Minneapolis, Seattle or Buffalo due to poor weather. But to insist that you HAVE to live in California because you can't handle weather that's not 100% mild and perfect is impossibly beta. I pity you.

By the way, Colorado winters are nothing. Especially this year. It's only snowed once, there's abundant sunshine, and the highs are consistently above 40 degrees.[/quote]

Hey, if it's been good enough for Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Mitt Romney, more Mormons than live in all of Utah, Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milton Friedman, the entire Hoover Institute, Condi Rice, and most of your other conservative heroes, then it's good enough for liberals like me.

Podunk U. wrote:

Thomas Sowell has lived in California since at least the 1970s, by the way. Milton Friedman chose to retire in San Francisco. Ben Shapiro apparently resides in Los Angeles as well, as his legal consulting firm is based there. Jesse Lee Peterson lives in L.A. There are others, many others. Ann Coulter has homes in NYC, Palm Beach and L.A., but none in Kansas or Wyoming. Curious.

Phyllis Schlafly

One of the best Conservatives, all time, GOAT.

The Woman that destroy Equal Rights for Women Ammendment, single handed and handily.

She lived in Middle America and was a hardworking genius.

Born Phyllis McAlpin Stewart

August 15, 1924

St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.[1]

Died September 5, 2016 (aged 92)

Ladue, Missouri, U.S.

RIP