|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 02 2017 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. Especially when you dishonestly pretend that the consequences of climate change are going to be super minor for the world by choosing a small number of 0.17 to represent the change as if you didn't know of the actual consequences.
Are you disputing the number? That number didn't come from the Heritage Foundation. If you want to qualify what a .17 degree change means, go ahead. It isn't going to be much.
|
On June 02 2017 05:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:42 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:36 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet). sadly some people ignore reality. and even when factually proven wrong, as you have been repeatedly. you cannot convince people of truth when they willfully choose to ignore it, as you have. it is quite literall ynot possible to convince you, as you've chosen to ignore contrary facts; and actively endorse lying and using obfuscation over seeking the truth. so you've chosen to hurt the world in your own willful ignorance, and cause great suffering. shame on you. accuracy of policies is not dependent on whether people who have no understanding of them think they're right or not. just as your opinion on whether or not the proof of fermat's last theorem is correct is worthless (presumably, unless you happen to have a math phd or somesuch). learn some wisdom so you stop hurting the world with your ignorance. I know you will not listen to this; but sadly, when facts and evidence cannot work I have nothing else to offer. You've always confused rhetoric and your own appraisal for universal judgment. You may allege all sorts of mal intent to me, it's your right. I've said exactly why I supported Trump in it. It's up to you to sort out why you think your fellow citizens are so bad. It might involve a wee bit more than "shame on you," accusations of ignorance, accusations of ignoring reality itself. If you have a secret desire to see Trump reascend the seat in 2020, you're actually doing a stellar job. I wish I could do better; but my ability to tolerate fools is limited. as is my ability to tolerate those who hurt others; and those who willfully chose to ignore facts. being a saint is beyond my ability. and they're not just accusations, they're facts. which you again may choose to ignore, as you've chosen to ignore others. I don't confuse my own appraisal for universal judgment at all. I know how to tell what's fact and what isn't, what is uncertain and what is certain, and the margins of those certainties. It's just hard to deal with people who make the world a worse places and will not listen to anything.
Get used to disagreeing on what course of action would be best for America. That's really all I can add to what I've already said. I have to stay calm knowing all the pain and misery your policies would inflict (and to a certain extent, have inflicted) on this great nation; I think you can do the same.
|
On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way.
Out of the report:
In his 2015 State of the Union Address, President Obama claimed that “no challenge—no challenge—poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”[11] In that case, the President’s policies have missed their mark. Regardless of one’s opinions on the degree to which climate change is occurring, there is compelling evidence that policies like those resulting from the Paris agreement will have little impact on global temperatures.[12] In fact, using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change developed by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States were effectively eliminated, there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures.[13] In fact, the entire industrialized world could cut carbon emissions down to zero, and the climate impact would still be less than four-tenths of a degree Celsius in terms of averted warming by the year 2100.
The bolded part is the most ridiculous thing I've read in regards to climate science in a long long time.
Of course for this preposterous assumption there is ZERO citation, in contrast to other statements they've made, which is to be held to their credit.
e: wtf is this clusterfuck of a post
Anyway. A quick look into
THIS IPCC report tells you that the 2014 models are telling a different story. Page 11 of the summary for policymakers
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lYTMunM.png)
|
On June 02 2017 05:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Get ready for the spin.
Other nations tell the number 1 economy in the world that they can work with the rest of the economies in the world just fine without them.
As someone else said, we are the special snowflake of international politics.
|
On June 02 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. Especially when you dishonestly pretend that the consequences of climate change are going to be super minor for the world by choosing a small number of 0.17 to represent the change as if you didn't know of the actual consequences. Are you disputing the number? That number didn't come from the Heritage Foundation. If you want to qualify what a .17 degree change means, go ahead. It isn't going to be much.
I am disputing your obvious rhetorical trick of presenting the situation as if the world was panicking over 0.17 degree.
|
On June 02 2017 05:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:45 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:36 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. Dude we just posted a map that shows the majority of citizens disagree with pulling out of the agreement in Every. Single. State. and disagree at 70% overall, tell us more about how we need to convince our fellow citizens. If a presidential vote happened after every poll, you'd have a great point. The party that ran on withdrawing us from the Paris agreement and attacking the political mechanisms driving these discussions won the two elected branches of government. You'll have a shot in november 2018 to show this stuff matters and rebuke Trump on this. Good luck. I do have a great point regardless, cause you were saying that we need to convince the people as if the people were on your side of this argument. They aren't.
If you got a president & legislature actually willing to abide by the agreement, you'd have a poll immediately following that shows every state with majorities opposing. The issue with the fickleness of public opinion is baked into having regularly spaced elections, and particularly with having Senators elected every six years instead of two.
|
@Artisreal -- I haven't seen the figure recently, but that can't be far from the truth. Total manmade carbon contributions are relatively minimal.
|
On June 02 2017 05:54 Plansix wrote:Other nations tell the number 1 economy in the world that they can work with the rest of the economies in the world just fine without them. As someone else said, we are the special snowflake of international politics.
That's mainly because the number one economy actually isn't the number one trading partner for many countries. China is.
|
On June 02 2017 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. Especially when you dishonestly pretend that the consequences of climate change are going to be super minor for the world by choosing a small number of 0.17 to represent the change as if you didn't know of the actual consequences. Are you disputing the number? That number didn't come from the Heritage Foundation. If you want to qualify what a .17 degree change means, go ahead. It isn't going to be much. I am disputing your obvious rhetorical trick of presenting the situation as if the world was panicking over 0.17 degree.
I'm just stating facts. But looking at the thread, I do see quite a bit of an emotion that could be construed as panic.
|
On June 02 2017 05:45 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. Except for the US there will never be a "deal" that's (what you perceive as) fair compared to other countries, because you always have to do more based on what you're already emitting. There's no "fair deal for the US" that's inherently unfair to pretty much the rest of the world. Because fair deal in this case means that the biggest stinker has to do the least in comparison to the rest of the world. Good luck with that.
This is the conclusion that I'm slowly coming to in this small conversation with xDaunt. Any cost is too prohibitive because we'd have to pay more than any other country in this agreement. No mention of the scope of what country is polluting the most.
Also citing a "study" from Heritage instead of a journal is rather questionable.
On June 02 2017 05:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:37 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet). Best for America now, ok maybe. I don't see how you can argue that this is better for American's children or the world. Like the only justification I can see is that you don't agree greenhouse gases is harmful to the planet and/or it's more important to save/make money than it is to consider less pollution. I just heard a speech from our president basically going over why it's better for America's children. The world one you'll just have to think longer on why getting everyone to sign up to agreements nobody will honor and patting each other on the back regresses discourse on climate change.
So your stance (Danglar's) is that Paris isn't even worth the paper it's written on and that majority of the signatory nations won't meet their greenhouse reduction target, so why should the US bother with it in the first place?
|
On June 02 2017 05:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:47 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:45 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:36 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:
[quote]
You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. Dude we just posted a map that shows the majority of citizens disagree with pulling out of the agreement in Every. Single. State. and disagree at 70% overall, tell us more about how we need to convince our fellow citizens. If a presidential vote happened after every poll, you'd have a great point. The party that ran on withdrawing us from the Paris agreement and attacking the political mechanisms driving these discussions won the two elected branches of government. You'll have a shot in november 2018 to show this stuff matters and rebuke Trump on this. Good luck. I do have a great point regardless, cause you were saying that we need to convince the people as if the people were on your side of this argument. They aren't. If you got a president & legislature actually willing to abide by the agreement, you'd have a poll immediately following that shows every state with majorities opposing.
No, you wouldn't. I'd back it up, but since you haven't and you're the one with the positive claim...
|
seeing the heritage foundation cited as a source really paints a picture of where we've ended up.
|
On June 02 2017 05:56 xDaunt wrote:
@Artisreal -- I haven't seen the figure recently, but that can't be far from the truth. Total manmade carbon contributions are relatively minimal.
Sorry for quoting myself but I fucked up the post formatting earlier lol
On June 02 2017 05:53 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. Out of the report: Show nested quote +
In his 2015 State of the Union Address, President Obama claimed that “no challenge—no challenge—poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”[11] In that case, the President’s policies have missed their mark. Regardless of one’s opinions on the degree to which climate change is occurring, there is compelling evidence that policies like those resulting from the Paris agreement will have little impact on global temperatures.[12] In fact, using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change developed by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States were effectively eliminated, there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures.[13] In fact, the entire industrialized world could cut carbon emissions down to zero, and the climate impact would still be less than four-tenths of a degree Celsius in terms of averted warming by the year 2100.
The bolded part is the most ridiculous thing I've read in regards to climate science in a long long time. Of course for this preposterous assumption there is ZERO citation, in contrast to other statements they've made, which is to be held to their credit. e: wtf is this clusterfuck of a post Anyway. A quick look into THIS IPCC report tells you that the 2014 models are telling a different story. Page 11 of the summary for policymakers
To add to that
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jEbysrF.jpg)
|
On June 02 2017 05:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:
[quote]
Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. Especially when you dishonestly pretend that the consequences of climate change are going to be super minor for the world by choosing a small number of 0.17 to represent the change as if you didn't know of the actual consequences. Are you disputing the number? That number didn't come from the Heritage Foundation. If you want to qualify what a .17 degree change means, go ahead. It isn't going to be much. I am disputing your obvious rhetorical trick of presenting the situation as if the world was panicking over 0.17 degree. I'm just stating facts. But looking at the thread, I do see quite a bit of an emotion that could be construed as panic.
Facts as cherry picked by a conservative think tank that denies climate change. You won’t mind if we are skeptical of their relevance or accuracy.
Edit: I am really going to enjoy you running head long into all the science nerds on TL.
|
On June 02 2017 05:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:
[quote]
Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. Especially when you dishonestly pretend that the consequences of climate change are going to be super minor for the world by choosing a small number of 0.17 to represent the change as if you didn't know of the actual consequences. Are you disputing the number? That number didn't come from the Heritage Foundation. If you want to qualify what a .17 degree change means, go ahead. It isn't going to be much. I am disputing your obvious rhetorical trick of presenting the situation as if the world was panicking over 0.17 degree. I'm just stating facts. But looking at the thread, I do see quite a bit of an emotion that could be construed as panic.
Do you suddenly need a lesson on how "stating facts" and "rhetorical trick" aren't incompatible with each other?
|
This is the conclusion that I'm slowly coming to in this small conversation with xDaunt. Any cost is too prohibitive because we'd have to pay more than any other country in this agreement. No mention of the scope of what country is polluting the most.
Also citing a "study" from Heritage instead of a journal is rather questionable.
To be fair, that's not just xDaunt that argues like that. It's pretty much any conservative i've ever talked to. By their argument, every deal that is percentage based is inherently unfair, because other countries are cleaner.
I have a hard time even following that thought, let alone coming up with something like that.
|
|
|
On June 02 2017 05:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. Especially when you dishonestly pretend that the consequences of climate change are going to be super minor for the world by choosing a small number of 0.17 to represent the change as if you didn't know of the actual consequences. Are you disputing the number? That number didn't come from the Heritage Foundation. If you want to qualify what a .17 degree change means, go ahead. It isn't going to be much. I am disputing your obvious rhetorical trick of presenting the situation as if the world was panicking over 0.17 degree. I'm just stating facts. But looking at the thread, I do see quite a bit of an emotion that could be construed as panic. Do you suddenly need a lesson on how "stating facts" and "rhetorical tricks" aren't incompatible with each other?
Fact: As number of churches in a town increases, so too do drunk driving accidents.
What, I was just citing facts, not saying it was because of churches.
|
On June 02 2017 06:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:59 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:
[quote]
I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. Especially when you dishonestly pretend that the consequences of climate change are going to be super minor for the world by choosing a small number of 0.17 to represent the change as if you didn't know of the actual consequences. Are you disputing the number? That number didn't come from the Heritage Foundation. If you want to qualify what a .17 degree change means, go ahead. It isn't going to be much. I am disputing your obvious rhetorical trick of presenting the situation as if the world was panicking over 0.17 degree. I'm just stating facts. But looking at the thread, I do see quite a bit of an emotion that could be construed as panic. Do you suddenly need a lesson on how "stating facts" and "rhetorical tricks" aren't incompatible with each other? Fact: As number of churches in a town increases, so too do drunk driving accidents. What, I was just citing facts, not saying it was because of churches.
The sad part is, this kind of rhetoric actually "reaches" so many people.
|
On June 02 2017 06:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:59 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:
[quote]
I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. Especially when you dishonestly pretend that the consequences of climate change are going to be super minor for the world by choosing a small number of 0.17 to represent the change as if you didn't know of the actual consequences. Are you disputing the number? That number didn't come from the Heritage Foundation. If you want to qualify what a .17 degree change means, go ahead. It isn't going to be much. I am disputing your obvious rhetorical trick of presenting the situation as if the world was panicking over 0.17 degree. I'm just stating facts. But looking at the thread, I do see quite a bit of an emotion that could be construed as panic. Do you suddenly need a lesson on how "stating facts" and "rhetorical tricks" aren't incompatible with each other? Fact: As number of churches in a town increases, so too do drunk driving accidents. What, I was just citing facts, not saying it was because of churches.
Are you saying that God punishes mortals for not building enough churches?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
