|
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 05:57 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.
You just lied about climate change and dare to say that.
Respect, Sir.
|
Danglars and xDaunt are most likely talking about the way in which liberals debate rather than climate science.
|
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 trick" aren't incompatible with each other?
Why are you calling it a rhetorical trick? That .17 degree number came from proponents of the Paris Accord. You just don't like the number because it is marginal any way that you cut it. And the best part about the number is that it is basically a wild ass guess in and of itself.
|
A number that appears to marginal to the unknowing eye can have a HUGE FUCKING IMPACT IN THE REAL WORLD.
just saying
|
On June 02 2017 05:57 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:47 Danglars wrote: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?
Obama was wrong to sign it/EO it in the first place. It's just one piece in the puzzle to exert political pressure on the dialogue. When you bring up the costs, everybody soothes you by saying it's all nonbinding and unenforceable ... and Americans are kept into the dark to what the costs actually would be to comply, thus keeping favorable poll support. Later on, you get the reporters saying why US isn't doing their part in the treaty that formerly was sold as putting no obligations on anyone. It should be abundantly apparent given the emotion between "Trump doing this is so bad it would be an "act of war" and "traitorous" (Tom Steyer) and people saying why protest it if it does nothing and accomplishes nothing.
|
United States42692 Posts
On June 02 2017 05:08 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:04 m4ini wrote:"While the rest of the world does little". The way understand it, is that literally the whole rest of the world actually does stuff, where as you just fucking announced that you wont. What the actual fuck? As in, US would have to cut more emissions than China? As a result more regulations on US than China over the next few years?
Eh? As in, that's what trump just described, which is retarded beyond belief. he wants to put the coal miners that he loves back to work!! put more coal on the market, that'll do the trick
Incidentally coal jobs are down 8% from this time last year.
|
On June 02 2017 05:58 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:53 Artisreal wrote: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) To add to that ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jEbysrF.jpg)
Unless I'm missing something, those charts don't rebut the statement that you bolded.
|
On June 02 2017 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 03:53 Pandemona wrote:
So trump about to pull American out of Climate change agreement! Wowwowow. Be interesting how he handles this shit storm from all of green peace plus sanctions I don't know much about Green Peace, but are they a good organization? They claim to be environmentally friendly and pro-science, yet they're anti-GMO which means they fall pretty hard on the wrong side of that "debate". With the exception of them being anti-GMO, they seem to be pretty well-intentioned and well-informed regarding the environment, I think?
I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace. They keep having deluded campaigns against and based on stuff they have not understood or thought through. Their work at protecting the seas and marine life is excellent, though.
|
On June 02 2017 06:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 03:53 Pandemona wrote:
So trump about to pull American out of Climate change agreement! Wowwowow. Be interesting how he handles this shit storm from all of green peace plus sanctions I don't know much about Green Peace, but are they a good organization? They claim to be environmentally friendly and pro-science, yet they're anti-GMO which means they fall pretty hard on the wrong side of that "debate". With the exception of them being anti-GMO, they seem to be pretty well-intentioned and well-informed regarding the environment, I think? I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace. They keep having deluded campaigns against and based on stuff they have not understood or thought through. Their work at protecting the seas and marine life is excellent, though.
Greenpeace ranks somewhere around 7/10 on my PETA scale.
Incidentally coal jobs are down 8% from this time last year.
Doesn't matter, trump loves the coal miners very much. So much to have them specifically pointed out. Guess the jobless miner at least has something to warm his heart now.
|
On June 02 2017 05:58 Mohdoo wrote:
seeing the heritage foundation cited as a source really paints a picture of where we've ended up.
I saw a poll undertaken by a group on climate change communication pretty uncritically for what it's worth.
|
On June 02 2017 06:00 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I get that's the prevailing stance of most conservatives. I'd just like to see if xDaunt also agree with that because he's one of three main conservatives that pop out in this thread.
"I don't agree with Paris Accord, not because stopping climate change isn't a good thing, but that Americans would have to pay more than any other nation. That cost is not worth the US reducing greenhouse emissions." or something to that extent. At least then, I have a clear understanding where he's coming from and what his values are on this specific issue.
|
On June 02 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:57 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:47 Danglars wrote: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:
[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. 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? Obama was wrong to sign it/EO it in the first place. It's just one piece in the puzzle to exert political pressure on the dialogue. When you bring up the costs, everybody soothes you by saying it's all nonbinding and unenforceable ... and Americans are kept into the dark to what the costs actually would be to comply, thus keeping favorable poll support. Later on, you get the reporters saying why US isn't doing their part in the treaty that formerly was sold as putting no obligations on anyone. It should be abundantly apparent given the emotion between "Trump doing this is so bad it would be an "act of war" and "traitorous" (Tom Steyer) and people saying why protest it if it does nothing and accomplishes nothing.
You are right that Obama did way to much to save this countries reputation abroad as a functioning nation. He should have let the world see the dysfunctional nature of congress in all of its glory, like we are seeing now. But being the grown up in the room is what he did, so I can see why he entered the agreement. And now dropping out and costing the US jobs will be on the GOP. Good luck 2018!
|
On June 02 2017 06:04 xDaunt 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 trick" aren't incompatible with each other? Why are you calling it a rhetorical trick? That .17 degree number came from proponents of the Paris Accord. You just don't like the number because it is marginal any way that you cut it. And the best part about the number is that it is basically a wild ass guess in and of itself.
What happens if .17 degrees reveals to be a big deal? What if permafrost melts because of the .17 degree rise and then massive amounts of CO2 get released in the atmosphere, causing an avalanche of climatic shit on mankind?
Purposely painting a dire picture here. But how do you know that .17 degrees isnt a big deal?
just asking,
|
On June 02 2017 06:09 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:00 m4ini wrote: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. I get that's the prevailing stance of most conservatives. I'd just like to see if xDaunt also agree with that because he's one of three main conservatives that pop out in this thread. "I don't agree with Paris Accord, not because stopping climate change isn't a good thing, but that Americans would have to pay more than any other nation. That cost is not worth the US reducing greenhouse emissions." or something to that extent. At least then, I have a clear understanding where he's coming from and what his values are on this specific issue.
Isn't that literally what he said? Apart from, you know, a sentence like this is like starting a sentence with "You know, i'm not racist - but[..]".
His stance seems to be simply not giving a shit if it's free, but paying for it is nono.
|
United States42692 Posts
On June 02 2017 05:32 Pandemona wrote:
He did say he is going to re join just wants to re negotiate. So clearly doesn't think US can get to the 26-28% or there is more behind the agreement Obama had in place which he thinks going to fuck US up. He never said he was leaving for good or anything just said he bailing on the agreement in place now.
But it was a voluntary and non binding goal. There was no reason to leave if that's true.
|
Ugh can't the people just straight up put forth a referendum to directly remove Trump. This is getting out of hand how bad he is.
|
On June 02 2017 06:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:32 Pandemona wrote:
He did say he is going to re join just wants to re negotiate. So clearly doesn't think US can get to the 26-28% or there is more behind the agreement Obama had in place which he thinks going to fuck US up. He never said he was leaving for good or anything just said he bailing on the agreement in place now. But it was a voluntary and non binding goal. There was no reason to leave if that's true.
Could've tested the waters first and wonder if people actually would be willing to renegotiate first before announcing this plan, because obviously the "fuck off mate" didn't take long to surface.
|
On June 02 2017 06:04 xDaunt 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 trick" aren't incompatible with each other? Why are you calling it a rhetorical trick? That .17 degree number came from proponents of the Paris Accord. You just don't like the number because it is marginal any way that you cut it. And the best part about the number is that it is basically a wild ass guess in and of itself.
If the number was false I would call it a "false number", not a rhetorical trick. It's a rhetorical trick because you use it to negate the importance of the agreement by focusing specifically on a small number. Let's use another rhetorical trick, let's rephrase your first statement: "how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the human race from dying out?"
|
On June 02 2017 06:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:04 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Why are you calling it a rhetorical trick? That .17 degree number came from proponents of the Paris Accord. You just don't like the number because it is marginal any way that you cut it. And the best part about the number is that it is basically a wild ass guess in and of itself. What happens if .17 degrees reveals to be a big deal? What if permafrost melts because of the .17 degree rise and then massive amounts of CO2 get released in the atmosphere, causing an avalanche of climatic shit on mankind? Purposely painting a dire picture here. But how do you know that .17 degrees isnt a big deal? just asking,
.17 degrees across the entire planet is a massive amount of energy. Some people do not grasp that.
|
On June 02 2017 05:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:45 zlefin wrote: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:
[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. 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.
the difference is I have a reasonable good faith basis for my beliefs, you do not (at least none that you have provided).
If you did I wouldn't have such a problem.
furthermore, you have ACTIVELY chosen to support misinformation and lies; which means you actively chose to oppose truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.quandl.com/data/EPI/152-U-S-Coal-Prices-1949-2005.png?dataset%5Bcollapse%5D=monthly&dataset%5Bgraph_title%5D=American+Coal+Price&dataset%5Bheight%5D=250&dataset%5Bwidth%5D=375)
