|
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 06:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
But that number isn't even a whole number though! It's like a fifth of a full number. Only full numbers count, regardless of the problem that .2 degrees can make a difference between ice holding stuff back or releasing it into the atmosphere.
Make full numbers great again. Actually, only even numbers. So it only counts at 2 degrees. Who cares that by then multiple countries simply disappeared.
|
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,
Ah, so now we get to the heart of the issue. We don't really know what the impact of a .17-degree change is. So the question is now how much should Americans be asked to pay to avoid a hypothetical disaster situation. And more specifically, the question is how much should Americans be asked to pay to delay (because the Paris Accord does not stop warming, it only slows it at the margin) a hypothetical disaster situation.
|
On June 02 2017 06:12 Slaughter wrote:
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.
He's still not particularly unpopular, really. Truman and Clinton both had lower approval ratings at various times
|
On June 02 2017 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:55 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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...
Oh quote the whole thing you silly person. I'd like to know how many surveyed actually knew what the Paris agreement was, but you know with bad polls you don't always get what you want. You just lump the *shrug* I guess we already agreed to this as a country and all it does is "limit the pollution that causes global warming" like that's the only description you need. But you keep on with your biased sources and criticizing others for bias, it's a fun show.
|
On June 02 2017 06:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:58 Artisreal wrote: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: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.
I would appreciate if you took a second look at the first graph and think about /look up in the source I provided what the columns on the right hand side stand for. In case it is still unclear I will gladly lay it out.
Tomorrow that is. Apologies for that.
|
On June 02 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: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:
[quote]
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, Ah, so now we get to the heart of the issue. We don't really know what the impact of a .17-degree change is. So the question is now how much should Americans be asked to pay to avoid a hypothetical disaster situation. And more specifically, the question is how much should Americans be asked to pay to delay (because the Paris Accord does not stop warming, it only slows it at the margin) a hypothetical disaster situation.
Why would you risk unknown, uncontrolled costs against costs that are within your control?
|
On June 02 2017 06:12 Slaughter wrote:
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.
no; well, not easily. technically he could be removed by amendment; but there'es no way to get enough votes for that. It'd be far easier to just remove him for being unfit for office; and that's still very hard.
|
On June 02 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: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:
[quote]
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, Ah, so now we get to the heart of the issue. We don't really know what the impact of a .17-degree change is. So the question is now how much should Americans be asked to pay to avoid a hypothetical disaster situation. And more specifically, the question is how much should Americans be asked to pay to delay (because the Paris Accord does not stop warming, it only slows it at the margin) a hypothetical disaster situation.
If the number was higher than 0.17, would you be in favor of the agreement?
|
On June 02 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: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:
[quote]
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, Ah, so now we get to the heart of the issue. We don't really know what the impact of a .17-degree change is. So the question is now how much should Americans be asked to pay to avoid a hypothetical disaster situation. And more specifically, the question is how much should Americans be asked to pay to delay (because the Paris Accord does not stop warming, it only slows it at the margin) a hypothetical disaster situation.
If you want to play russian roulette, that's fine. Do it with your own life, instead of the back of others.
Not to mention that slowing it down already is a win, because it gives you time to come up with a solution. That's why you take fucking medicine before you have surgery.
That's really not a hard concept to grasp.
edit: not to mention that if we suddenly came up with a solution, you still would be opposed because in relation you'd STILL fucking pay more than other countries combined. And as we know, that's unfair.
|
Merkels biggest rival when it comes to the german election:
lol, 2nd part is basicly "reality isn't a statesman to shove away"
|
On June 02 2017 06:15 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:52 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Color me shocked for the second time in this quote chain! You think I don't have a reasonable good faith basis for my beliefs and you think you do. I can only reiterate: get used to disagreeing to who has the better basis for their decisions on policy. I have to deal with yours all the time. It actually is a normal thing in debates.
|
On June 02 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: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:
[quote]
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, Ah, so now we get to the heart of the issue. We don't really know what the impact of a .17-degree change is. So the question is now how much should Americans be asked to pay to avoid a hypothetical disaster situation. And more specifically, the question is how much should Americans be asked to pay to delay (because the Paris Accord does not stop warming, it only slows it at the margin) a hypothetical disaster situation.
Yes. Fuck the precautionary principle. Especially if it provides cleaner air, sustainable soils, clean water and low cost energy as well as a lesser dependency on fossile fuels. Right guys!
|
The planet's already fucked at this point. Might as well launch all our nukes at each other and go out with a bang yea
|
On June 02 2017 06:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:15 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:52 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Color me shocked for the second time in this quote chain! You think I don't have a reasonable good faith basis for my beliefs and you think you do. I can only reiterate: get used to disagreeing to who has the better basis for their decisions on policy. I have to deal with yours all the time. It actually is a normal thing in debates.
it is not a normal thing for one side to refuse to debate; and to ignore facts and evidence. you did and have, many many times. that makes you the loser; but you won't admit to that either. there is no debate if one side simply chooses to ignore facts and evidence without reason. sad.
learn how to argue, then come back when you know how to think rigorously.
you don't get to pretend you're engaging in legitimate debate when you do not do so; and when you support objective falsities as trump so often spouts.
|
United States43798 Posts
On June 02 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: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:
[quote]
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, Ah, so now we get to the heart of the issue. We don't really know what the impact of a .17-degree change is. So the question is now how much should Americans be asked to pay to avoid a hypothetical disaster situation. And more specifically, the question is how much should Americans be asked to pay to delay (because the Paris Accord does not stop warming, it only slows it at the margin) a hypothetical disaster situation.
Why are you playing "look how low this number I came up with is"? And why are you playing it badly? Why not do it properly and say that it's a difference between 300 kelvin and 300.17 kelvin? That way you could frame it as a five hundredths of a percent increase. I mean if you're going to completely disregard all the experts and just play bullshit games with numbers then why not do it properly?
|
On June 02 2017 06:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: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:[quote] 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, Ah, so now we get to the heart of the issue. We don't really know what the impact of a .17-degree change is. So the question is now how much should Americans be asked to pay to avoid a hypothetical disaster situation. And more specifically, the question is how much should Americans be asked to pay to delay (because the Paris Accord does not stop warming, it only slows it at the margin) a hypothetical disaster situation. If the number was higher than 0.17, would you be in favor of the agreement?
Sure. Like I said, my position isn't "fuck the environment." I just need to see the value proposition.
|
In the US politics thread, could you also provide a translation? Our education system sucks and we only know English.
|
On June 02 2017 06:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: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:[quote] 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, Ah, so now we get to the heart of the issue. We don't really know what the impact of a .17-degree change is. So the question is now how much should Americans be asked to pay to avoid a hypothetical disaster situation. And more specifically, the question is how much should Americans be asked to pay to delay (because the Paris Accord does not stop warming, it only slows it at the margin) a hypothetical disaster situation. Why are you playing "look how low this number I came up with is"? And why are you playing it badly? Why not do it properly and say that it's a difference between 300 kelvin and 300.17 kelvin? That way you could frame it as a five hundredths of a percent increase. I mean if you're going to completely disregard all the experts and just play bullshit games with numbers then why not do it properly?
What am I disregarding? I gave the number. I have invited people to qualify that number and put it in real terms (ie what the actual impact is). I don't think that I'm missing anything.
|
On June 02 2017 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:In the US politics thread, could you also provide a translation? Our education system sucks and we only know English.
Sie können aus einem Klimaabkommen aussteigen, aber nicht aus dem Klimawandel, Mr. Trump. Realität ist kein Staatsmann, den man wegschubst.
You can quit a climate agreement, but not the climate change, mr trump. Reality isn't a statesman that you push aside (reference to the G7).
|
On June 02 2017 06:21 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: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:[quote] 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, Ah, so now we get to the heart of the issue. We don't really know what the impact of a .17-degree change is. So the question is now how much should Americans be asked to pay to avoid a hypothetical disaster situation. And more specifically, the question is how much should Americans be asked to pay to delay (because the Paris Accord does not stop warming, it only slows it at the margin) a hypothetical disaster situation. Yes. Fuck the precautionary principle. Especially if it provides cleaner air, sustainable soils, clean water and low cost energy as well as a lesser dependency on fossile fuels. Right guys!
Fuck all the jobs and investment made by this agreement. Fuck being at the table for setting terms down the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
