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 05:43 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?
Come on Kwark, you know it's not rhetoric, the man is just stating facts.
On June 02 2017 06:20 Toadesstern wrote: Merkels biggest rival when it comes to the german election:
lol, 2nd part is basicly "reality isn't a statesman to shove away"
In the US politics thread, could you also provide a translation? Our education system sucks and we only know English.
Toad plz..
j/k. It took me a second read there but Toad is providing the translation in quotations. The GER politician is saying Trump is living in a fantasy, etc.
lol, 2nd part is basicly "reality isn't a statesman to shove away"
In the US politics thread, could you also provide a translation? Our education system sucks and we only know English.
well the 2nd phrase is all that mattered and that I translated. But the whole thing would be something along the lines of "you can quit the climate deal [and be done with it] but you can't just quit climate change [and be done with it] Mr Trump. Reality isn't a stateman to shove away."
changed slightly so that it makes sense in english but as you'd expect, the reactions are quite harsh from pretty much every politician here in Germany. At least the ones I found
lol, 2nd part is basicly "reality isn't a statesman to shove away"
In the US politics thread, could you also provide a translation? Our education system sucks and we only know English.
Toad plz..
j/k. It took me a second read there but Toad is providing the translation in quotations. The GER politician is saying Trump is living in a fantasy, etc.
I already get bullied by you in the weeb-thread all the time. Now here as well?
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.
Because a certain country would not have signed it if they asked stricter rules...
On June 02 2017 06:27 Velr wrote: See the bright side...
No one will win anything but xDaunt is happy because... I don't even know why.
Its just sad.
That's the funniest part of it all.
People think "they" actually "won". Politics in the US is like supporting your sports team, doesn't matter what kind of shit they do, as long as they beat the other team.
Because a certain country would not have signed it if they asked stricter rules...
There's a certain subset of people in this thread that just unflinchingly believes every word that comes out of Trump's mouth, and somehow hold his words in higher regard than science, logic, reason, vetted sources, and common sense.
They know who they are, and if their ignorance extends so far that they actually don't, everyone else in the thread does. When you have people from countries all over Europe arguing with you about how ridiculous you and Trump are, you need to be able to at least question why you're in that position.
On June 02 2017 06:27 Velr wrote: See the bright side...
No one will win anything but xDaunt is happy because... I don't even know why.
Its just sad.
I'm happy because Trump killed a stupid deal. I'm not interested in having American families pay thousands of dollars extra per year for illusory benefits.
On June 02 2017 06:27 Velr wrote: See the bright side...
No one will win anything but xDaunt is happy because... I don't even know why.
Its just sad.
That's the funniest part of it all.
People think "they" actually "won". Politics in the US is like supporting your sports team, doesn't matter what kind of shit they do, as long as they beat the other team.
Well... it for sure helps to further my distaste for lawyers... But the ones i have to deal with are normally "to green/nice". Its kinda refreshing to see the stereotpicial asshole lawyer shown in US shows again and again in "persona" (or over the internet). I allways tought these were caricatures.. but nah...
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.
Because a certain country would not have signed it if they asked stricter rules...
And per my earlier admonishment to the hippies, what would be the cost of the stricter rules?
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.
Because a certain country would not have signed it if they asked stricter rules...
And per my earlier admonishment to the hippies, what would be the cost of the stricter rules?
Didn't you say earlier you're opposed because this deal didn't do enough? Doing more will cost more, that's not rocket science.
edit
I'm happy because Trump killed a stupid deal. I'm not interested in having American families pay thousands of dollars extra per year for illusory benefits.
There you have it. You don't know if the benefits are illusory, yet you state that as fact without backing it (in fact you earlier asked what the actual fact would look like). If asked if the benefits were better, you answered "what would be the costs of even stricter rules.".
I think it's quite clear that you're not interested in a clean future as long as it doesn't come magically and at no cost.
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.
Because a certain country would not have signed it if they asked stricter rules...
And per my earlier admonishment to the hippies, what would be the cost of the stricter rules?
Money, I think. Pretty sure it would cost money.
Sounds important when you say it like that, doesn't it?
On June 02 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote: [quote] 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.
Because a certain country would not have signed it if they asked stricter rules...
And per my earlier admonishment to the hippies, what would be the cost of the stricter rules?
Didn't you say earlier you're opposed because this deal didn't do enough? Doing more will cost more, that's not rocket science.
I said that it doesn't do enough given its cost. Again, y'all keep ignoring the cost of this green crusade of yours.
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.
Because a certain country would not have signed it if they asked stricter rules...
That is the best part. That they can make the agreement strong without us at the table. And we will still have to comply if we want to sell anything over seas. Our cars will be designed around laws and rules we have no hand is crafting. Or they will only be sold in the US.
I think after 5+ pages of Paris Accords talk, what I get from xDaunt/Danglers is that: a) the amount of temperature reduction from cutting greenhouse gas is too negligible, so the US shouldn't commit b) the cost of how much Americans would have to pay in comparison to other countries is too high, so the US shouldn't commit c) it doesn't matter that it's effectively 1 vs 191 on this issue (Nicaragua, protest. Syria, civil war), the terms are ultimately unfair, so US shouldn't commit.
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.
Because a certain country would not have signed it if they asked stricter rules...
And per my earlier admonishment to the hippies, what would be the cost of the stricter rules?
Didn't you say earlier you're opposed because this deal didn't do enough? Doing more will cost more, that's not rocket science.
I said that it doesn't do enough given its cost. Again, y'all keep ignoring the cost of this green crusade of yours.
Sorry to break it to you, but especially for a nation's budged it is a sound investment to tackle climate change. That is why the whole world does it.
On June 02 2017 06:36 NeoIllusions wrote: I think after 5+ pages of Paris Accords talk, what I get from xDaunt/Danglers is that: a) the amount of temperature reduction from cutting greenhouse gas is too negligible, so the US shouldn't commit b) the cost of how much Americans would have to pay in comparison to other countries is too high, so the US shouldn't commit c) it doesn't matter that it's effectively 1 vs 191 on this issue (Nicaragua, protest. Syria, civil war), the terms are ultimately unfair, so US shouldn't commit.
They also conveniently ignore the US's inordinately high contribution to global pollution per capita.
When you go out to eat with a group of people, and you're the only one who orders the lobster, and then you order seconds because it was so good the first time, and then you insist everyone goes dutch on the check splits the check evenly, yeah, you're gonna piss people off. The concept of a fair share is something the conservatives love right now, so they should understand this pretty easily.
On June 02 2017 05:57 xDaunt wrote: [quote] 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.
Because a certain country would not have signed it if they asked stricter rules...
And per my earlier admonishment to the hippies, what would be the cost of the stricter rules?
Didn't you say earlier you're opposed because this deal didn't do enough? Doing more will cost more, that's not rocket science.
I said that it doesn't do enough given its cost. Again, y'all keep ignoring the cost of this green crusade of yours.
Sorry to break it to you, but especially for a nation's budged it is a sound investment to tackle climate change. That is why the whole world does it.
he only looks at the bad sides of this. That's why you have people on one side of the issue claiming that jobs will be lost and people on the other side claiming that jobs will be gained. I'm sure there would be people losing their jobs due to this but at the same time a shitton of new opportunities with all the investment that's bound to happen. But that's not what he (or his superPAC source) wants to look at for obvious reasons.
EPT
