|
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 06:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:20 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Hardly. I stated exactly what I thought about Trump's speech. I also said my aside to why Trump's lies are somewhat mitigated in current circumstances. I can't help you if you refuse to admit the point. I doubly can't help you if you want to push for bad faith (I really do think and argue that this was the right course of action for the future). So if you can't see through the reasons, and pretend it's all objective falsities out here, you'll get about as much debate as you deserve.
|
On June 02 2017 06:39 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +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, 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.
But if the US signed it, then we might have to pay for the lobster or figure out how to make lobster cheaper. We just want to keep doing what we are doing until it completely fails.
|
On June 02 2017 06:39 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +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, 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.
I think you mean splitting the check evenly. Going Dutch would mean you pay for both lobsters yourself.
|
On June 02 2017 06:44 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:39 NewSunshine wrote: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, 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. I think you mean splitting the check evenly. Going Dutch would mean you pay for both lobsters yourself.
For some reason I had it flipped in my head, I stand corrected. Thank you.
|
On June 02 2017 06:34 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:27 nojok wrote: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:
[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. edit Show nested quote +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.
This the funniest part about the global warming debate to me. You guys are the ones who want to make changes so the burden should be on you to show the need for the changes -- especially when you're demanding changes that would require people to pay thousands of dollars per year. I don't have to prove that the benefits are illusory. By definition, they are illusory until you show otherwise. No one with half a brain buys anything without having some clear idea that they're going to get something real out of it. So quit selling snake oil and show me why Americans should pay thousands of dollars more per year for a .17 slowdown in warming by the year 2100.
|
On June 02 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:
By definition, they are illusory until you show otherwise.
Good thing Newton came around when he did, because until then gravity was just a fabrication of the left.
|
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.
You didn't spend all that much time reading did you? I mean surely you can craft a real cost/value sentence because (a) is incomplete (b) nobody talked 'in comparison' in last five pages. (c) is pretty nonsense, but you can take the silence on the issue of who signed on at the UNFCCC to mean it to not matter much.
|
On June 02 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:22 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 06:20 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Hardly. I stated exactly what I thought about Trump's speech. I also said my aside to why Trump's lies are somewhat mitigated in current circumstances. I can't help you if you refuse to admit the point. I doubly can't help you if you want to push for bad faith (I really do think and argue that this was the right course of action for the future). So if you can't see through the reasons, and pretend it's all objective falsities out here, you'll get about as much debate as you deserve.
the current circumstances do not remotely mitigate that level of lies. nor your support for trump.
I'm not pushing for bad faith; in your case it's the reasonable basis part that's lacking.
You have a VERY long history of refusing to debate properly; so I didn't bother to give you the starting benefit of the dobut in this
instance, as you've lost the right to get that benefit by abusing it so many times in the past.
you've proven you will not give an actual debate regardless of what is deserved.
|
On June 02 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:34 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:27 nojok wrote: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:
[quote]
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. This the funniest part about the global warming debate to me. You guys are the ones who want to make changes so the burden should be on you to show the need for the changes -- especially when you're demanding changes that would require people to pay thousands of dollars per year. I don't have to prove that the benefits are illusory. By definition, they are illusory until you show otherwise. No one with half a brain buys anything without having some clear idea that they're going to get something real out of it. So quit selling snake oil and show me why Americans should pay thousands of dollars more per year for a .17 slowdown in warming by the year 2100.
First of all, other countries do it too. It's not like the US pays for other countries, they pay the share that they're fucking responsible for. So that already makes you the dick on the table, that doesn't want to pick up his tab but rather relies on others to pay for him while boasting how rich you are.
Let me ask you a serious question although i'm pretty sure i know the answer already: do you believe in or deny climate change and the "risks" (certainties) that come with it?
|
On June 02 2017 06:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:
By definition, they are illusory until you show otherwise. Good thing Newton came around when he did, because until then gravity was just a fabrication of the left.
The worse thing is that in that analogy Newton already came, but they still politically have to pretend that he didn't.
|
On June 02 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:47 NewSunshine wrote:On June 02 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:
By definition, they are illusory until you show otherwise. Good thing Newton came around when he did, because until then gravity was just a fabrication of the left. The worse thing is that in that analogy Newton already came, but they still politically have to pretend that he didn't.
Well clinton did that too, didn't he. Cough, sorry, i see myself out.
|
Germany16350 Posts
On June 02 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:22 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 06:20 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Hardly. I stated exactly what I thought about Trump's speech. I also said my aside to why Trump's lies are somewhat mitigated in current circumstances. I can't help you if you refuse to admit the point. I doubly can't help you if you want to push for bad faith (I really do think and argue that this was the right course of action for the future). So if you can't see through the reasons, and pretend it's all objective falsities out here, you'll get about as much debate as you deserve.
i mean there's even coal companies that urged Trump to not quit the deal because they think it will hurt them. And we're talking money here and not some prospects about the (a bit more far away) future:
Oil majors Shell and ExxonMobil Corp supported the Paris pact. Several big coal companies, including Cloud Peak Energy, had publicly urged Trump to stay in the deal as a way to help protect the industry's mining interests overseas, though others asked Trump to exit the accord to help ease regulatory pressures on domestic miners.
Sure it's not a clear picture as you have people going both ways but if you have people going both ways WITHIN the coal industry you already know how the rest of the world minus the maybe ~15-20% on the far right in the US sees it.
|
United States43553 Posts
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness.
|
I wish people wouldn't focus on that whole "this will make JOBS" aspect of Paris. Too often that just means that the government gives free money to frauds like Elon Musk or the people behind Solar Roadways.
Let's start at a simpler level. Don't shit up the world we all live in. That can start simply with carbon collection, emissions controls, and disincentivize dirty fuels like coal. Don't feed the solar scammers just because "muh environment."
|
On June 02 2017 06:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
In the short term yes, everybody has to pay more.
But think about how old you are. I can reasonably expect to live around 60 years more, and by then I'll start to see major impacts if climate change(not that you can't see it already)
You keep claiming 0.17C as if it is an insignificant number.
Here's a link to a rather sciency article that shows how much energy you're adding to get temperature change. Hurricanes for example get their energy from warm water. Every joule of energy you add to the ocean that it crosses is some amount added to the strength if the hurricane. That is very real impact that hits the US every single year.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-air-ocean/amp/
|
On June 02 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:34 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:27 nojok wrote: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:
[quote]
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. This the funniest part about the global warming debate to me. You guys are the ones who want to make changes so the burden should be on you to show the need for the changes -- especially when you're demanding changes that would require people to pay thousands of dollars per year. I don't have to prove that the benefits are illusory. By definition, they are illusory until you show otherwise. No one with half a brain buys anything without having some clear idea that they're going to get something real out of it. So quit selling snake oil and show me why Americans should pay thousands of dollars more per year for a .17 slowdown in warming by the year 2100.
That is a very good question that I will tackle tomorrow.
I have not before heard about the pledges being so minuscule and personally would consider it a shame if that turns out to be correct.
|
On June 02 2017 06:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 06:22 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 06:20 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Hardly. I stated exactly what I thought about Trump's speech. I also said my aside to why Trump's lies are somewhat mitigated in current circumstances. I can't help you if you refuse to admit the point. I doubly can't help you if you want to push for bad faith (I really do think and argue that this was the right course of action for the future). So if you can't see through the reasons, and pretend it's all objective falsities out here, you'll get about as much debate as you deserve. the current circumstances do not remotely mitigate that level of lies. nor your support for trump. I'm not pushing for bad faith; in your case it's the reasonable basis part that's lacking. You have a VERY long history of refusing to debate properly; so I didn't bother to give you the starting benefit of the dobut in this instance, as you've lost the right to get that benefit by abusing it so many times in the past. you've proven you will not give an actual debate regardless of what is deserved.
I did indulge you in this to try and elicit some recognizance that simply saying "No it isn't" and "It's actually this" is something that can simply be flipped back on you. It doesn't help that you immediately reach for accusations of lies and ignoring realities when people don't accept your point of view quickly. The world doesn't operate on telling people they're wrong, this is right, and to argue for the contrary is ignorance and "stop hurting the world" "shame on you." Okay, there's a certain subset of the population that thinks that's how the world works.
|
On June 02 2017 06:55 LegalLord wrote:
Let's start at a simpler level. Don't shit up the world we all live in. That can start simply with carbon collection, emissions controls, and disincentivize dirty fuels like coal. Don't feed the solar scammers just because "muh environment."
Problem being that specifically those things americans don't give a shit about. There's no emission controls for the most part (trucks like in the US are almost prohibitively expensive in europe), trump wants to make coal big again etc etc.
So no, that can't simply start with those things, because these are things that are not negotiable to the average american. People like xDaunt would get a brain aneurysm if they'd understood how much a F-250 etc would cost to run in europe.
|
On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness.
Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that.
|
On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness.
I remember the day he discovered Milo and the alt-right in this thread. He talked about how he saw himself really agreeing with these alt right folks. It was so long ago, but we knew this day would come. The day science was a tool of the left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
