|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
You all need to read the literature more carefully and actually understand what it does and does NOT suggest
There is no consensus that climate change is the boogeyman that politicians on the left love to make it out to be, and there is no evidence that many of the extreme politicians' like AOC suggestions would even make a difference
There is no scientific consensus on things like time frame, significance, specific countermeasures, government policy, etc - all things that people like AOC love to pretend is written in stone.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/#ixzz3fE9BU9EN
There are literally Nobel Prize scientists who disagree with leftist politicians on the matter.
The problem with you people is that you believe that anyone who doesnt drink the left's koolaid is a bumpkin who denies that climate change "exists" when the fact of the matter is that whether or not climate change is occurring isnt the area of contention
|
Wonderful appeal to authority.
Except the Nobel prize was for Physics on Quantum tunneling in 1973 and nothing to do with climate change.
|
Rofl.
I don't think you understand science. Please, briefly, since that seems to be of importance: what did this guy get the Nobel Prize for, and how exactly does his field of science (hint, i don't give a shit about the opinion of a plumber if my car is broken) make him an authority? Or is it his membership in the Heartland Institute that makes him one?
Please do tell.
The problem with you people is that you believe that anyone who doesnt drink the left's koolaid is a bumpkin who denies that climate change "exists" when the fact of the matter is that whether or not climate change is occurring isnt the area of contention
No, not really. If you'd accept that "climate change exists" and your argument simply is "well, we know it's gonna happen, we just don't know how bad it's gonna be", that wouldn't make you a bumpkin but something considerably worse.
Here's the thing. If i'd ask you if you'd be okay with me putting a gun to your head with three out of six chambers loaded, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't go "lolz yeah lets go". That's literally what you're arguing for. Knowing that the gun is loaded (change happening), but it might, or might not, end civilisation (your life).
Don't get offended if someone calls you out on your bullshit if you argue with this kind of premisse.
|
On April 01 2019 05:42 Gorsameth wrote:
Wonderful appeal to authority.
Except the Nobel prize was for Physics on Quantum tunneling in 1973 and nothing to do with climate change.
I'd take his word before AOC's
|
On April 01 2019 05:43 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 05:42 Gorsameth wrote:
Wonderful appeal to authority.
Except the Nobel prize was for Physics on Quantum tunneling in 1973 and nothing to do with climate change.
I'd take his word before AOC's Sure that's completely fair.
And where do you rate the opinion of scientists that have actually studied the climate?
|
The time frame doesn't need to be known. The significance is enough that, one way or another, we're going to get burned if we ignore it.
No one is pretending anything is written in stone. And if you're going to toss out one logical fallacy after another because you don't wanna hear it, then there's really not much point in trying to debate with you. Climate change and how to deal with it is naturally a very complex conversation, but here you are, to simplify it all for us. Lovely.
|
On April 01 2019 05:38 BerserkSword wrote:You all need to read the literature more carefully and actually understand what it does and does NOT suggest There is no consensus that climate change is the boogeyman that politicians on the left love to make it out to be, and there is no evidence that many of the extreme politicians' like AOC suggestions would even make a difference There is no scientific consensus on things like time frame, significance, specific countermeasures, government policy, etc - all things that people like AOC love to pretend is written in stone. https://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/#ixzz3fE9BU9ENThere are literally Nobel Prize scientists who disagree with leftist politicians on the matter. The problem with you people is that you believe that anyone who doesnt drink the left's koolaid is a bumpkin who denies that climate change "exists" when the fact of the matter is that whether or not climate change is occurring isnt the area of contention
It's happening and it's significant. There's a very wide consensus on those two points. V8 engines contribute unnecessarily to greenhouse gases. Therefore, people shouldn't drive cars with V8s.
|
On April 01 2019 05:43 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 05:42 Gorsameth wrote:
Wonderful appeal to authority.
Except the Nobel prize was for Physics on Quantum tunneling in 1973 and nothing to do with climate change.
I'd take his word before AOC's
Nobody is going to judge you for that, i'd take a word of a scientist over a politicians any day of the week.
Problem here is that it's not a claim by AOC, but actual scientists. The vast majority of scientists (in relevant fields) on top.
edit: just to be clear here, i'd like you to respond to the fact that your authority is member of the Heartland Institute - an institute that A: made clear that they're going to fight suggestions of climate change and policies in regards to that, and B: did the same thing ("authorities" claiming that second hand smoking isn't unhealthy) to prevent smoking bans.
Citing a lobby shill is probably not the greatest argument.
|
On April 01 2019 05:44 NewSunshine wrote:
The time frame doesn't need to be known. The significance is enough that, one way or another, we're going to get burned if we ignore it.
No one is pretending anything is written in stone. And if you're going to toss out one logical fallacy after another because you don't wanna hear it, then there's really not much point in trying to debate with you. Climate change and how to deal with it is naturally a very complex conversation, but here you are, to simplify it all for us. Lovely.
What do you mean? That's literally what AOC is doing with her Green New Deal.
Scientists even call out the politicians who champion this:
"One final point, from a fractious country on the far side of the pond: The United States did not get to the moon by starting with a 14-page plan. Kennedy set out the destination and the deadline, and left it to the collective genius of American enterprise and public servants to work out how to get there."
https://thebulletin.org/2019/03/the-green-new-deal-one-climate-scientists-view-from-the-other-side-of-the-atlantic/
The original discussion was about AOC's ideas. Fact of the matter is that she's clueless and her ideas are awful - she provides no reasons as to why we should dump tax money into her ludicrous plan.
The scientist says it himself - leave it to FREE MARKET and scientists to fix this problem, not fear monger politicians.
|
Here is another scientist saying the same thing I'm saying:
“Even though most of this is achievable — in part because it is vague and little more than aspirational — there are a couple things in it that could not be achieved in a 10-year national mobilization, even if huge amounts of resources were allocated,” he explains.
https://www.inverse.com/article/53120-green-new-deal-positives-and-negatives
Again, the onus is on AOC to prove that her ideas are worthwhile......scientists already disagree with her
|
Nobody (here, as far as i can tell) is arguing that AOCs plan will rescue earth. People arguing that you don't have a grasp on what you're trying to argue.
Here's a funny fact. The first link you gave features a "scientist" that claims that CO2 isn't actually bad, and not a "climate gas" (btw, the term is greenhouse gas, funny that the nobel prize winner doesn't even know what he's talking about).
The second confirms everything we say, and makes clear that shit's gonna hit the fan in your lifetime if we don't act, something that you flatout rejected beforehand.
Third link i won't even bother looking at.
edit: oh, and no, you're not just saying that AOCs plan sucks (which i haven't and can't comment on since i haven't read it), you're flatout rejecting that a potential catastrophe is looming because nobody can precisely tell you "how many gonn die".
|
I've read your source. It isn't saying what you are. It says overall yes, maybe it's not realistic, but that it doesn't have to be.
"In other words, what it can do is spark conversation in government about approaching climate change in all aspects of society and serve as an outline for future bills that are specific."
I didn't see anyone disagreeing with the central premise behind the very non-binding bill. Did we also forget that? None of your tax money can possibly go to something that won't become law. Its entire purpose is to keep the conversation going, rather than listening to folks from the Heartland Institute when they try to tell us to shut up.
|
On April 01 2019 06:09 m4ini wrote:
Nobody is arguing that AOCs plan will rescue earth. People arguing that you don't have a grasp on what you're trying to argue.
Here's a funny fact. The first link you gave features a "scientist" that claims that CO2 isn't actually bad, and not a "climate gas" (btw, the term is greenhouse gas, funny that the nobel prize winner doesn't even know what he's talking about).
The second confirms everything we say, and makes clear that shit's gonna hit the fan in your lifetime if we don't act, something that you flatout rejected beforehand.
Third link i won't even bother looking at.
Yes I know you wont bother looking at the third link because my links keep turning your argument on its head. Youre not even reading the articles properly either.
You dont understand what AOC's green new deal is
It's a massive nationalization of the economy meant to completely transform american society. AOC and her main supporters themselves say their goal is to radically change america with this green new deal
something of this magnitude and which requires absurd amount of resources must be justified, and there is nothing that justifies it lol
like i said. ill take a 5 billion dollar wall instead of AOC's XX trillion dollar nonsense
|
On April 01 2019 06:15 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 06:09 m4ini wrote:
Nobody is arguing that AOCs plan will rescue earth. People arguing that you don't have a grasp on what you're trying to argue.
Here's a funny fact. The first link you gave features a "scientist" that claims that CO2 isn't actually bad, and not a "climate gas" (btw, the term is greenhouse gas, funny that the nobel prize winner doesn't even know what he's talking about).
The second confirms everything we say, and makes clear that shit's gonna hit the fan in your lifetime if we don't act, something that you flatout rejected beforehand.
Third link i won't even bother looking at. Yes I know you wont bother looking at the third link because my links keep turning your argument on its head. Youre not even reading the articles properly either. You dont understand what AOC's green new deal is It's a massive nationalization of the economy meant to completely transform american society. AOC and her main supporters themselves say their goal is to radically change america with this green new deal something of this magnitude and which requires absurd amount of resources must be justified, and there is nothing that justifies it lol like i said. ill take a 5 billion dollar wall instead of AOC's XX trillion dollar nonsense
Yeah, that heartland institute shill who doesn't even know the terms of the things he's talking about sure did take the wind out of my sails, you got me.
edit: second, i'm not paraphrasing the second link either. It's funny that you tell me that i don't understand the second link, when the second link makes clear that your earlier "we don't know when, if or how" is bullshit. I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but if you link a source, you don't get to pick 12% of it's content for your argument and reject the rest.
|
The scientist says it himself - leave it to FREE MARKET and scientists to fix this problem, not fear monger politicians.
I honestly don't think this will change much, I think government regulations is a much more effective way on environmental issues, just as they are for regulating other risks for our health. The problem is that the measures that really could make a differences will hurt us as human beings far too much. What about:
-Ban fracking.
-Quadruple the cost of gasoline.
-Add a 100% climate tax on all goods traveling overseas.
-Close 80% of all airports, refuse to expand existing ones.
-Close all coal plants.
I choose to believe we will be ok, even though we might have contributed to some of the climate change by getting things like energy and transportation. What we burn was actually CO2 in the athmosphere at some point, taken from there by plants millions of years ago.
The sad thing about our planet is that its climate will always change for a variety of different reasons (solar activity, volcanoes, earth rotational patterns, changes in winds and currents etc.) and we have to deal with it the best we can.
In general, I think a global warming is much preferable to a global cooling and a neverending status quo is impossible.
|
We dont know when/if the catastrophic event will occur
"So imagine we get to 2022, mid-way through the next US presidential term: Global emissions still haven’t peaked and it is clear there is no way of halving them by 2030. Will it then be “too late to prevent climate catastrophe”? It all depends what you mean by catastrophe: It might well be too late to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by emission reductions alone, but there will be plenty of things left worth saving. The danger with the word “catastrophe” is its finality: once catastrophe is inevitable, there seems little point in doing anything about it."
He is talking about limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C, but he then goes on to admit that it's not really catastrophic
|
"The free market will save the planet"
If it was up to the free market we would still be building with asbestos and lead paint while smoking 10 packs a day. Sorry for not trusting the free market to care about my life or the life of my children.
|
On April 01 2019 06:21 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +The scientist says it himself - leave it to FREE MARKET and scientists to fix this problem, not fear monger politicians. I honestly don't think this will change much, I think government regulations is a much more effective way on environmental issues, just as they are for regulating other risks for our health. The problem is that the measures that really could make a differences will hurt us as human beings far too much. What about: -Ban fracking. -Quadruple the cost of gasoline. -Add a 100% climate tax on all goods traveling overseas. -Close 80% of all airports, refuse to expand existing ones. -Close all coal plants. I choose to believe we will be ok, even though we might have contributed to some of the climate change by getting things like energy and transportation. What we burn was actually CO2 in the athmosphere at some point, taken from there by plants millions of years ago. The sad thing about our planet is that its climate will always change for a variety of different reasons (solar activity, volcanoes, earth rotational patterns, changes in winds and currents etc.) and we have to deal with it the best we can. In general, I think a global warming is much preferable to a global cooling and a neverending status quo is impossible.
things like that will never happen. that's not how economy/free society works
increasing the cost of energy and making travel more difficult will cause massive economic hardship and suffering
|
On April 01 2019 06:22 BerserkSword wrote:
We dont know when/if the catastrophic event will occur
"So imagine we get to 2022, mid-way through the next US presidential term: Global emissions still haven’t peaked and it is clear there is no way of halving them by 2030. Will it then be “too late to prevent climate catastrophe”? It all depends what you mean by catastrophe: It might well be too late to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by emission reductions alone, but there will be plenty of things left worth saving. The danger with the word “catastrophe” is its finality: once catastrophe is inevitable, there seems little point in doing anything about it."
He is talking about limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C, but he then goes on to admit that it's not really catastrophic
Are you dense or deliberately trolling?
He's literally saying that he isn't using "catastrophe" because that would imply that there's nothing we could do about it. 1.5 degrees is already a worldwide event. Read up on what you're talking about if you expect that from anyone else.
|
On April 01 2019 06:15 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 06:09 m4ini wrote:
Nobody is arguing that AOCs plan will rescue earth. People arguing that you don't have a grasp on what you're trying to argue.
Here's a funny fact. The first link you gave features a "scientist" that claims that CO2 isn't actually bad, and not a "climate gas" (btw, the term is greenhouse gas, funny that the nobel prize winner doesn't even know what he's talking about).
The second confirms everything we say, and makes clear that shit's gonna hit the fan in your lifetime if we don't act, something that you flatout rejected beforehand.
Third link i won't even bother looking at. Yes I know you wont bother looking at the third link because my links keep turning your argument on its head. Youre not even reading the articles properly either. You dont understand what AOC's green new deal is It's a massive nationalization of the economy meant to completely transform american society. AOC and her main supporters themselves say their goal is to radically change america with this green new deal something of this magnitude and which requires absurd amount of resources must be justified, and there is nothing that justifies it lol like i said. ill take a 5 billion dollar wall instead of AOC's XX trillion dollar nonsense
Holy moly.
Ok, riddle me this. What's actually in the Green New Deal proposal? Have you read the actual proposal for it? Everything I've read of your posts so far suggests to me you've only read "explainers" of it, most of which, at least from what I've seen, are far from accurate.
I've actually read her proposal. It's under 15 pages of rather largely spaced text. For anyone outside of the US who has read it, it more or less reads like a proposal to get the US in line with where most other developed countries are already going with regards to the economy and environment. None of it is particularly progressive or "socialist".
It's mostly proposals about broad directions the US should go in the future. There's nothing about banning planes or cows or really any of the stuff you see on Fox News or in conservative "explainers" about it.
And on climate change, think of it this way. Say you love chocolate bars a lot and eat quite a few. One day you get a tooth ache so you go to 100 different dentists to get an opinion. 99 of the dentists say "Yup, you've got a cavity. Until something is done about it, you're gonna have this tooth ache and it's going to get worse. Also, all that sugar you're eating probably isn't helping at all". The remaining dentist, who just happened to have their dentist office invested in by Big Chocolate Bar, tell you not only are your symptoms not problematic at all, even if they were problematic, they DEFINITELY weren't caused by eating all of those chocolate bars, so you should keep eating chocolate bars and ignore all that uncomfortable pain in your mouth. Who would you believe? The 99 people who tell you what's wrong based on the evidence at hand and what needs to be done to fix it, or the one person who denies something you yourself have evidence of being true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
