Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..
Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"
My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.
If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.
We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.
If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.
I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.
There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.
The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.
Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)
During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.
PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Classic post.
Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.
Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.
So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.
I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.
My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.
To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:
"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."
Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?
Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:
You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?
You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?
Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?
You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?
You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.
Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing
and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"
So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.
And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
