OT: Trump/Russians/Robert Mueller

calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842843358 said:

I didn't ask if doom and gloom was warranted. I asked if it was defensible as policy.


Not you. I was referring to the "we are doomed" headline on CNN, etc. You agree with me that the Paris Agreement wasn't enough if what people are claiming needs to be done to have a chance against global warming. In fact, I don't think 99.9% of the people, including the far left, live their life as if they really believe what they claim they believe about global warming.

I just think that its more white noise for people to claim that Trump doesn't care about the environment (he probably doesn't) because of the Paris Agreement when none of us are really doing anything that will make any real difference. Putting our hopes on the empty Paris Agreement while we drive our fancy cars, live in high-tech, electricity driven homes, spend hours on the internet while talking about so and so not caring about the environment is like thinking that adding couple of drops of water in the sahara desert will make it fertile.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It takes four years to leave and then there is another election. Minor issue other than optics
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842843339 said:

Cal88 posts a lot of material from Anthony Watts. I just thought I'd post some info about this guy, so people can make up their own minds as to whether or not he's a credible source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts
https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts


I like my meteorologist like I like my doctors, with an advanced degree in the subject matter they are claiming to know something about.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GB54;842843381 said:

It takes four years to leave and then there is another election. Minor issue other than optics


This part is true. If anything, the biggest impact it has is galvanizing the opposition.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administrations-secret-efforts-ease-russia-sanctions-fell-short-231301145.html

There Will be Blood
BearChemist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why wouldn't people quit smoking even they know it fxxk up their lungs? Why wouldn't people change their lifestyles, going vegan, abandoning fossil fuel transportation, and unplugging 24/7/365? Recognizing the existence of an issue doesn't necessarily means one would be determined to make some changes in their daily life, I think we should agree on this. The reason can be human are selfish, can be knowing the reduced CO2 emission by walking 2 miles to work is merely a drop in the ocean. But this is exactly why governments need to take charge and make policy guidelines, espeicially at the industrial level. Otherwise you may as well announce "the human civilization is fxxk'd anyways, why should my administration care the doom is 50 or 100 years away?" and then resume golfing.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt;842843384 said:

I like my meteorologist like I like my doctors, with an advanced degree in the subject matter they are claiming to know something about.


Watts is very knowledgeable on the subject, he's covered it nearly all his life. The links sycasey posted are fairly transparent ad hominems from politically biased sources. He has pretty high standards for his site and a highly qualified readership and comment section; it is the world's leading site dedicated to climate for a reason.

But he's more of an aggregator and journalist on the subject than a scientist/researcher, the material he publishes is the research from official sources (like the graph I've posted above) or from leading scientists. So Sycasey has no grounds to discredit the graph I've posted, because it represents official data, and not Watts'.

Watts is far more knowledgeable on the subject than >95% of journalists who cover climate for the MSM, their typical academic profile is english/Lit/Soc. scjence BAs plus a journalism degree. The coverage on global warming in main media outlets like the NYT, WP, Guardian is exceedingly politicized and alarmist, but also based on shoddy science due to the authors' lack of a scientific foundation.

Skeptical points of view are actually banned as a matter of editorial policy by most outlets including the LAT and BBC. The WSJ is one of the few MSM outlets to occasionally strays outside of the catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming mantra.

The problem is that the general public doesn't have the scientific background and skepticism to really look beyond the prevailing alarmist narrative on climate. If you didn't get a STEM degree (seems to be the case for the majority of posters here), you're going to have a harder time understanding basic concepts like the fact that the greenhouse effect from CO2 tapers off geometrically:



If you've had just one semester of maths for non-scientists at Cal, you're going to have a harder time grasping the implications of this logarithmic pattern on the marginal rise of temperature as a function of CO2 increase.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842843339 said:

Cal88 posts a lot of material from Anthony Watts. I just thought I'd post some info about this guy, so people can make up their own minds as to whether or not he's a credible source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts
https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts


Being a college flunk out seems to be a prerequisite for heroes of the Right ( see Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity).
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearChemist;842843410 said:

Why wouldn't people quit smoking even they know it fxxk up their lungs? Why wouldn't people change their lifestyles, going vegan, abandoning fossil fuel transportation, and unplugging 24/7/365? Recognizing the existence of an issue doesn't necessarily means one would be determined to make some changes in their daily life, I think we should agree on this. The reason can be human are selfish, can be knowing the reduced CO2 emission by walking 2 miles to work is merely a drop in the ocean. But this is exactly why governments need to take charge and make policy guidelines, espeicially at the industrial level. Otherwise you may as well announce "the human civilization is fxxk'd anyways, why should my administration care the doom is 50 or 100 years away?" and then resume golfing.


I'm not sure the issue is framed correctly. Global warming is going to make us all extinct doesn't work because people know it's probably not true and it probably won't happen to them. Otoh if you're in Florida and the sea is rising you can see that; or if you're in Alaska or Montana and the permafrost and glaciers are melting. Energy cost reduction and renewables are also good sells. People don't give a damn about global warming but they do care about their local environment. The environmental movement has become just another D.C. lobby and phrases too many things in ways that have no relevance- has there ever been a sillier word than "sustainable. If you reduce electricity and transportation inputs, you are a large way to reducing carbon emissions but people think driving their car to the farmer's market to buy five "sustainable" tomatoes is good.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GB54;842843424 said:

I'm not sure the issue is framed correctly. Global warming is going to make us all extinct doesn't work because people know it's probably not true and it probably won't happen to them. Otoh if you're in Florida and the sea is rising you can see that; or if you're in Alaska or Montana and the permafrost and glaciers are melting. Energy cost reduction and renewables are also good sells. People don't give a damn about global warming but they do care about their local environment. The environmental movement has become just another D.C. lobby and phrases too many things in ways that have no relevance- has there ever been a sillier word than "sustainable. If you reduce electricity and transportation inputs, you are a large way to reducing carbon emissions but people think driving their car to the farmer's market to buy five "sustainable" tomatoes is good.


You can't really see sea rising in Florida. The rate of ocean rise has been steady at 6" per century, over the last couple of centuries. Contrary to popular belief, the rate of increase in sea level has not gone up dramatically in recent times, the yearly rise is still measured in millimeters. Here is the measured rise over the last century and a half in NYC:



About 2/3 of this rise in NYC is due to the city itself sinking at a rate of 2.12 mms/year (satellite measurements). Since the local tide gauge is recording a sea level rise of 2.85 mms/year, the real sea level rise is only 0.83 mm/year.

Broader historic picture of sea levels, on a larger scale it was mostly about the last ice age warming up:


A lot of the issues with sea rise boil down to local geology rather than a global rise in ocean levels due to melting arctic regions. Plates shifting, or land settling due to buildings (in Venice for instance), or groundwater depletion.

During the last drought in CA, land settled as much as half a meter in parts of the SJ Valley. That shift is the equivalent of several centuries' worth of ocean water rise at the current rate, this kind of puts the global ocean level rise in perspective.

Ocean shores are geologically dynamic environments, beaches shift, erode. So when someone is "noticing" sea rise, it's due to those kinds of local geological shifts.

There is no permafrost in Montana, and in North America, temperatures were significantly higher in the last warm period of the 1930s. Most of the polar ice is in the Antarctic, about 8-9 times as much as in the arctic (where the relatively thin polar ice cap floats, thus not affecting ocean levels), and in the Antarctic, the ice pack mass has been growing (link).
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88;842843411 said:

Watts is very knowledgeable on the subject, he's covered it nearly all his life. The links sycasey posted are fairly transparent ad hominems from politically biased sources. He has pretty high standards for his site and a highly qualified readership and comment section; it is the world's leading site dedicated to climate for a reason.

But he's more of an aggregator and journalist on the subject than a scientist/researcher, the material he publishes is the research from official sources (like the graph I've posted above) or from leading scientists. So Sycasey has no grounds to discredit the graph I've posted, because it represents official data, and not Watts'.

Watts is far more knowledgeable on the subject than >95% of journalists who cover climate for the MSM, their typical academic profile is english/Lit/Soc. scjence BAs plus a journalism degree. The coverage on global warming in main media outlets like the NYT, WP, Guardian is exceedingly politicized and alarmist, but also based on shoddy science due to the authors' lack of a scientific foundation.

Skeptical points of view are actually banned as a matter of editorial policy by most outlets including the LAT and BBC. The WSJ is one of the few MSM outlets to occasionally strays outside of the catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming mantra.

The problem is that the general public doesn't have the scientific background and skepticism to really look beyond the prevailing alarmist narrative on climate. If you didn't get a STEM degree (seems to be the case for the majority of posters here), you're going to have a harder time understanding basic concepts like the fact that the greenhouse effect from CO2 tapers off geometrically:



If you've had just one semester of maths for non-scientists at Cal, you're going to have a harder time grasping the implications of this logarithmic pattern on the marginal rise of temperature as a function of CO2 increase.


Again PhD is considered an expert in his subject matter versus guy who couldn't finish college? I'm going to put my money on the PhD regarding climate change rather than the journalist who plays a meteorologist on TV. He may be far more knowledgeable than 95% of the journalist, but is he more knowledgeable than 20% of the PhDs that study climate change. Enthusiast does not equal expert and we can't afford to get it wrong.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt;842843459 said:

Again PhD is considered an expert in his subject matter versus guy who couldn't finish college? I'm going to put my money on the PhD regarding climate change rather than the journalist who plays a meteorologist on TV. He may be far more knowledgeable than 95% of the journalist, but is he more knowledgeable than 20% of the PhDs that study climate change. Enthusiast does not equal expert and we can't afford to get it wrong.


His site does host top PhDs in the field.

And here's a petition of over 9,000 PhDs who are skeptical of the CAGW theory (link)

Here's Edward Teller's contribution to this petition:

BearNecessities
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88;842843473 said:

His site does host top PhDs in the field.

And here's a petition of over 9,000 PhDs who are skeptical of the CAGW theory (link)

Here's Edward Teller's contribution to this petition:




A physicist is not necessarily who I'd be looking to as an authority on climate science. It's all well and good for scientists to be doubtful of the science, but not all branches of science are relevant to the question.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88;842843473 said:

His site does host top PhDs in the field.

And here's a petition of over 9,000 PhDs who are skeptical of the CAGW theory (link)

Here's Edward Teller's contribution to this petition:




Sigh! Still going to go with the guys at JPL, NASA, MIT, Berkeley, NOAA and the US Military.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNecessities;842843477 said:

A physicist is not necessarily who I'd be looking to as an authority on climate science. It's all well and good for scientists to be doubtful of the science, but not all branches of science are relevant to the question.


Someone of the intellectual caliber of Teller is not to be dismissed out of hand. You don't put your name on a fairly contrarian petition without a certain level of personal scrutiny and due dilligence. And you don't become the father of the hydrogen bomb without being extremely brilliant and having the scientific breadth to pull off this kind of engineering physics breakthrough.

Climate science is a multidisciplinary field that involves chemistry, physics, geology, thermodynamics, statistics etc. Teller's background is fairly broad; he was a leading expert in the field of statistical modeling and Monte Carlo simulations, in addition to being an expert in molecular physics and spectroscopy. Those disciplines underscore the theoretical foundations of the greenhouse effect.

Teller's path wrt this subject is pretty interesting, he was one of the very early proponents of greenhouse gas warming effect on planetary weather, a concept he was uniquely qualified to understand given the above expertises. Later on, this expertise in statistical modeling led him to understand that the current warmist models were deeply flawed and excessively alarmist.

His path mirrors that of Cal alum and UCSD cofounder Roger Revelle, who was the father of the current greenhouse gas Anthro. Global Warming movement. He was Gore's prof at Harvard (gave him a D in his climate class). Later in his career, Revelle came to the same conclusion as Teller and thought that the movement he has created had become too alarmist.



In his letter to Congress cautioning against excessive alarmism wrt global warming, he wrote:

"My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842843343 said:

That's the thing: the Paris Agreement isn't even a particularly harsh or binding agreement. It basically just says that all countries who enter into it can set their own benchmarks for reducing greenhouse emissions, have them peer reviewed, and then agree to come back after a certain time frame and review whether or not they have met those benchmarks.

So Trump leaving the agreement doesn't accomplish much other than (1) scoring political points with a segment of his base and (2) abdicating US leadership on the global stage.


What about the billions of dollars pledged to help developing countries go green? Obama pledged 3 billion. How much did China pledge? Is this separate or part of the green fund? Why is it so hard to find information on this pledge? How come you ignore this pledge altogether in your simplification of the agreement?

Also, what has China pledged to do? After all, the MSM says they are now taking the lead on this!
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003;842843538 said:

What about the billions of dollars pledged to help developing countries go green? Obama pledged 3 billion. How much did China pledge? Is this separate or part of the green fund? Why is it so hard to find information on this pledge? How come you ignore this pledge altogether in your simplification of the agreement?

Also, what has China pledged to do? After all, the MSM says they are now taking the lead on this!


Here are some explainers on this, for those who would like answers to these questions:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/01/531048986/so-what-exactly-is-in-the-paris-climate-accord
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-the-paris-climate-change-deal/?utm_term=.8bb1bf17054c
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/01/paris-climate-agreement-what-need-to-know.html
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's funny that words like "solution" are used when talking about the Paris accords. Of course, the Paris accord isn't a solution, or perfect, or any of the other things that make people have an excuse to have the government do nothing because it's not all encompassing.

The Paris Accord is a small, first step in the right direction because we still have to deal with a large segment of the population, like Putin's friend Cal88, who challenge the science on climate because, wittingly or unwittingly, they espouse the viewpoints of global oil producers such as Russia. The question becomes, can we act collectively at all, in any incremental way, to move in the right direction on science? Trump says no. Cal88 says let Russia (and others) produce all the oil they can. Cal93 says the Paris Accord isn't the solution so why should we care that we do nothing.

Cal93 also implies we are all fakes because we don't abandon our lives and join the non-carbon producing hippie commune (it's fitting because as a million dollar attorney he also likes to brag that he donates more money than you). Letting perfect be the enemy of good in order to backdoor promote doing nothing isn't helpful. Lots of us have incrementally changed our lives to help. Whether it is driving more fuel efficient cars, using less plastic, buying energy efficient appliances and windows, eating less meat, or other things.

Individually and collectively we should work to identify where we can do more and set out to do it. faux-obstacles about not having found the solution is a waste of time.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842843565 said:

It's funny that words like "solution" are used when talking about the Paris accords. Of course, the Paris accord isn't a solution, or perfect, or any of the other things that make people have an excuse to have the government do nothing because it's not all encompassing.

The Paris Accord is a small, first step in the right direction because we still have to deal with a large segment of the population, like Putin's friend Cal88, who challenge the science on climate because, wittingly or unwittingly, they espouse the viewpoints of global oil producers such as Russia. The question becomes, can we act collectively at all, in any incremental way, to move in the right direction on science? Trump says no. Cal88 says let Russia (and others) produce all the oil they can. Cal93 says the Paris Accord isn't the solution so why should we care that we do nothing.

Cal93 also implies we are all fakes because we don't abandon our lives and join the non-carbon producing hippie commune (it's fitting because as a million dollar attorney he also likes to brag that he donates more money than you). Letting perfect be the enemy of good in order to backdoor promote doing nothing isn't helpful. Lots of us have incrementally changed our lives to help. Whether it is driving more fuel efficient cars, using less plastic, buying energy efficient appliances and windows, eating less meat, or other things.

Individually and collectively we should work to identify where we can do more and set out to do it. faux-obstacles about not having found the solution is a waste of time.


Do you have any idea how dishonest you are? Does anyone in real life buy your bullshit? You think Trump makes up facts. You are cut from the same cloth. I can tell you that the sky is blue, and you will say that I have declared myself a racist and hate anything not blue.

Let me take a spin at your tactics.

Dajo implies that, other than the people he personally selects, human beings are worth sacrificing. The right or even anyone on the left who do not agree with him deserve painful death irrespective of whether that actually helps the environment survive. And he implies that he would celebrate the sacrificial offerings of people (if they are white) if that would nourish the plants. Ultimately, he believes that people are not worth saving other than the groups he thinks supporting will make him "appear" progressive.

In addition, he believe that McCarthy was a true hero and that it is unfortunate that he was unable to root out all agents of Russia. Anyone who disagrees with him are Russian spies who need to be blacklisted if not sacrificed.

Did I get that right? Of course, you never make personal attacks. I wonder how anyone deals with you in real life. And I truly doubt, despite all your sound and fury signifying nothing, that you have influenced or persuaded anyone to your point of view. And I would guess that, like everything else, your practice doesn't reflect anything you preach and that you are just an empty shell.

You remind me of those idiots who abuse their Hispanic maids but think that they are kind hearted because they support some amorphous affirmative action policy. You remind me those who litter and abuse animals but claim that they support the environment because they voted for some policy they didn't understand.

You are so unpersuasive because nothing about you reflect anything you say you believe. If you believe drastic measures are needed (which I would believe would be true if some of the research is true) and that anything less with worthless, what is the point of your half pregnant approach? Have your actions reflected in anyway what you claim to believe? You think you can do nothing but that the government will solve everything and that all the world's problem is someone else's fault and responsibility. There is absolutely no accountability or responsibility. I doubt your really do anything of value because you really don't believe it yourself. If I believed that touching a hot stove would burn my hand, I probably wouldn't touch it 0.0005% less and think that is good enough but would not touch it at all.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842843557 said:

Here are some explainers on this, for those who would like answers to these questions:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/01/531048986/so-what-exactly-is-in-the-paris-climate-accord
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-the-paris-climate-change-deal/?utm_term=.8bb1bf17054c
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/01/paris-climate-agreement-what-need-to-know.html


Using a link in one of your links...

Under the deal, the Obama administration pledged to cut domestic greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 as well as to commit up to $3 billion in aid for poorer countries by 2020. (The United States has delivered $1 billion to date.) China vowed that its emissions would peak around 2030 and that it would get about 20 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources by then. India would continue to reduce its carbon intensity, or CO2 output per unit of economic activity, in line with historical levels.

Why did Obama commit to so much more than China? Given how little China is actually committing to, why is the MSM giving them props and saying they will supplant the US in being an environmental lead? Why isn't this news?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842843582 said:

Do you have any idea how dishonest you are? Does anyone in real life buy your bullshit? You think Trump makes up facts. You are cut from the same cloth. I can tell you that the sky is blue, and you will say that I have declared myself a racist and hate anything not blue.

Let me take a spin at your tactics.

Dajo implies that, other than the people he personally selects, human beings are worth sacrificing. The right or even anyone on the left who do not agree with him deserve painful death irrespective of whether that actually helps the environment survive. And he implies that he would celebrate the sacrificial offerings of people (if they are white) if that would nourish the plants. Ultimately, he believes that people are not worth saving other than the groups he thinks supporting will make him "appear" progressive.

In addition, he believe that McCarthy was a true hero and that it is unfortunate that he was unable to root out all agents of Russia. Anyone who disagrees with him are Russian spies who need to be blacklisted if not sacrificed.

Did I get that right? Of course, you never make personal attacks. I wonder how anyone deals with you in real life. And I truly doubt, despite all your sound and fury signifying nothing, that you have influenced or persuaded anyone to your point of view. And I would guess that, like everything else, your practice doesn't reflect anything you preach and that you are just an empty shell.

You remind me of those idiots who abuse their Hispanic maids but think that they are kind hearted because they support some amorphous affirmative action policy. You remind me those who litter and abuse animals but claim that they support the environment because they voted for some policy they didn't understand.

You are so unpersuasive because nothing about you reflect anything you say you believe. If you believe drastic measures are needed (which I would believe would be true if some of the research is true) and that anything less with worthless, what is the point of your half pregnant approach? Have your actions reflected in anyway what you claim to believe? You think you can do nothing but that the government will solve everything and that all the world's problem is someone else's fault and responsibility. There is absolutely no accountability or responsibility. I doubt your really do anything of value because you really don't believe it yourself. If I believed that touching a hot stove would burn my hand, I probably wouldn't touch it 0.0005% less and think that is good enough but would not touch it at all.


You seem so angry
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842843590 said:

You seem so angry


I am angry in the same way I get angry when I see likes of you on the left and the right troll people with hateful comments and racist comments just for fun. All they want to do is disrupt actual conversation. I don't think I have ever addressed anything of substance to you, but you feel the need to twist my words and butt in to my conversation. Do you normally engage people in conversation who made it clear that they would rather not talk to you? Why can't you get the message that I have no interest in your perspective. Hasn't that been clear? I engage in rational discussion with liberal people on this board, but your trolling adds no value. Why do you still feel the need to engage me and get my feedback? Without wanting to be mean, I do want you to know that I honestly don't care about your disingenuous ramblings.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearChemist;842843410 said:

Why wouldn't people quit smoking even they know it fxxk up their lungs? Why wouldn't people change their lifestyles, going vegan, abandoning fossil fuel transportation, and unplugging 24/7/365? Recognizing the existence of an issue doesn't necessarily means one would be determined to make some changes in their daily life, I think we should agree on this. The reason can be human are selfish, can be knowing the reduced CO2 emission by walking 2 miles to work is merely a drop in the ocean. But this is exactly why governments need to take charge and make policy guidelines, espeicially at the industrial level. Otherwise you may as well announce "the human civilization is fxxk'd anyways, why should my administration care the doom is 50 or 100 years away?" and then resume golfing.


To your question, I think people who continue to smoke would argue that saving their lungs isn't worth the pain of quitting. However, how would you feel if there is someone who is smoking in a small room and polluting you with second hand smoke but lecturing that the government should stop people from smoking. Would you take kindly to that? If you believed you needed to protect children and you saw someone trying to hurt a child, wouldn't you take personal action or would you just wait until the government does something? Of course you would do something, because your belief in the need to protect the weak would override your selfish human nature and would dictate your action. If something is truly important to you, your actions would reflect it. Yes, people are selfish, and I think some of those who are denying global warming are really driven my economic reasons. I get that human element. What I don't get are people like those in my example who claim to believe one thing but behave in another way.

Everyone worships at the alter of something. For some, it's money, and they believe that money is the truly important. And that drives their behavior. They would sacrifice time with their family, do unethical things, betray others because they worship money and believe it truly is important. For others, it's people's approval. Their actions, including obsession with how others are responding, drive their behavior.

For those who claim that global warming is as bad as they claim it is, why isn't that reflected in their actions? I am not saying it isn't that bad, but I am wondering people's true conviction that it really is that bad.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842843591 said:

I am angry in the same way I get angry when I see likes of you on the left and the right troll people with hateful comments and racist comments just for fun. All they want to do is disrupt actual conversation. I don't think I have ever addressed anything of substance to you, but you feel the need to twist my words and butt in to my conversation. Do you normally engage people in conversation who made it clear that they would rather not talk to you? Why can't you get the message that I have no interest in your perspective. Hasn't that been clear? I engage in rational discussion with liberal people on this board, but your trolling adds no value. Why do you still feel the need to engage me and get my feedback? Without wanting to be mean, I do want you to know that I honestly don't care about your disingenuous ramblings.


Oh you care. it's obvious by your reaction. And we know why you care. Because my analysis of your implications is spot on.
jyamada
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842843582 said:

Do you have any idea how dishonest you are? Does anyone in real life buy your bullshit? You think Trump makes up facts. You are cut from the same cloth. I can tell you that the sky is blue, and you will say that I have declared myself a racist and hate anything not blue.

Let me take a spin at your tactics.

Dajo implies that, other than the people he personally selects, human beings are worth sacrificing. The right or even anyone on the left who do not agree with him deserve painful death irrespective of whether that actually helps the environment survive. And he implies that he would celebrate the sacrificial offerings of people (if they are white) if that would nourish the plants. Ultimately, he believes that people are not worth saving other than the groups he thinks supporting will make him "appear" progressive.

In addition, he believe that McCarthy was a true hero and that it is unfortunate that he was unable to root out all agents of Russia. Anyone who disagrees with him are Russian spies who need to be blacklisted if not sacrificed.

Did I get that right? Of course, you never make personal attacks. I wonder how anyone deals with you in real life. And I truly doubt, despite all your sound and fury signifying nothing, that you have influenced or persuaded anyone to your point of view. And I would guess that, like everything else, your practice doesn't reflect anything you preach and that you are just an empty shell.

You remind me of those idiots who abuse their Hispanic maids but think that they are kind hearted because they support some amorphous affirmative action policy. You remind me those who litter and abuse animals but claim that they support the environment because they voted for some policy they didn't understand.

You are so unpersuasive because nothing about you reflect anything you say you believe. If you believe drastic measures are needed (which I would believe would be true if some of the research is true) and that anything less with worthless, what is the point of your half pregnant approach? Have your actions reflected in anyway what you claim to believe? You think you can do nothing but that the government will solve everything and that all the world's problem is someone else's fault and responsibility. There is absolutely no accountability or responsibility. I doubt your really do anything of value because you really don't believe it yourself. If I believed that touching a hot stove would burn my hand, I probably wouldn't touch it 0.0005% less and think that is good enough but would not touch it at all.


I'll admit that I share many of Dajo's political viewpoints but I don't have any idea how you took his post and came up with the stuff in your post. I had to reread it a couple of times but could find no connection between the 2 posts.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003;842843585 said:

Why did Obama commit to so much more than China? Given how little China is actually committing to, why is the MSM giving them props and saying they will supplant the US in being an environmental lead? Why isn't this news?


The argument from China and other "developing" nations is that first-world countries like the USA contributed more to global warming in the first place, and thus should have to pay more.

One can agree or disagree with this assessment, but it was part of the negotiation. A new presidential administration could also attempt to negotiate different terms the next time around. It's not an argument for existing the agreement entirely.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jyamada;842843598 said:

I'll admit that I share many of Dajo's political viewpoints but I don't have any idea how you took his post and came up with the stuff in your post. I had to reread it a couple of times but could find no connection between the 2 posts.


OK. You don't get how I came up with my post but you don't see an issue with this statement from him based on my question as to why our actions don't reflect the drastic warnings we claim we believe?

Cal93 also implies we are all fakes because we don't abandon our lives and join the non-carbon producing hippie commune (it's fitting because as a million dollar attorney he also likes to brag that he donates more money than you). Letting perfect be the enemy of good in order to backdoor promote doing nothing isn't helpful. Lots of us have incrementally changed our lives to help. Whether it is driving more fuel efficient cars, using less plastic, buying energy efficient appliances and windows, eating less meat, or other things.

So, if my point was that nothing I have read indicated that incremental steps is going to help reverse global warming, how is what he wrote connected to what I wrote? Let me know if you have read anything that provides that taking incremental steps instead of drastic steps will help us avoid the 2 degree increase. If you knew that a friend needed chemotherapy to have a chance against cancer and that eating 20% less fast food won't solve it, what would you say to your friend who would say he deeply cares about getting rid of cancer because he now only smokes 20 times instead of 22 times a day? And I never bragged that I donate more than him. I claimed that, he who would would lecture to us about not caring about the poor, has done next to nothing to actually help the poor. That is another example of him twisting my words and being generally dishonest. And you know how people are not by the big things but by the small things that they do.

People will come to a pre-determined conclusion and read only what supports their conclusion. You see no connection, but that may be because you share his political viewpoint. And it is not his political viewpoint that is idiotic. I respect what people like Sycasey believe and often accept that we will just disagree because we disagree about foundational premises. Dajo and his hypocritical pedantic lectures when he doesn't do anything to reflect what he claims he believes, is the issue.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842843604 said:

The argument from China and other "developing" nations is that first-world countries like the USA contributed more to global warming in the first place, and thus should have to pay more.

One can agree or disagree with this assessment, but it was part of the negotiation. A new presidential administration could also attempt to negotiate different terms the next time around. It's not an argument for existing the agreement entirely.


I think EU made it clear that they will not renegotiate. However, why must US do more than China? I am not saying that US should do less, but why wasn't there more pressure for countries like China, India, and Germany to do more? And I do believe that, while getting out of the Paris Agreement is bad for US leadership, for opportunity to lead in alternate and renewable energy source (even from an economic standpoint), and for showing commitment to our environment, I also think we lose credibility when we make the withdrawal bigger than it really is. It's like everything else between the media and Trump. By overblowing things that are not as crucial to Americans, we lose sight of all the harm that is actually being done.

I understand that we needed to do more when our economy so clearly dominated other economies decades ago. However, when other economies are growing faster and we have new economic powerhouses (like China - who is a much bigger threat than Russia, and Germany), why are other countries taking for granted that we have to do exponentially more than other countries? Why is that OK?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842843612 said:

I think EU made it clear that they will not renegotiate. However, why must US do more than China?


Asked and answered.

No one says you have to agree with it. International negotiations tend to result in neither side getting everything they want, but hopefully they can make progress towards a common goal.

Taking your ball and going home means you will not make any such progress.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842843614 said:

Asked and answered.

No one says you have to agree with it. International negotiations tend to result in neither side getting everything they want, but hopefully they can make progress towards a common goal.

Taking your ball and going home means you will not make any such progress.


While I agree with you in concept, I don't know how to reverse the assumption that we will always do more than other countries when other countries may be better able to afford it. If they refuse to budge from those unfair rules of the game, how do you influence it if you never threaten to walk away? What is your leverage? The commitment agreed to by Obama (without Senate's approval) was completely aligned with that unfair assumption. I would be a lot more supportive of the commitment (and I still was and am supportive of our commitment) and I would give more merit to the sanctimonious lecturing of EU and China if they had agreed to commit on proportionate level the sacrifices they were asking of US.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842843615 said:

While I agree with you in concept, I don't know how to reverse the assumption that we will always do more than other countries when other countries may be better able to afford it. If they refuse to budge from that unfair rules of the game, how do you influence it if you never threaten to walk away? What is your leverage? The commitment agreed to by Obama (without Senate's approval) was completely aligned with that unfair assumption. I would be a lot more supportive of the commitment (and I still was and am supportive of our commitment) and I would give more merit to the sanctimonious lecturing of EU and China if they had agreed to commit on proportionate level the sacrifices they were asking of US.


The agreement was to stand for 4 years and then renegotiated. There was going to be another chance for that, and it helps renegotiation if other countries think you are working in good faith. Walking away now indicates bad faith.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842843617 said:

The agreement was to stand for 4 years and then renegotiated. There was going to be another chance for that, and it helps renegotiation if other countries think you are working in good faith. Walking away now indicates bad faith.


You may be right. It may also be right that, now that we have walked away for 4 years and have shown that we will walk away if it is unfair, they may be more willing to concede to do more instead of putting more burden on US. In four years, whatever we commit to may be welcomed because we didn't do anything for the prior four years in the same way people are willing to accept a lower commitment from China because they have been such bad polluters for so long. What US did was not good for the environment. However, neither was the lack of more equal commitment from the other countries.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is one aspect of the China situation that is never talked about. US companies producing things in China produce much more pollution per unit output than if made here because of the coal grid and lax pollution control. In a rational system all products from China would have an import tax that would spur China to clean up.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842843604 said:

The argument from China and other "developing" nations is that first-world countries like the USA contributed more to global warming in the first place, and thus should have to pay more.

One can agree or disagree with this assessment, but it was part of the negotiation. A new presidential administration could also attempt to negotiate different terms the next time around. It's not an argument for existing the agreement entirely.


What I said:

Under the deal, the Obama administration pledged to cut domestic greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 as well as to commit up to $3 billion in aid for poorer countries by 2020. (The United States has delivered $1 billion to date.) China vowed that its emissions would peak around 2030 and that it would get about 20 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources by then. India would continue to reduce its carbon intensity, or CO2 output per unit of economic activity, in line with historical levels.

***
Why did Obama commit to so much more than China? Given how little China is actually committing to, why is the MSM giving them props and saying they will supplant the US in being an environmental lead? Why isn't this news?

Your response is WEAK, if you even call it a response to my valid concerns. Are you implying that China is a developing nation? Are you saying that we polluted for a long time (like when coal was one of the few available sources of energy in the world) and therefore China can increase their pollution output until 2030 before decreasing their pollution at all and act like they are going green? What are you saying?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003;842843796 said:

Your response is WEAK, if you even call it a response to my valid concerns. Are you implying that China is a developing nation? Are you saying that we polluted for a long time (like when coal was one of the few available sources of energy in the world) and therefore China can increase their pollution output until 2030 before decreasing their pollution at all and act like they are going green? What are you saying?


I'm saying that was a sticking point in the negotiation, and the extra cash from the USA and other first-world nations was intended to help smooth the gears. Fair or not, I'm not sure. But this kind of negotiation never leaves you with everything you want.

I also don't think it's true to say that the agreement makes it "okay" for China to increase their pollution output. That was part of the point, to sweeten the pot to get them in the agreement so they would start taking steps to reduce pollution. Based on what I can find, it seems like they have been holding up their end of the deal:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillbaker/2016/07/20/good-news-from-china-coal-has-peaked-and-emissions-will-begin-falling-after-2020-2022/#1b47ed77905c

Do you have some kind of specific expertise here? Is there evidence that China has not been negotiating in good faith here? If so, I'll look at it.
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.