Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-10-2019, 04:31 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatopescado View Post
I just don't like the word 'podcast'. Very tinny.

And my internet is shit.
I don't like the word "webinar".
  #102  
Old 02-10-2019, 06:35 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,814
So, Slacker, what's your proposal to fix this problem? We don't have a whole lot of time, and nobody else is even coming close to proposing a solution that respects the scope of the problem. This seems unrealistic? Well, shit, we'd better make it realistic, because we ain't got shit for time to fix this. "LOL look at this radical bill there's no way that's going to happen" is like... the opposite of helpful.
  #103  
Old 02-10-2019, 09:24 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 8,042
I was thinking about it today while driving on the interstate.

It could be that the green revolution begins locally, and then over time, gains federal support. But the way I see it, I think what would be a game changer is that if you had a major city, like Rome or Amsterdam or Tokyo - whoever - that demonstrates what kinds of things can be done by making a city green, and then somehow that gets copied and applied here. Let's say a city not like New York, but a more 'average' city like Pittsburgh or Columbus or St. Louis innovates and becomes super green and ends up saving the city money and also creates jobs. An added benefit could be that the environment is so clean and enviable that it attracts people and companies. I think it's going to take cities and states competing with each other, with a handful of communities basically kicking its neighbors' asses economically and otherwise with green energy that the citizens in other places demand to get in on the game.
  #104  
Old 02-10-2019, 10:56 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So, Slacker, what's your proposal to fix this problem? We don't have a whole lot of time, and nobody else is even coming close to proposing a solution that respects the scope of the problem. This seems unrealistic? Well, shit, we'd better make it realistic, because we ain't got shit for time to fix this. "LOL look at this radical bill there's no way that's going to happen" is like... the opposite of helpful.

My proposal is to increase renewables in a realistic and reasonable way. We took decades (centuries) to get to 20%. Getting to 50% by 2030 would be impressive.

I'd also be in favor of a large gasoline tax (around here, gas is $1.99 a gallon, which is crazy low), but only if the money collected is rebated to every citizen equally. This is a Tom Friedman proposal that I really like. Just send every household a monthly or yearly rebate check, in the amount of 1/300,000,000th of the total tax money collected, times the number of people in the household.

But I don't accept all this millennialist Chicken Little talk about how we're DOOMED if we don't dramatically reverse global warming in the next 12 years or whatever. I think we can adapt to it just fine. But this point never even gets debated, because it's all a silly argument over whether global warming is actually happening (obviously it is).
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-10-2019 at 10:59 PM.
  #105  
Old 02-11-2019, 12:17 AM
don't mind me don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I was thinking about it today while driving on the interstate.

It could be that the green revolution begins locally, and then over time, gains federal support. But the way I see it, I think what would be a game changer is that if you had a major city, like Rome or Amsterdam or Tokyo - whoever - that demonstrates what kinds of things can be done by making a city green, and then somehow that gets copied and applied here. Let's say a city not like New York, but a more 'average' city like Pittsburgh or Columbus or St. Louis innovates and becomes super green and ends up saving the city money and also creates jobs. An added benefit could be that the environment is so clean and enviable that it attracts people and companies. I think it's going to take cities and states competing with each other, with a handful of communities basically kicking its neighbors' asses economically and otherwise with green energy that the citizens in other places demand to get in on the game.
Georgetown, Texas, population 70,000. Certainly not a major or even average city, but it's a start. It's too early to tell if the solar move will attract people and companies like you say, but it helps that it's already a nice little spot and very convenient to Austin.
  #106  
Old 02-11-2019, 12:35 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But I don't accept all this millennialist Chicken Little talk about how we're DOOMED if we don't dramatically reverse global warming in the next 12 years or whatever.
Here is where you show the ignorance, that time is essentially what other researchers calculated for us humans to avoid going over 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The issue is that not doing much when it was seen as a big growing problem by science about 40 years ago has get us to this state.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08...-we-have-left/
Quote:
The fastest rate is still from the data of Cowtan & Way, at 1.84 Ī 0.14 įC per century. Thatís somewhere between 1.70 and 1.98 įC per century, so we hit extremely bad between 2038 and 2041. The lowest rate is again from NOAA data at 1.67 Ī 0.1 įC per century, somewhere in the range 1.57 and 1.77 įC per century. We hit extremely bad between 2040 and 2044.

Bottom line: at the rate weíre going, weíll hit extremely bad, possibly intolerable, probably between 2040 and 2045. Maybe a couple years later, maybe a couple years earlier, but itís not far away. Most of you reading this will still be around when it happens. Your kids will be. Weíre headed for a cliff and itís not far away.
Quote:
Thatís at the rate weíre going. So what do we do? Hit the brakes.

That means reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2). We canít stop immediately, that would bring such economic chaos it would also be extremely bad. If we stop immediately itís like hitting a tree; we avoid going over the cliff only to die in the crash.

But if we make a giant effort to increase renewable energy while decreasing fossil-fuel energy (oil, coal, and gas), we can do it. We have to hit the brakes hard because thereís barely enough time to stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I think we can adapt to it just fine. But this point never even gets debated, because it's all a silly argument over whether global warming is actually happening (obviously it is).
Well more ignorance, it has been debated many times before.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/mit...termediate.htm
Quote:
Another problem in this argument is that as shown in the second quote above, the IPCC estimates of the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are "not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as cobenefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation." For example, the cleaner air and water, and associated health benefits that come with transitioning away from dirty high-carbon energy sources save money that the IPCC doesn't take into account. So the costs of avoiding global warming would in reality likely be even less than the estimated 0.06% per year slowing in the rate at which the global economy continues to grow.

Meanwhile, the IPCC noted that the costs of climate damages for just another 2įC warming "are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller" than its estimates. And if we don't take serious steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we'll blow past 2įC warming into uncharted economic damage territory.

Avoiding Global Warming is Cheaper than Adapting

The bottom line is that economists can't even accurately estimate how much climate damages will cost if we fail to take serious steps to slow global warming. On the other hand, taking those steps can have a negligible impact on global economic growth. The IPCC report also makes the point that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become. In determining that mitigating global warming is affordable, the IPCC used the following scenarios.

"Scenarios in which all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, there is a single global carbon price, and all key technologies are available, have been used as a cost‐effective benchmark for estimating macroeconomic mitigation costs"

It's important to understand that our choices aren't to either reduce carbon emissions or to do nothing. Our options are to either reduce carbon emissions or to continue with business-as-usual emissions that will cause accelerating climate change and damage costs beyond what we can accurately estimate. From an economic perspective, and from a risk management perspective, this should be a no-brainer. As economist Paul Krugman put it,

"So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong?"
  #107  
Old 02-11-2019, 12:42 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
GIGO, I'm not denying that prevention would be cheaper over the long term than adaptation. Are you under the illusion that this is how public policy is set in the U.S.? There are a billion things (at least) that would benefit from the "ounce of prevention" approach, from infrastructure to nutrition to economic policies. But that's just not how politics works in the U.S. You can bemoan that, but ultimately doing so means you are on the political sidelines rather than engaging the political system in the ways that do sometimes work.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #108  
Old 02-11-2019, 12:49 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Missed the edit window, but wanted to add:

Jimmy Carter proved this in the late 1970s. He installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, and went on TV in a cardigan and nagged Americans to turn down their thermostats. Ronald Reagan defeated him in a landslide, came in and tore down the solar panels and told Americans they could just go whole hog and not worry about it, and went on to win an even bigger landslide (49 states) four years later. We've got to take baby steps, or the same thing will happen again.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-11-2019 at 12:50 AM.
  #109  
Old 02-11-2019, 12:56 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
GIGO, I'm not denying that prevention would be cheaper over the long term than adaptation. Are you under the illusion that this is how public policy is set in the U.S.? There are a billion things (at least) that would benefit from the "ounce of prevention" approach, from infrastructure to nutrition to economic policies. But that's just not how politics works in the U.S. You can bemoan that, but ultimately doing so means you are on the political sidelines rather than engaging the political system in the ways that do sometimes work.
I'm not under the illusion of fighting your straw man, I was not talking about the politics there, but your ignorance about calling the time we have left a "chicken little" point, and then we got that even more ignorant bit from you about thinking that experts or people in the SDMB never discussed that bit about the adaptation before.
  #110  
Old 02-11-2019, 01:02 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Missed the edit window, but wanted to add:

Jimmy Carter proved this in the late 1970s. He installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, and went on TV in a cardigan and nagged Americans to turn down their thermostats. Ronald Reagan defeated him in a landslide, came in and tore down the solar panels and told Americans they could just go whole hog and not worry about it, and went on to win an even bigger landslide (49 states) four years later. We've got to take baby steps, or the same thing will happen again.
Regarding the politics, I already did mention this before, the history of prohibition shows that baby steps is not how big issues are dealt with in the USA. Only If you lived under a rock it is that you will not realize that currently the pieces are getting into place, and the coming political disaster will befall the Republicans once again for not listening to the evidence.
  #111  
Old 02-11-2019, 01:34 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Absolutely baby steps are how big issues are dealt with in the U.S. There aren't many issues bigger than health care, for instance. First we provided government-funded health care for veterans through the VA. Then seniors got health coverage via Medicare, and the poor were provided Medicaid. Decades later, children who otherwise would not be eligible for Medicaid were the beneficiaries of the CHiP program. Dubya added a prescription drug benefit for seniors; and then Obama expanded Medicaid and provided subsidies for the uninsured. It hasn't gotten us to 100%, but we are a lot closer than if we had not taken any of those baby steps. OTOH, both presidents Truman and Clinton attempted a more sweeping move to national health insurance, and those efforts failed and got us bupkis.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #112  
Old 02-11-2019, 01:54 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Absolutely baby steps are how big issues are dealt with in the U.S. There aren't many issues bigger than health care, for instance. First we provided government-funded health care for veterans through the VA. Then seniors got health coverage via Medicare, and the poor were provided Medicaid. Decades later, children who otherwise would not be eligible for Medicaid were the beneficiaries of the CHiP program. Dubya added a prescription drug benefit for seniors; and then Obama expanded Medicaid and provided subsidies for the uninsured. It hasn't gotten us to 100%, but we are a lot closer than if we had not taken any of those baby steps. OTOH, both presidents Truman and Clinton attempted a more sweeping move to national health insurance, and those efforts failed and got us bupkis.
Of course ignoring again what the Republicans got with prohibition does not lead others to take seriously your absolutist point here, (There are indeed things were baby steps were not taken and now a big move was needed) I should had added that the big things in America do happen because a big disaster takes place, sure they are times when baby steps occur, but you do really live under a rock when you missed what the Republicans tried to get rid of CHip and still think that getting rid of other health steps is a good idea. So baby steps are not a guarantee that we will not get bupkis, we need to get rid of the weakest link.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-11-2019 at 01:57 AM.
  #113  
Old 02-11-2019, 02:22 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
GIGO, your comments are frequently hard to parse, but it sure looks like you are imputing to me some kind of support for Republicans. There is none!

Or maybe you just can’t help yourself, because your script doesn’t have any contingency for debating these points with a Democrat, which is what I am.
  #114  
Old 02-11-2019, 02:56 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
My proposal is to increase renewables in a realistic and reasonable way. We took decades (centuries) to get to 20%. Getting to 50% by 2030 would be impressive.
And not doing so would be a fucking disaster. We do not have a choice in the matter here; it is do or die. You think the GND isn't politically viable? Well come up with an alternative, because we need one.

Quote:
But I don't accept all this millennialist Chicken Little talk about how we're DOOMED if we don't dramatically reverse global warming in the next 12 years or whatever.
Oh right, you're one of those stupid denialist fuckwits who insists that if we bury our heads in the sand everything will be fine despite all available evidence. Fuck you. Fuck you and everything you stand for. Your kids will curse your name.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 02-11-2019 at 02:56 AM.
  #115  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:46 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
No, I am not a denialist. I don't dispute that the earth is warming, nor do I dispute that the cause is greenhouse gases that are a byproduct of industrial civilization, magnified by other gases that are released from the oceans and elsewhere as an effect of that warming.

I just think we have more than enough ingenuity and adaptability in the 21st century to weather it (so to speak), just fine. The world is getting to be a better and better place to live, and I expect that to continue unless a superintelligent AI enslaves/kills us, or someone unleashes nanotech that turns us all into grey goo. Nuclear terrorism could make the world worse too, not so much from the direct effects but from the curtailing of civil liberties in response. So those are legit things to worry about. But if we dodge those, it's going to be a golden age.

ETA: Let's note that BPC just said to someone who has said he is all for substantially increasing renewable energy and imposing a big additional gas tax, "Fuck you and everything you stand for". Now that's how you build a sufficiently large political coalition to get major things accomplished!
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-11-2019 at 06:51 AM.
  #116  
Old 02-11-2019, 07:13 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,814
Well fuck mate, the whole "look at the best evidence available, we need to do something now" route didn't get you on board, so fuck if I know what will.
  #117  
Old 02-11-2019, 07:52 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Well fuck mate, the whole "look at the best evidence available, we need to do something now" route didn't get you on board, so fuck if I know what will.

You're not getting it. Someone who supports going to 50% renewables in ten years and jacking up the tax on gasoline IS "on board", or at least enough so that I'm not your opponent, not the linchpin or stumbling block. Do you really think you can assemble a majority coalition that is entirely to the left of my position? Dream on.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #118  
Old 02-11-2019, 09:22 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You're not getting it. Someone who supports going to 50% renewables in ten years and jacking up the tax on gasoline IS "on board", or at least enough so that I'm not your opponent, not the linchpin or stumbling block. Do you really think you can assemble a majority coalition that is entirely to the left of my position? Dream on.
Thing is that you clearly continue to drink from unsavory sources. Otherwise there is very little explanation of why you come with the intention of ignoring cites that already pointed at how reckless is to continue to assume that adaptation will be easier, cheaper or even politically viable.

This is actually just like the final stages of denial that the Republicans and conservatives are falling for. That we will need to do adaptation is not an excuse to dismiss stronger efforts to mitigate the issue.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-11-2019 at 09:23 AM.
  #119  
Old 02-11-2019, 09:40 AM
andros andros is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Your kids will curse your name.
"Will?"
  #120  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:54 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe Eonwe is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
My proposal is to increase renewables in a realistic and reasonable way. We took decades (centuries) to get to 20%.
What do you mean "centuries"?
  #121  
Old 02-11-2019, 05:31 PM
Mr. Duality Mr. Duality is offline
Luminary
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The High Plains
Posts: 1,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Yes, it is clueless crackpottery that rivals Trump's "land a man on Mars by next Tuesday" proposal in it's disconnect from reality. Let's replace every building in the country! And build new railroads everywhere. But--you know--do it carbon-neuturally! Get rid of all fossil fuels and also cows!
The rails are already there, currently used mostly for freight. Many of the old passenger train stations still exist. The high speed locomotives and passenger cars would need to be procured.
__________________
America- Fuck yeah!
  #122  
Old 02-11-2019, 05:41 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Duality View Post
The rails are already there, currently used mostly for freight. Many of the old passenger train stations still exist. The high speed locomotives and passenger cars would need to be procured.

Freight trains are, as you hopefully know, the most environmentally responsible way to transport goods. Current rules give them priority over passenger trains. Hard to see how that could continue to be true with a massive increase in use for passengers (which I would support BTW: I love Amtrak). I just don't think your plan to simply pile all these trains on the extant tracks is going to work. Not to mention that there are lots of places in the middle of the country that are inconveniently far away from any train tracks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
What do you mean "centuries"?
Whatever, "over a century", since the Industrial Revolution began. More than just "decades", is my point.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #123  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:12 PM
dasmoocher dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Oh right, you're one of those stupid denialist fuckwits who insists that if we bury our heads in the sand everything will be fine despite all available evidence. Fuck you. Fuck you and everything you stand for. Your kids will curse your name.
An old article (06/2017) that I'm sure has been posted in some thread:

Why don't Christian conservatives worry about climate change? God.

A key bloc of Trump's supporters think solving the problem is out of human hands.

Quote:
The United States will withdraw from the Paris agreement on climate change, President Trump announced Thursday. Environmental scientists say the consequences could be catastrophic for the planet. But for some Trump supporters, thereís no reason to worry.

ďAs a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us,Ē Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told constituents last week at a town hall in Coldwater, Mich. ďAnd Iím confident that, if thereís a real problem, he can take care of it.Ē

Among conservative evangelicals, that is not an unusual opinion. Nearly all evangelicals ó 88 percent, according to the Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life ó believe in miracles, suggesting a faith in a proactive God. And only 28 percent of evangelicals believe human activity is causing climate change. Confidence that God will intervene to prevent people from destroying the world is one of the strongest barriers to gaining conservative evangelical support for environmental pacts like the Paris agreement.
See? We don't need to bury our heads in the sand. No. We just need to look up to heaven!

It gets better:

Quote:
When scientists began sounding the alarm over climate change in the 1980s, conservative evangelicals, who had been somewhat accepting of environmentalism in the 1970s, became convinced that the Antichrist would use the fear of climate change to seize power.

...

Economic conservatives downplayed the science or even argued that global warming wasnít actually happening, and premillennialists like Texe Marrs seized on such arguments to accuse environmentalists of perpetuating a hoax in the service of the Antichrist.

...

For Christians like Walberg, globalism is the most dire threat to the United States, not rising oceans and more powerful hurricanes. Just as conservative evangelicals opposed arms treaties during the Cold War, they see environmental pacts, like the Paris agreement, as paving the way for a charismatic world leader to form a global government and begin the seven-year Tribulation that precedes the Second Coming of Christ. Hal Lindsey in 2015 denounced climate change as a scam ďbeing used to consolidate the governments of the world into a coalition that may someday facilitate the rise of the Antichrist.Ē

Trumpís anti-globalism was part of what made him attractive to conservative evangelicals in last yearís Republican primaries and the general election ó and still now as president. Even if Trumpís personal life is an affront to Christian values, his message means that the United States will be standing against the potential forces of the Antichrist.
Reject the Antichrist! Only Trump can save the world!
  #124  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:18 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Yeah, that relates to me (a hardcore atheist and fierce opponent of Trump) real well.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #125  
Old 02-11-2019, 07:16 PM
dasmoocher dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yeah, that relates to me (a hardcore atheist and fierce opponent of Trump) real well.
I wasn't referring to you, specifically, but commenting on certain people who don't think immediate action is needed. Particularly, those who think God will fix it, so why worry about it. Those are the people you should roll your eyes at.
  #126  
Old 02-11-2019, 07:52 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasmoocher View Post
I wasn't referring to you, specifically

Then why did you quote a post attacking me very specifically, including the part about how my kids "will curse [my] name"?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #127  
Old 02-11-2019, 07:57 PM
dasmoocher dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Then why did you quote a post attacking me very specifically, including the part about how my kids "will curse [my] name"?
My bad. The "bury your head in the sand" part caught my eye and reminded me of the article about how God is going to fix climate change. I don't think a person could bury their head any further. Although, it's probably more accurate to say they have their heads buried up Trump's ass.
  #128  
Old 02-11-2019, 08:11 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Fair enough.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #129  
Old 02-11-2019, 08:57 PM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 xenophon41 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 4,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Fair enough.
More than fair, really.

dasmoocher compares you to idiots who have faith in an authority (however moronically interpreted or poorly referenced or ahistorically understood) outside of themselves. You, on the other hand, only evidence faith in your own moronic, poor and ahistoric understanding.

You're being given slack you can't earn by a username and poorly reasoned posts.

Be more grateful to accidental allies, dumbass.
__________________
If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee.
~Abraham Lincoln
  #130  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:01 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Xenophon apparently can't see the irony in those comments, directed at someone who is almost certainly to the left of the median voter on environmental issues. Maybe, as I already suggested to BPC, s/he should consider reevaluating who does or does not qualify as an environmental "ally". As Mark Shields is fond of saying, effective politics involves expanding one's tent and seeking converts, rather than looking to denounce and expel apostates.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #131  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:44 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Xenophon apparently can't see the irony in those comments, directed at someone who is almost certainly to the left of the median voter on environmental issues. Maybe, as I already suggested to BPC, s/he should consider reevaluating who does or does not qualify as an environmental "ally". As Mark Shields is fond of saying, effective politics involves expanding one's tent and seeking converts, rather than looking to denounce and expel apostates.
Nah, you are not an apostate, just a bit ignorant. Again, although you do get very upset, what I have seen from your posts is that you are not relying on what scientists and sources that environmental allies are using nowadays. You really look like if you are constantly falling for fake science and fake "middle of the road" talking points similar from the ones coming from "graduates" of Prager "University".

An investigation of Bjorn Lomborg's claims.
Quote:
Like most Prager University courses, as they're called, this is basically just a five minute video presented here by Bjorn Lomborg: "Do electric cars really help the environment? President Obama
thinks so, so does Leonardo DiCaprio and many others..."

But since the physics of car emissions is a scientific issue, not a political or a thespian one isn't the more important point that scientists think so. [Ding!]

The energy efficiency of cars is not based on the beliefs of left-wing actors and politicians but meticulous scientific studies, so instead of watching the unequal fight of Lomborg taking on obama and DiCaprio let's put him in the ring with some actual scientific research and see how his claims stand up to scrutiny.
Spoiler alert: His claims are shitty.
  #132  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:01 AM
Batano Batano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 438
I think the right way to address AGW is through "pull" not "push". Let's have a moon shot that addresses better batteries to store power when wind and solar are not providing enough power for the demand, new nuclear power designs that are fail-safe, and increased solar cell efficiencies. Back that up with making a better electric grid so we can distribute the power.

When green energy is cheaper than carbon-based energy people will use it. It's like electric cars: they used to be glorified golf carts now they are the quickest cars on the road. Electric motors have full torque at low speeds, so are ideal for pickups and other trucks. It won't be long until the bubbas are bragging about pulling stumps with their electric pickup trucks.

We can do this in the same way that Trump pulled in his support. Make America the THE LEADER in green technology. The first, the best, the innovators. Tell them we are going t make Saudi Arabia's oil reserves worthless.

Telling people we are going to tax the hell out of gasoline isn't going to build support.
  #133  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:26 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Xenophon apparently can't see the irony in those comments, directed at someone who is almost certainly to the left of the median voter on environmental issues. Maybe, as I already suggested to BPC, s/he should consider reevaluating who does or does not qualify as an environmental "ally".
Oh good, you're back to "Hey I'm on your side really" as a defense.

You've stated that you're a racist, that you don't believe that climate change is a big deal, that colonialism wasn't really that bad and that universal healthcare cannot work in America. I think people can decide for themselves whether you're an "ally" or not.
  #134  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:41 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Spoiler alert: His claims are shitty.

Zat so? How about this claim?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle24002168/
Quote:
Our analysis by economists Isabel Galiana and Amy Sopinka shows that phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels would be a phenomenal target. It will slash waste, reduce inequality, and cut CO2 emissions. The economists estimate that every dollar spent (you still need to help the most vulnerable to energy access) will create benefits for society and the environment of more than $15. The billions of dollars that governments could save from phasing out fossil fuel subsidies could be spent on providing better health, education and nutrition, which could benefit hundreds of millions of people.
ETA: Batano, agree with most of that.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-12-2019 at 01:44 AM.
  #135  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:45 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
Oh good, you're back to "Hey I'm on your side really" as a defense.

You've stated that you're a racist, that you don't believe that climate change is a big deal, that colonialism wasn't really that bad and that universal healthcare cannot work in America. I think people can decide for themselves whether you're an "ally" or not.

One distortion, one flat out lie, the rest is wildly exaggerated. Basically, a whole lot of bullshit.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-12-2019 at 01:47 AM.
  #136  
Old 02-12-2019, 04:15 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
One distortion, one flat out lie, the rest is wildly exaggerated. Basically, a whole lot of bullshit.
"You've stated that you're a racist"
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I openly admit to a certain type of racism.
"you don't believe that climate change is a big deal"

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Climate change is real, itís caused by human actions, and itís really NBD in the grand scheme of things.

"colonialism wasn't really that bad"
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
anticolonialists have painted a black-and-white image of the legacy of colonial rule when the truth includes a lot of grey. There was a great deal of advancement of the economy and infrastructure that the British Empire left behind when it voluntarily surrendered rule of its African colonies, including my country of birth Kenya.
"universal healthcare cannot work in America"
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
it strikes me as essentially impossible to imagine that something like this could be created in the U.S., due to political and economic hurdles.
  #137  
Old 02-12-2019, 04:31 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Now this is like debating by staw men. That was not the most important claim that science writer Peter Hadfielf (aka Potholer54) dealt with in the cited video.

And now you seem to have an attachment to defend a sorry guy like Lomborg, (confirming who your sources are).

You seem to not be aware that contrarians do the 'blind squirrel finding a nut' act to mislead guys like you. IOW, seen that before from him.
  #138  
Old 02-12-2019, 07:45 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
"You've stated that you're a racist"

Letís look at the sentence you quoted in context:


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I openly admit to a certain type of racism. But it is a paternalistic one. I donít at all understand racists who hate black people, call them vulgar names, want to subjugate them as farm or domestic workers, or favor separatism.

Iím going to guess your ďIím not a racist, but...Ē acquaintances wouldnít agree with my list of favorite presidents, and would not share my support for reparations for slavery.

Said presidents being Obama, Grant, and LBJ.

But as I said, only one flat out lie. Here it is:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
"universal healthcare cannot work in America"

Ahem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm not adamant that we can't have a universal health care entitlement here. I believe it is a human rights imperative that we do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
We need to do better by our citizens and make access to health care universal. But we need to stop saying Canada is the model to follow. It is not. How about France instead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I already stated it several times upthread: I would push for a universal HDHP/HSA entitlement. [...]
Ideally Iíd also like to end the tax exemption for health plans, but thatís probably not feasible due to the power of the top 20 percent, as I also noted upthread.

Iíll be over here holding my breath awaiting your retraction.
  #139  
Old 02-12-2019, 07:55 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Letís look at the sentence you quoted in context:

Said presidents being Obama, Grant, and LBJ.
That you still believe any of this excuses your racism shows how profoundly ignorant you are of what racism actually is, and how and why it's harmful.
  #140  
Old 02-12-2019, 07:57 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And now you seem to have an attachment to defend a sorry guy like Lomborg,

That’s it: the gay Scandinavian vegetarian who wants to end fossil fuel subsidies is the REAL enemy! Never mind all those fatcats in Texas and Oklahoma: you’ve got apostasy to root out, so your faction can be pure as the driven snow. Never mind if that might make it something less than a majority coalition: you can be smug in your moral superiority, above reproach and above the fray, while others actually run everything.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-12-2019 at 07:59 AM.
  #141  
Old 02-12-2019, 09:06 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That’s it: the gay Scandinavian vegetarian who wants to end fossil fuel subsidies is the REAL enemy!
Now who is being naive when confronted with certifiable guys that do get things wrong and never correct to get a narrative going?

Sorry, that " " was applied to Lomborg first, (Literary, there is a chart and cartoon in the RealClimate *** cite -figure 3- where Lomborg is shown how he got one very crucial bit about ocean rise wrong, and not acknowledging it now is one of the many tactics that he uses to mislead others into thinking that the climate change issue is a "really NBD" camp.)

If you had bothered to check the RealClimate cite and the early video you would had noticed the many misleading talking points Lomborg is involved with. Sure he has political and economic credentials **, but messes even that when he has to press the general idea of his and other lukewarm contrarians that we should not see this as a big deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Never mind all those fatcats in Texas and Oklahoma: you’ve got apostasy to root out, so your faction can be pure as the driven snow. Never mind if that might make it something less than a majority coalition: you can be smug in your moral superiority, above reproach and above the fray, while others actually run everything.
Actually Lomborg is the poster child of guiding others into pipe dreams of complacency. Sure he gets things some bits right, but his repeated and never acknowledged errors that he makes in pursuit of his NBD message shows that he is what me and many others report: Just one of the late stage deniers that is only good by acknowledging the issue *, but a lousy one to follow as he is certifiably worse in his mistakes than Ocasio-Cortez is.






* In fact years ago Lomborg was torn to pieces in a few early discussions about climate in the SDMB, as noted, he is not being shredded for being an apostate, he was shredded for getting things wrong or for lying many times before.

https://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg
Quote:
Background

BjÝrn Lomborg is a political scientist, economist and the founder and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC). Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) was founded in 2006 in Denmark and registered as a non-profit organization in the United States in 2008. The center has attracted more than $4 million in funding since 2008. A DeSmog investigation found that the CCC received at least $200,000 in 2013 from “vulture capitalist” Paul Singer’s charitable foundation. [2], [1], [86]

According to his website, Lomborg.com, Bjorn Lomborg is also a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He received his Ph. D. in Political Science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994. [1]

Lomborg is best known as the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, two books that downplay the risks of global warming. Despite these publications, Lomborg does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles on climate change.
Quote:
Lomborg's Errors

Lomborg's errors in his discussion of climate change have been documented by many sources including A 2010 book published by Yale University Press titled The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight About Global Warming.

Lomborg-errors.dk is a website focused on documenting his errors, although it does not appear to have been recently updated. It also maintains a timeline documenting the events leading to Lomborg's fame, and how he is regarded among his fellow Danes. [4]
So, yeah, I will have to insist here on a very basic question: Who or what source told you to follow that misleader?




** Really, Lomborg's background is in political science and some economics, he is not a climate scientist.




*** RealClimate BTW is made by real climate scientists.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-12-2019 at 09:07 AM.
  #142  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:56 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Letís look at the sentence you quoted in context:
You admit you're a racist, but you reckon that's ok because you think you're racist in a good way. Yeah, you can get straight to fuck with that nonsense.

Still, some progress made. You've not tried to defend the fact that you think global warming is no big deal, and that colonialism wasn't that bad.

So let's get onto the one you want to try to wiggle out of. You're "not adamant that we can't have a universal health care entitlement here". You just dismiss the Canada model out of hand, say that the UK model won't work, and then go on to dismiss any other model on the ground that for some reason the US can't possibly achieve the same economies of scale that everywhere that's implemented it has achieved.
  #143  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:17 PM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
the gay Scandinavian vegetarian who wants to end fossil fuel subsidies is the REAL enemy!
See, I'm trying to work out if this fallacy is more of a non sequitur (on the grounds that the person's sexual preferences, nationality and diet have absolutely no fucking relevance here) or an ad hominem (as I'm guessing you're trying to imply that the fact that he's gay, Scandinavian and vegetarian make his argument more worthy. It's a relatively little known fact that "to the person" fallacies don't just mean negative traits)

Either way it's complete fuckwittery, but what's new there.
  #144  
Old 02-12-2019, 04:55 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Gary, people have from time to time accused me of trying to make these Pit threads all about me. I always counter that I'm just responding to others who are flinging their shit at me like monkeys in a cage. Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.

You really need to examine your priorities, in the age of Trump and McConnell (thankfully no longer of Ryan), when you relentlessly attack someone who always votes Democratic; who gives money (from his limited supply) every two years to the DCCC, DSCC, the state DFL, and to various individual Democrats running in competitive races; and who also volunteers for GOTV every two years, knocking on doors and calling people to exhort them to go to the polls and cast a DFL ballot. Someone who vociferously opposes virtually every GOP proposal or initiative. Seriously, Mark Shields is right once again about Democrats and circular firing squads.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-12-2019 at 05:00 PM.
  #145  
Old 02-12-2019, 05:04 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Gary, people have from time to time accused me of trying to make these Pit threads all about me. I always counter that I'm just responding to others who are flinging their shit at me like monkeys in a cage. Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.

You really need to examine your priorities, in the age of Trump and McConnell (thankfully no longer of Ryan), when you relentlessly attack someone who always votes Democratic; who gives money (from his limited supply) every two years to the DCCC, DSCC, the state DFL, and to various individual Democrats running in competitive races; and who also volunteers for GOTV every two years, knocking on doors and calling people to exhort them to go to the polls and cast a DFL ballot. Someone who vociferously opposes virtually every GOP proposal or initiative. Seriously, Mark Shields is right once again about Democrats and circular firing squads.
Virtually every, other than ones dealing with healthcare, the environment, or racial equality. Those you rail against, but then, complain that people are disagreeing with you because you claim to be a democrat. It's the usual cop-out for you. "How dare you criticize me for being a racist, I voted for Obama!" (I bet you would have voted for him a third time if you could have, amiright?)

But, you do seem to be enjoying having shit flung at you, so, as you are standing there, covered in shit, well, that means you're winning?
  #146  
Old 02-12-2019, 05:09 PM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You really need to examine your priorities, in the age of Trump and McConnell (thankfully no longer of Ryan), when you relentlessly attack someone who always votes Democratic; who gives money every two years to the DCCC, DSCC, the state DFL, and to various individual Democrats running in competitive races; and who also volunteers for GOTV every two years, knocking on doors and calling people to exhort them to go to the polls and cast a DFL ballot. Someone who vociferously opposes virtually every GOP proppsal or initiative.
Oh good, you're back to "Hey I'm on your side really" as a defense.

As previously pointed out, ad hominem is no better a support for a position than it is a criticism. I could no more give a flying fuck about which party you reckon is yours, your donations, or your volunteering than I could about your nationality, sexuality or diet. You are, by your stated beliefs, a sniveling idiot with delusions of adequacy. If you want to prove otherwise, I suggest you do it by not hiding behind causes you think will make you look worthy.
  #147  
Old 02-12-2019, 05:27 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Virtually every, other than ones dealing with healthcare, the environment, or racial equality.

More bullshit. Please cite the posts where I have supported "GOP proposal(s) or initiative(s)" "dealing with healthcare, the environment, or racial equality". (Hint for you: I didn't say "I support all the proposals floated by people on the left wing of the Democratic Party", only that I oppose virtually everything the GOP supports.)
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-12-2019 at 05:30 PM.
  #148  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:18 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
More bullshit. Please cite the posts where I have supported "GOP proposal(s) or initiative(s)" "dealing with healthcare, the environment, or racial equality".

*crickets*

Yeah, that's what I thought. Your silence speaks volumes.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #149  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:59 AM
Nava Nava is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And in this case it's just ten or fifteen minutes of audio! So it's shorter than any of those other things, and can--again--be consumed while busy doing other things.
Not really, and not with the same level of comprehension I can expect from the written word. If a written text contains a word I do not know, I can look it up easily. If a speech in English contains a word I don't know, or some mumblings, I'm SOL.

I can read an amount of text equivalent to a 15 minute speech in about 2 minutes, so kiss my ass.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #150  
Old 02-13-2019, 08:45 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 22,356
The only thing that puzzles me about this thread is why anyone doesn't have the OP on ignore.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017