Exactly. As I’ve said previously here, I’ve never copped any flak from conservatives from having opinions they don’t like (supporting gay marriage, thinking we shouldn’t lock asylum seekers up in concentration camps on shitty tropical islands, we should be paying out more social security benefits, not less), but I get it all the time from leftists for having opinions they don’t like.
I don’t consider myself a “conservative” (although by SDMB standards I’m one), however I’m not a fan of several leftist aspects.
However, I agree life isn’t fair - my parents reminded me of that constantly.
Sometimes, that means missing out on something you shouldn’t have missed out on (job for which you’re eminently more qualified than the person who did get it, for example), and other times you’re the one having the great outcome (getting a job that pays way above the odds, for example).
It’s also possible, as I do, to think there’s serious flaws with both aspects of an issue. For example, I support the universal human right to seek asylum and I don’t think Australia should be locking asylum seekers up in concentration camps (which is a pretty lefty view to have) - but at the same time, given it’s a matter of public record Australia does this, and asylum seekers typically have to come through at least one other less-shitty-than-the-place-they’re-fleeing-from country, maaaaaybe they should reconsider their decision to make a perilous journey here by boat in the hopes of getting asylum.
The KKK were bigotsed racists first and foremost. They supported segregation and white supremacy, among other deplorable positions. They certainly weren’t all murderers, though some absolutely were while others merely tacit supporters.
American conservatives don’t need to listen to liberals. They’re wearing the crown.
In real life, I’m just happy if I can get a conservative to agree that letting corporations loot and plunder isn’t a good idea and certainly doesn’t resemble some free market ideal, or that sometimes the government is needed to ensure there’s competition, which is one of the features that supposedly makes free markets so wonderful. Arguing the social wedge issues is fairly fruitless in my experience, but liberal economics can be appealing to them. Despite the years of counter-programming, a surprising number of conservatives liked Sanders. You can get a room full of conservatives to cheer for UHC.
Conservatives support abstinence education due to morality, not because they think it’s effective (reducing teenage pregnancies and STDs). Juggling statistics and picking the policy that hits some target goal is the mindset of a managerial liberal and isn’t appealing to a lot of conservatives.
I’m not sure if the premise is correct, but finding reliable abortion numbers for countries where it’s illegal is tricky. The countries with the lowest rates of abortion have liberal policies, like those in Europe. Places where it’s banned are often not very nice places to live, especially for women.
First of all, your rhetoric does you no help in trying to convince anyone who disagrees with you that you’re more right than they are.
Second of all, again, it’s a fight that’s not important to win. Indeed, you’ve won the fight; scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. But insisting that everyone acknowledge that (in order to stop being considered a “drunken monkey”) does you no good, if from a practical standpoint, Secty. Pruitt is still going to rescind all the rules created to reduce the footprint of fossil fuels. That’s why insisting that “conservatives” agree with your claimed “facts” is wasting your time.
I believe anthropogenic climate change is occurring. The magnitude of the future impact is quite uncertain though. Are you willing to bet today’s economic well being on a potential future event that has a 5% chance of occurring? 10%? What % potential of X level of temperature rise are you willing to sacrifice your economic well being for? Or probably more accurate, sacrifice MY well being for?
It’s the folks that imply catastrophe is all but certain that do damage to societal acceptance. Instead of beating the drum that the sky is falling, why not use more accurate descriptors, like, there is an X% chance that carbon ppm levels will reach Y amounts, and here is how that was calculated. The picture doesn’t look so certain after that.
The point I acknowledged is that I share the opinion – this does not transform it into fact.
The idea is not to “increase corporate profits.” The idea is to lower barriers to entry to industry and decrease the cost of production of goods. That’s the up part of trickle-down. And while an individual company may well cut jobs as long as it remains profitable, the general trend is always for a profitable economy to generate more job opportunities over time.
Actual stats don’t show that . . . unless you don’t count immigration-related crime. While overstaying a visa is not a crime, the need to work while not having lawful permission to do so spawns all sorts of document-related crime.
Granted, if those type of crimes are erased from consideration, then the rates are similar.
Sure. I agree that many conservatives have adopted some beliefs that should be dissolved by facts.
Last time I checked the issue has been noted to have bigger odds than that.
I actually noted those calculations being done before. Of course contrarian sources do not bother to report that to many of their viewers or readers.
What one should realize is that this is similar to the days when developed nations decided that it would be better to have clean water and a sewer system rather than having cholera or other diseases killing kids specially.
Eventually the ones claiming that the whole economy was going to collapse by the expense that cities ended up paying for dealing with the issue were shown to be the ones that were the scaremongers.
**Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps can be nearly impossible in today’s America. **
And yet, people do it all the time. About 60% of people born in the bottom income quintile move out of it during their lives. About 4% make it all the way to the top quintile. Could income mobility be better? Sure. But I think we could have a very long debate over how to achieve it.
BTW, twice as many people born into the top quintile wind up in the bottom (8%). So while being born into wealth is the best indicator of remaining wealthy or at least well off for the rest of your life, there are many ways in which people at the top can fall to the bottom, and many ways people at the bottom can rise to the top or at least do better than their parents. Again, 60% of people born into the bottom quintile do not remain there. Very few make it to the top, but lots of people born into poverty make it into the middle class or the upper middle class. I’m one of them.
Without question. Just as some Hillary supporters are deplorable, some Bernie supporters are deplorable, etc. The question is not whether you can find a deplorable person in any large group, but whether ‘deplorables’ is a reasonable generalization of Trump voters (i.e. makes up a significant fraction, large minority, or small majority of them).
If Hillary had said, “There are a small number of real deplorables in amongst Trump voters” it would not have been a controversial statement. Instead, she said, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables”. That’s what, 30 million Americans or so? Do you really think that’s an accurate statement? If you do, do you think that’s a FACT? Or an opinion? If it’s a fact, I’d like a cite.
Trickle-down economics doesn’t work.
I suspect we’re going to get tangled up here in what your definition of ‘trickle down’ is. But in the general sense that lowering taxes and regulations increases economic growth and therefore increases economic opportunity for everyone, I strongly disagree with you. And the evidence is on my side, as the history of low tax, low regulation states is that they generally have higher economic growth and a higher overall standard of living.
Is this universally true? Not necessarily. Nothing in economics is universally true, because economics deals with complex adaptive systems that change over time and have different needs at different times. But as a general principle, a country that has fewer barriers to wealth creation and small business creation and expansion will have a healthier economy and a wealthier population than one that throws high taxes and regulations at its most productive people.
For example, the average income in the U.S. is second highest in the world after Luxembourg. The poverty line in the U.S. is higher than the average global income.
In fact, here are the 10 OECD countries ranked as having the highest amount of economic freedom. The number beside each one is its economic growth rate from 1996 to 2006, the numbers I have available:
Hong Kong (92%)
Singapore (160%)
New Zealand (61%)
Switzerland (18%)
Finland (39%)
Canada (58%)
Australia (70%)
United Kingdom (48%)
Denmark (39%)
Taiwan (122%)
And now the OECD countries with the lowest economic freedom:
Portugal (no data)
Belgium (37%)
Iceland (58%)
France (33%)
Japan (22%)
Spain (51%)
Norway (62%)
Netherlands (41%)
Sweden (39%)
Austria (40%)
The countries ranking as the most economically free (low taxes, low regulation, free financial flows, etc) on average grew 70.7% over those ten years. The countries with the least amount of economic freedom grew only 42% during the same period. That’s a pretty big difference.
Does it PROVE anything? Nope. Each country is unique, and the sample size is small. The measures of economic freedom could be disputed, and we could correct for country size or how low they were starting from. But as a first approximation, it does indicate that trickle down just might work after all.
As another example, we could look at median wages, where you’ll find the same relationship holds with few exceptions: The most free countries tend to have the highest worker wages. The U.S. has a median wage in purchasing power of $43,585. Germany, one of the less free states in Europe, as a median PPP of $33,333. France is worse at $30,364.
So workers in the U.S. have much higher median wages than they do in France, which has many more worker regulations, higher taxes on business, and higher taxes overall.
**In many ways, women’s lives are more difficult than men’s.
And in many ways Men’s lives are harder. Maybe that’s because we’re different?
And it’s not even very clear that women on balance are worse off than men. In fact, if we were to look at various measures of quality of life between the two, we could easily get the opposite picture. For example, more women than men attend college. Women live longer than men (in the U.S. the difference is 7 years. What’s the value of 7 years of life?). Men tend to do the uglier, more dangerous, dirtier jobs. Men suicide about 3.5X as much as women do. Globally, 80% of all homicide victims are men - a ratio that’s similar in the U.S… The unemployment rate is currently higher for men than it is for women. On campus, young male students are assumed to be rapists if a woman accuses them of such, because ‘women don’t lie about rape’. As a result, young men are being expelled from campuses without due process.
Finally, the types of jobs women typically dominate (nursing, teaching, government) are protected and growing in size and income, while traditional ‘male’ jobs such as manufacturing are dying off. So the future looks a lot more hopeful for women than for men in some respects.
But here’s where conservatives and liberals generally differ: Conservatives don’t like playing the identity politics game. We’d rather treat people as individuals, rather than as members of identity groups complete with ‘privilege’ rankings which essentially assume that some people have original sin that must be atoned for, while others do not. I think that is a pernicious, destructive way to look at society.
Abstinence-based sex education isn’t very effective, because many teenagers are naturally horny and simply ignore abstinence advice.
Abstinence only education is stupid. Education that includes birth control but which also points out that sex outside of marriage carries great risks and that abstinence is often the best option is just fine.
There is nothing wrong with teaching people values, even if not all of them follow it. Plenty of them do, and perhaps even the ones that don’t might think twice about one-night stands or other sketchy encounters. But by all means we should be teaching all kids how to get and use birth control.
Man-made climate change is real.
No question. That’s a fact. How bad it will be, how much money should be spent to try to stop it, whether it can be stopped, and whether our predictions are reasonable are all still open questions. The left seems to think that anyone who answers ‘yes’ to the above must also support the panoply of left-wing remedies for it. I happen to think that most of those ‘remedies’ will not work and will only result in a poorer society less able to cope with the economic cost of climate change.
But before Gigobuster shows up and starts hijacking this thread, let’s agree to put a pin in this here. If you want to start another thread about it, I"ll be happy to participate.
Conservatives have “patriotic correctness” just like liberals have political correctness.
The difference is that liberal ‘political correctness’ is constantly in your face, is turning violent, and is a direct threat to free speech. The only equivalent on the right is misguided laws about flag-burning.
I’m in Canada, which has gone down the ‘political correctness’ road a little further than you. Here, you can be punished by the state for not using someone’s preferred gender pronoun, and for engaging in ‘hate speech’. In the U.S., violent protests are shutting down speech the left doesn’t like. Get back to me when conservatives start rioting on campuses and beating on liberals when Elizabeth Warren comes to speak.
**Most immigrants - legal or illegal - have incentive *not *to commit crime while in America. Illegal immigrants, due to their situation, would want to keep a low profile and avoid breaking laws whenever possible.
Most people tend to not want to go to jail either, and yet many do. So I find this to be absolutely specious reasoning. You could also argue that illegal immigrants are poorer, more desperate, and have little to lose. You could also argue that the cohort of people who enter a country illegal are already showing their willingness to break laws when it is to their benefit.
But ultimately, neither of us has a clue what motivates individual people to commit crime, because every criminal is different. And there are a whole lot of arguments for and against immigration, of which crime is only one.
Most regulations exist for a good reason.
Bollocks. At least, you’re going to have to put up some good evidence for that.
In any event, the issue of regulations is far more complex than whether any specific one is a good idea or not. A regulation can be a good idea in isolation, but be counter-productive in practice because of the opportunity cost.
For example, let’s say we pass a regulation that makes lots of sense, and takes the average businessman an hour per week to comply with. If he works 40 hours, that regulation costs him 1/40 of his productive effort. But let’s pass another regulation, equally as valuable. NOW the opportunity cost for that regulation is 1/39, making it more expensive. Keep doing that, and eventually you could have the best regulation in the world, but passing it will kill productivity because it’s eating up one of only two hours left for the businessperson to get his or her job done.
That’s the fundamental problem with regulation: Any individual regulation can be a good idea, but as you pile them on each one gets more and more expensive until the cumulative effect of those ‘good’ regulations is negative.
But aside from that, there are plenty of regulations out there that were put into place at the behest of powerful interests. Regulatory capture is a real thing. Regulations help large companies at the expense of small ones, because regulatory management is a smaller percentage of a large firm’s activities and large firms have dedicated legal departments to handle them. Much regulation therefore has the effect of consolidating the economy towards firms that are big and powerful enough to have the government’s ear, or even to bend the government regulatory system in their favor.
Another entire class of regulations entrench union labor at the expense of non-union labor, or create licensure requirements that have the effect of keeping prices high for incumbent businesses while creating barriers to entry for competition.
Not all regulations are bad, of course. But regulations are like barnacles - they keep growing, and eventually they stifle everything. They’re much harder to kill than they are to create.
Finally, no regulation is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. All regulations have to be evaluated in terms of cost-benefit analysis. A regulation can be ‘good’ if you don’t consider the cost to the economy, but terrible when you do.
**Many U.S. military operations are not about “protecting our freedoms” at all. Not every or even most such military operations have to be about protecting U.S. liberty, but we should stop with the talk about “Our troops are defending our freedoms” and “If you can read English, thank a U.S. soldier” talk, as if an enemy would invade the USA.
**
That’s a highly simplistic view of the purpose of a military. Do you disagree with the U.S. entering WWII? It was under no danger of invasion then either. Like it or not, the U.S. is a global power, and most of its trading partners and allies are oceans away.
The U.S. military helps prevent nuclear proliferation by protecting countries that would otherwise develop nukes to protect themselves. How much is it worth to avoid a world where every 1st world country has its own nuclear weapons?
A world in which the U.S. cuts its forces by 3/4 and stays home is a world that will very soon be much, much more dangerous. Even if it were a good thing to do, ejecting 11 million illegal immigrants from the country is logistically all but impossible.[
Agreed. It’s a stupid idea, and will never happen.
Tax cuts would probably worsen the national debt.
So would spending increases. Are you against those?
And yes, at least in the short and medium term tax cuts reduce government revenue, all else being equal. But if you’re going to have a 500 billion dollar deficit, I’d rather have it by lowering taxes than by spending 500 billion on a useless ‘stimulus’ program that will distort the economy and do little else. Just ask Japan.
On the other hand, I’d rather leave taxes where they are, cut spending, and start getting a handle on the debt.
While outsourcing jobs is bad, in some instances it’s the only thing to do.
Yep. And protectionism is a terrible thing. There are protectionists on both the right and the left. Or have you forgotten about the people on the left who constantly protest globalization and demand an end to foreign ‘sweat shops’ or demand that poor 3rd world countries maintain 1st world environmental and worker protections before we’ll trade with them? That’s just another form of protectionism - often instigated by unions.
The old Rust Belt jobs are not coming back, due to technology and new economic trends.
Maybe, maybe not. Predicting the future is a fool’s game. But you know what other jobs aren’t coming back? Farm laborers. Blacksmiths. Telephone operators. Elevator attendants. Pump jockeys. Haberdashers. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose - the more things change, the more they stay the same. The claim on the left these days is that something fundamental has changed such that we can’t possibly create enough jobs for those people, so they need a permanent living wage or something.
That’s a sure-fire way to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we had a ‘living wage’ movement in the 1930’s, we’d still have millions of people on dead farms living in poverty on government assistance. Or, see what’s happened on native reservations and the inner city to see the results of a permanent welfare mentality. Banning abortion might prevent a lot of abortions, but some women would still get dangerous illegal abortions anyway (the ‘back-alley’ type.)
Of course they would. In fact, there’d be a lot more of them. But conservatives don’t argue that this will never happen. Their argument is that abortion is murder, and not something the state should sanction or fund. Period. I don’t agree with them, but there’s no way to determine who’s correct here, as it gets into the fundamental nature of life. Ultimately, the abortion debate is one of values, not facts. And I’m on your side on that one.
Single-payer healthcare isn’t much different than the concept of health insurance itself (you pay into a pool and the pool pays out patients’ costs,) but might save the country a lot in the long run.
Of course it is. It’s managed by government, and ultimately if the government is paying all the bills, government will make the delivery decisions. Canada’s system is working ok, but with lots of problems Americans never talk about. Britain’s NHS is becoming a disaster.
If you look at the countries in the world with the best health care, very few of them are single payer. Singapore has one of the best, and it’s a two-tier system with mandatory savings but with extensive private care. Even in Canada, our single-payer system has many exemptions (dentistry, prescription drugs, minor procedures, podiatry, etc).
And as noted by you, all of them have all their citizens with access to health care and with better outcomes and less expense than the irrational health care that the USA has.
I’ll be happy to make all notice that you did not read the thread. In any case, as already noted many, many times before; the ones that are claiming that the economy would get to pot by taking care of issues like that one are the real fear-mongers.
When you note these calculations, do you note that you picked the worst possible scenario without indicating either the likelihood of that coming to pass, or how it was calculated? In other areas this would be considered cherry picking.
It’s not about the economy being destroyed or some other hyperbole. But before 1 penny is spent it’s important to note the cost/benefit of the transaction, and that can’t be done without assessing not just the potential impact, but the chance of that potential impact coming to pass. That, and evaluating potential future courses of action, are required at a minimum before significant action should be taken.
Nope, since even the quote mentions that that there are other scenarios and the link does point to those other scenarios. No cherry picking, so stop launching accusations like that. Far from cherry picking, you need to ask yourself why is that your sources did not mention those scenarios and the calculations made years before leading to your incomplete opinion in your early post.
BTW the RSP3-PD optimistic scenario is not likely to happen, but I also do think that the high one can be avoided as many nations are not following the retrograde moves of the current American administration. Still seeing a lot of efforts to sabotage progress in this front in the USA and other countries points to the most likely mid range scenarios.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/RCP_Guide.pdf (PDF file)
We are likely to go over a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and while we can avoid 8 degrees of an increase in the average global temperature in the high end scenario, we are likely to reach an increase of 4 degrees, higher than the 2 degrees of increase that was deemed to be safe or manageable. IMHO we are currently fighting to get contrarians to understand that we should aim to remain below 3 degrees anyhow. As pointed before I do think that we can not avoid disruptive change now, but an important point is that not making better efforts will lead to worse and more expensive results.
The point here is that we can still do better. But the weakest link are the Republicans in congress.
That’s like a C student saying, “Well, my friend who gets Fs never says I have things I need to work on, but my friend who gets As does, so obviously my friend who gets Fs is the one I should be listening to.”
I’m finding it hard to understand what point you’re trying to make, or whether you feel that there is some form of rhetoric perhaps milder than mine that might change the way conservatives think, or change what Pruitt is planning to do. It sure sounds to me like there isn’t, though.
Let me respond by trying to relate it back to your original comment, which was this:
So with respect to those here who are “liberal” and want to see some change in how “conservatives” think, it’s not about the “facts”, but rather about the competing theories of what the purpose of government is, and how that should be applied.
Competing theories of the purpose of government are fine when one is weighing subjective values, like taxation policy. Presumably no rational actor here on either side would endorse any theory of governance whose central principle was based on denial of reality, particularly denial of a reality that is a real threat to our future well-being on this planet. Yet that’s exactly what Pruitt and his boss and his other appointees will do and you’re right about that.
This is not some arbitrary difference in ideology about governance – it’s just reckless pandering to a myopic and ignorant base with serious long-term consequences. If an elected government wants to prioritize the economy over the environment and conduct a scientifically informed assessment of the maximum safe level of continued GHG emissions, that’s one thing. What these guys are doing is denying the very existence of science. These are not measured, considered decisions, it’s just willful ignorance and deliberate public deception.
Actually, the IPCC has been careful to use conservatively phrased judgments and carefully calibrated language to provide as much detailed insight into these issues as possible, particularly with Working Group 2 which deals with the impacts of continued emissions and adaptation scenarios, and WG3 which deals with the options and costs of mitigation. No question that there is uncertainty across multiple dimensions – how bad, how soon, how irreversible, exactly what effects will occur first and where – but no one involved in these investigations doubts that the problem is serious and has to be addressed, and that there are significant points of no return where feedbacks start becoming dominant, like those from a fast-melting Arctic. That’s why the national academies of the major industrialized nations have issued several joint statements over the years as a warning to political leaders that this isn’t something that can be ignored.
As for assessing the potential economic and human life costs of climate change and balancing that against the costs of mitigation, that’s a conversation that’s been ongoing in many countries especially in Europe and was part of the conversation in the Paris accords, and it’s a conversation that many of us would love to see started in the highest echelons of the US government instead of bullheaded denials that any such thing is even real.
No one knows, because one of the biggest uncertainties is the political aspect of mitigation policies. The RCP metric is an attempt to decouple the scientific aspects of climate modeling from the political/economic aspects – it simply takes four possible total radiative forcing values for the year 2100 encompassing high and low extremes and models the climate impacts. The likelihood of RCP 8.5 coming to pass is really a question for the politicians. Given that RCP 8.5 is the only pathway that doesn’t have RF stabilization occurring at or before 2100 – which means significant emissions reductions long before – it can be considered the “business as usual, Trump & Pruitt style” scenario.
Bone, there I was referring to years of experience that tell me that I have seen your positions before coming from many other contrarians and climate change denier sources. I’m frankly not impressed at all with many of those sources that want to hide by claiming that they accept that global warming is happening because at the same time they use the same fear-mongering that other makers of harmful products like Cigarettes have used effectively before.
And yes, I have to still call then deniers because the best and the brightest of them do tell their readers that they are not deniers because they tell you that they accept that the world is warming and we could be causing it, but then no sooner one does hear that fig leaf one notices that they do not correct a lot of what (according to them) are now complete denial reports or sources. And then they go for the next already tried by other groups before card: claim that it will too expensive or damaging to the economy to do something about an issue.
BTW I do see a lot of this with the health care issue in America too.
As for the odds of RCP8.5, I said that if we do continue as usual that would be very likely, but I do think that it can be avoided because a lot of the industry is also ignoring what Trump wants to do.
As NASA points out:
What I see is that the near future warming will continue unless we could make it to the RCP2.6 levels. So, we are very likely to see disruptions (and when I use likely I refer to the odds implied when the IPCC uses the “likely” word, as in higher than 90%). One point that remains still is this:
Looking at the current rates of emissions, we are not likely to see the low scenario, but years from now the reaction to the changes will be such that I do think that the higher scenario can be avoided. I can say that with the current administration we have increased odds of seeing the bad scenarios.
I didn’t know you were applying some kind of collective guilt by association. That’s a weak argument.
This is talking under the assumption that the scenario describe comes to pass - not the likelihood of the scenario coming to pass.
Business as usual in RCP8.5 assumes super high population growth, technological stagnation, low GDP growth, higher energy use, emissions, and increases in world poverty. That’s the “business as usual” - right. Trying to keep this focused on the premise of the OP, sure it’s a fact that man made climate change is real but it’s not very informative nor actionable.
I think similar evaluations of many of the other bullet points in the OP can be had as well, but Sam Stone wrote a very cogent response to each which I will echo instead.
This informative and actionable item was noted in other threads:
Mind you, that is just one of the results of treating the atmosphere like a sewer. And ocean rise is one of the items that is the most likely to hit us sooner than other items like ocean acidification or the increase of droughts and floods in different areas of the planet.
As per the OP, Man-made climate change is real. And just regarding the ocean rise alone, not conductive to keeping jobs in places like Florida.
And please notice that you need to let it go about the RCP8.5, it is becoming clear that you are missing for some reason that I said that “I do think that it can be avoided”. So, so much about your tirade about what I assume.
Well, not an echo I would like to be repeating, I’m not impressed at all with him after so many years of interacting with him too. His reply to the immigrants and crime was a wonder of avoidance and typing lots of words and ended up saying virtually nothing. And no links to check where he gets his information in his other replies.
What do you think this link says? I’m curious why you think this is useful.
You are the one who brought up RCP8.5. If you want to back away from it that’s fine with me. I think it is a good illustration of the disconnect. Here’s how I see many of these conversations going:
Climate change is real, look at these doomsday scenarios like RCP8.5!
Yes climate change is real, but that scenario seems questionable.
You don’t believe in science! Climate denier!
Wut?
It’s not enough to say that bad stuff could happen. The likelihood relative to other events must also be considered. It can be a perfectly rationale analysis to agree that climate change is happening right now and also think there are more important things to focus on.
Related to the point of the OP, and how it is looking as you are missing a lot of things to continue to claim that “the future impact is quite uncertain”, well, on some issues like extreme weather events it is, but in others it is more certain indeed.
Not my problem that you missed a couple of posts where I explained that I expect other scenarios to be more likely.
As some studies point to the increase in drought intensity to be a factor with the Arab Spring that also included Syria, this argument here is one that I have pointed before as “we are not capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time”. Don’t think so.
IMHO what I see is what I predicted years ago about China, even they are beginning to realize that the disruption due to droughts/ocean rise can lead to huge unrest in China. Same it goes to other nations making efforts to control emissions, it is not just because they want to be nice with the world, but because there are many selfish reasons (for a nation) on why it has to be looked at, while focusing on other issues.
In any case, as already noted many, many times before; the ones that are claiming that the economy would get to pot by taking care of issues like that one are the real fear-mongers.