Like I said - same schtick.
Regards,
Shodan
Sure didn’t help. Your point?
It should, but unfortunately when one looks at how places like France did it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
Oh no! People respecting scientists? “Big Government intervention!!” (Scary quotes) Education! Standards! (A lot of the people that live around nuclear energy plants are part owners or get breaks in energy costs, that and other efforts by the government smell a lot like socialism, not good for conservative narrative purposes.)
You tell me when the current conservatives (specially in congress) will change their tune on those subjects, then I can tell you that it can go to the forefront. I do agree that Nuclear is very important and it was still a part of the Democrats plan to deal with the issue. But just like with health care the ignorance and ideology are in the way of meaningful progress among the conservatives in power.
That’s not actually what he said:
Have you ever heard the phrase “correlation is not causation”? Nate has:
I don’t see any numbers there. We have three points supposedly cost by Comey.
I’m asking how many points Podesta’s e-mails cost. Your answer would be responsive if I had asked, “Say, did Podesta’s e-mails help?”
My point is: I want to know, so I can judge the relative impact. If Podesta’s emails cost her seven points, then perhaps that should be mentioned. If they cost her 0.25 points, then I can see the attention to Comey and not them.
How many points did Huma’s husband cost with his sexting – which, interestingly enough, ties in to Comey, since the “re-investigation,” was triggered by mails residing on that laptop?
Then I will help you out. The impact of the Podesta Debacle was to drive a deeper wedge amongst the Dems. What else was in there? I couldn’t count the number of FB feeds I saw, screaming about how the Dem leadership had kidnapped Bernie’s cat, and so on and so forth. From some internet site that you cannot find on Google.
Latest intel suggests it was the Russians. Not all that sure about that, perhaps they just unleashed it, and somebody else exploited it. But they did, and big time, downtown. The margin of votes that turned the sacred Electoral College (Blessings and peace be upon it…) was skinny as hell, either this or the Comey intrusion might have been enough all on its own. Together?
Besides which, its a classic Bricker move: Let’s not talk about your point, what about this other thing, over here. First hundred times, may work, after that, well…
I’m not following your point. Are you saying that nuclear power isn’t in the forefront because of conservatives? I don’t think that’s accurate.
Cite. If liberals are so pro-scientist and pro-big government intervention, and conservatives are not, why does conservative support for nuclear power exceed liberal support by so large a margin?
Regards,
Shodan
The only number in this post is “five hundred,” so I assume your answer is that the Podesta e-mail reveal cost the Clinton campaign 500 points, making the effect of the Comey actions (3 points, you recall) negligible at best.
Thanks, good to know.
One of the examples of an issue in which liberals, on average, are more likely to be on the wrong side of science. Vaccines are another, I think. GMO foods are a third.
“Five hundred” does not appear in my post. Wanna try again?
Sorry. “Hundred.”
I assume your answer is that the Podesta e-mail reveal cost the Clinton campaign 100 points, making the effect of the Comey actions (3 points, you recall) negligible at best.
Good to know.
Besides the points of why in practice the Republicans self sabotage, I also do take into account that when I see polls of the level of opposition to Nuclear power the results are usually of 60% or higher opposition to nuclear plants or dumps. Every time I check I also notice that usually in polls self described liberals barely make a third of the population, like 30%.
The point here is that unless a super majority of the people became liberal when polling or voting for nukes in their localities, it means that most currently belong to the NIMBY party and it does include many conservatives.
And I already did look at your counter point about liberals regarding science, I already do know about the issues with GMO’s and vaccines, but once again, NIMBY is the main problem there too. In the issue of vaccines even I realized that a good percentage of anti-vaxxers are liberal, but the important thing is that recently several leaders of the Republicans came up with the idiot ball; and worst of all, the President of the USA is it now.
Only mention of “hundred”, then, is in reference to you. And you are not Comey nor Podesta.
You know what, forget that. Yeah, you got me, Counselor. No question, that quote is a definitive statement that the Podesta e-mails cost HRC one hundred points of support. Sure. What the hell. Birds gotta swim, fish gotta sing.
No sensible reading of 'Luci’s post could possibly lead to the inference you draw. You are certainly well aware of this. IANAL but I believe your post may be reportable on related grounds.
Would it be sensible to say
- Hillary would probably (75%?) have been elected without Podesta’s blunder.
- Hillary would probably (65%?) have been elected without Comey’s treason.
are both viable. The precise numbers (75%?, 65%?) are off-topic – I show arbitrary guesses. (Was Podesta’s blunder a prerequisite to Comey’s treason? I don’t follow all these distractions.) HTH.
Yet you harp on this trivia, and insult **Mr. 'Luci **, putting words in his mouth you know he did not say. Why the anger?
Are you saying that this is the case in the poll I cited? If so, could you please cite your figures?
I am still not following you. If a super-majority of people become liberal when polled about nuclear power, and liberals support science and government subsidies and PR campaigns and nuclear power, then why don’t we have science and government subsidies and PR campaign and nuclear power?
Or put it this way - please name a nuclear power plant that liberals supported but conservatives opposed.
Regards,
Shodan
Sure it does, and I tried to be clear on that point. Any situation in which business as usual is unsustainable – whether it’s habitually spending more than you earn or whether it’s failing to reduce harmful emissions – is a situation that is unlikely to continue in the long term, even if it’s familiar practice today, simply because it will ultimately self-destruct, though hopefully before then even the most obtuse will understand that it needs to be corrected. This is what happened with DDT, with tetraethyl lead, and to a successful degree with the sulfur emissions leading to acid rain.
As I tried to make clear in the part that you quoted, I don’t think the extreme case of an increase of 8.5 W/m**2 in radiative forcing by 2100 is likely “only because I believe that the US and the rest of the world, including China, can and will do better than the travesty that Trump & gang are presently laying out, but I do think it’s a fair statement that there are many elements of RCP8.5 that make it closer than any other RCP to what would happen if reckless Trump-like disregard for emissions reductions and low-carbon technology continued for many years and other countries followed suit.”
More on this in my comment about coal, below.
I’m referring to the “business as usual” being proposed by Trump and friends, which is aligned with many elements of RCP8.5 in that it fails to curb emissions and continues the trajectory of emissions increases, proposes increases in coal use and in fracking for oil and gas, and has rolled back emissions regulations on power plants, the largest consumers of coal and collectively one of the nation’s biggest polluters.
I don’t know what would give you the impression that the goal is to get the world to “spend” anything, though certainly it might get stated in terms of cost estimates; the goal is actually to avoid a climate catastrophe. I would certainly agree that it’s counterproductive to misrepresent improbable extremes as likely outcomes, but I haven’t seen the IPCC or the NAS or any other responsible organization doing that – in fact, they go to great lengths to avoid making either predictions or prescriptive recommendations altogether, which is why the four RCPs were created in the first place: to decouple the science from the policy making. What I said above is that the current administration’s complete abandonment of any mitigation measures and urging an unrestrained embrace of fossil fuels including coal is, in fact, aligned with some of the key assumptions in the worst-case climate scenario. If they or like-minded politicians hang around long enough, and other countries follow similar policies either because their politicians are equally misguided or because they think they have to in order to stay competitive, then the worst-case scenario becomes a lot more likely.
I agree, and so do many climate scientists:
… there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.
:rolleyes:
That’s certainly an interesting perspective.
I’m faced with a claim that Comey’s influence cost three points. I asked how many points other events cost, and elucidator answered. The only number in his post was ‘hundred,’ and my response to him was intended to highlight the fact that he never answered that question with a number.
Now, you must be aware that “treason,” is not applicable here. Yet you harp on that word and insult Mr. Comey. Why the anger?
This seems contradictory. Something can’t be unlikely to occur and simultaneously closer than any other RCP to what would happen. Nevermind the fact that RCP8.5 and others existed well before Trump was elected. Of the four scenarios, which do you think is most likely? Of the four scenarios, what percent chance do you think each has to coming to pass?
Unless RCP8.5 is high, or the highest, it’s misleading to focus discussion on that unlikely scenario. It’s foolish to couch discussion in terms of what Trump would do. And while IPCC may be careful to describe the scenarios as theoretical outcomes for discussion, the way the predictions play out in most discussion is that the impact of global warming is some kind of known quantity where really it would be much more accurate to describe the potential impacts in terms of percent chance of type of outcome. So what percent chance do you think RCP8.5 has? Because if it’s 75% then holy shit I’m worried and if it’s 0.0001% then it’s just noise. Understanding what that percent is is critical before discussing the potential ramifications of a scenario that may never come to pass.
Business as usual cannot be worst case scenario. That’s the mistake I’ve been pointing out. Sure, if all the countries decided to have a huge dumpster fire and burn all the coal they could possibly find just for shits and giggles, then shit will get bad. That’s not business as usual, it’s scare mongering.
Oh, please. A century-plus of concrete evidence for evolution and a ton of conservatives still believe in Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. :smack: