Author Topic: America 1st  (Read 74551 times)

Cigarbutt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
Re: America 1st
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2017, 05:58:48 AM »
The issues are perhaps not so clear cut.
Historically, the US has benefitted from isolationism or non-interventionism.
Many vested interests on all sides. What Packer16 refers too:" I also hate to see science highjacked for political & monetary gain.  What you hear is a reaction of the environmental industrial complex" is clearly a factor to consider.
I find that what Mr. Rex Tillerson has said, over the years, concerning policies to reduce emissions (even considering a carbon tax!) is perhaps relevant coming from the CEO of ExxonMobil who has become a key member of government.
I think it is possible to have rational and respectful discussions around these issues.
Maybe, the first step is to determine the validity of the claims.
Are we talking about a "hoax", "myth" or "nonsense".
Link:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
I submit that there is a clear scientific consensus related to human-caused global warming.
Starting from a rational base, we can try to quantify costs and alternatives.
My understanding of the Paris Accord is that it represented a step in the right direction.
Personal note (Latin was imposed on me in high school): the root of the word courage is cor. Cor means heart. That's why heart is coeur in French, corazon in Spanish and cuore in Italian. I like to think that courage is a heart word.



clutch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
Re: America 1st
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2017, 06:10:59 AM »
I believe we need to do something about global warming, as a moral obligation and a potential means to maximize the human race's survival. But the way the Left is trying to convince the rest of the world has become really ridiculous. And I partially blame them for this kind of outcome.

Let me give you an absurd statement from Greenpeace:

"There’s no more debating if climate change is a reality. Scientists agree: the world is getting warmer and human activity is largely responsible."

Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-science/

- The second sentence is basically implying that climate change is a scientific fact because scientists agree. Since when did we accept something as a scientific fact based on consensus? You will notice in the greenpeace page that they describe the greenhouse effect to explain the climate change in Earth. Well, is this hypothesis scientifically proven?

One should easily recognize that there is no way we can prove such a claim. One would have to create two planets (or equivalent models) in same conditions as Earth, create CO2 driven greenhouse effect on one planet, and show that it significantly contributes to warming compared to the second one. We obviously cannot do this.

So what these "scientists" resort to is a bunch of descriptive statistics such as how much correlation is there (not causation) between CO2 and temperature, how fast is ice melting, how frequent is extreme weather happening ... These can be evidences but they are NOT evidences that can be used to accept / reject the original hypothesis! And yet they throw out a statement like "scientists agree that climate change is due to human activity"? What have learned in their PhD training??

- Then the first sentence: "There is no more debating". WTF! So you use supposedly scientific arguments to establish climate change is a reality, yet you say there is no debate? Any scientific fact should be refutable and tried to be disapproved. Who are you to say there is no more debating? Doesn't this sound like religious extremists saying you should never doubt the holy words or that Earth is flat?

-------------------

Now here is the thing, we don't need to use science to convince people to do something about climate change (I hear rationalists gasping). What we need to do is to frame this issue as an moral issue and convince enough people that caring about our climate is a morally good thing to do. Same as treating others as you want to be treated is a morally good thing to do! These are what I consider as moral truths, different from scientific truths that you validate / falsify empirically, but just as if not more important than scientific truths because they have held together the humanity for millions of years (consider how long scientific truths have been in play in contrast). If you are talking to a religious zealot, tell him/her the story of Tower of Babel or any flood myth to remind them the consequences of human hubris and that climate change is exactly the same story repeating itself again! But Left is in a dilemma because such a way convincing people is archaic and irrational.  ;D And they dug themselves this trap of using pseudo scientific arguments in trying to convince people, while turning their false truth as something that cannot be refuted!

-------------------

Aside: And now I see this...

"France, Italy, Germany defend Paris Accord, say cannot be renegotiated"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-eu-idUSKBN18S6GN

Again, have these people completely turned into totalitarians when it comes to climate (much like saying "there is no more debating") that things cannot be renegotiated?? What if Trump's claims that US is unfairly constrained by Paris Accord are true? (which by the way nobody is mentioning here - Trump wants to renegotiate because the current deal is unfair. There is still a possibility for us to globally agree on something, on a more fair ground.) So because you signed a deal that gets biggest contributions from the biggest player and you are happy with it (same shit going on with NATO, btw), you are forever closed about renegotiating the deal? Well, that sounds very altruistic!





DooDiligence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
  • ♪ 🎶 ♫ ♪ 🎶 ♫
(Healthcare 42.9% - ABC BBH CVS DVA EW NVO) | (BRK.B - 14.8%) | (Media & Communication 12.6% - CHTR CMCSA DIS)

(Drinkers & Smokers 13.8% - ABEV MO) | (Auto's & Oil 10.3% - GPC VDE) | (Tech & Comms 5.5% - AAPL SFTBY)

(%'s held @ MV 9/04, excludes $)

[prepared 2 wait?]

https://twitter.com/tunawish

jeffmori7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
Re: America 1st
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2017, 06:25:26 AM »
I believe we need to do something about global warming, as a moral obligation and a potential means to maximize the human race's survival. But the way the Left is trying to convince the rest of the world has become really ridiculous. And I partially blame them for this kind of outcome.

Let me give you an absurd statement from Greenpeace:

"There’s no more debating if climate change is a reality. Scientists agree: the world is getting warmer and human activity is largely responsible."

Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-science/

- The second sentence is basically implying that climate change is a scientific fact because scientists agree. Since when did we accept something as a scientific fact based on consensus? You will notice in the greenpeace page that they describe the greenhouse effect to explain the climate change in Earth. Well, is this hypothesis scientifically proven?

One should easily recognize that there is no way we can prove such a claim. One would have to create two planets (or equivalent models) in same conditions as Earth, create CO2 driven greenhouse effect on one planet, and show that it significantly contributes to warming compared to the second one. We obviously cannot do this.

So what these "scientists" resort to is a bunch of descriptive statistics such as how much correlation is there (not causation) between CO2 and temperature, how fast is ice melting, how frequent is extreme weather happening ... These can be evidences but they are NOT evidences that can be used to accept / reject the original hypothesis! And yet they throw out a statement like "scientists agree that climate change is due to human activity"? What have learned in their PhD training??

- Then the first sentence: "There is no more debating". WTF! So you use supposedly scientific arguments to establish climate change is a reality, yet you say there is no debate? Any scientific fact should be refutable and tried to be disapproved. Who are you to say there is no more debating? Doesn't this sound like religious extremists saying you should never doubt the holy words or that Earth is flat?

-------------------

Now here is the thing, we don't need to use science to convince people to do something about climate change (I hear rationalists gasping). What we need to do is to frame this issue as an moral issue and convince enough people that caring about our climate is a morally good thing to do. Same as treating others as you want to be treated is a morally good thing to do! These are what I consider as moral truths, different from scientific truths that you validate / falsify empirically, but just as if not more important than scientific truths because they have held together the humanity for millions of years (consider how long scientific truths have been in play in contrast). If you are talking to a religious zealot, tell him/her the story of Tower of Babel or any flood myth to remind them the consequences of human hubris and that climate change is exactly the same story repeating itself again! But Left is in a dilemma because such a way convincing people is archaic and irrational.  ;D And they dug themselves this trap of using pseudo scientific arguments in trying to convince people, while turning their false truth as something that cannot be refuted!

-------------------

Aside: And now I see this...

"France, Italy, Germany defend Paris Accord, say cannot be renegotiated"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-eu-idUSKBN18S6GN

Again, have these people completely turned into totalitarians when it comes to climate (much like saying "there is no more debating") that things cannot be renegotiated?? What if Trump's claims that US is unfairly constrained by Paris Accord are true? (which by the way nobody is mentioning here - Trump wants to renegotiate because the current deal is unfair. There is still a possibility for us to globally agree on something, on a more fair ground.) So because you signed a deal that gets biggest contributions from the biggest player and you are happy with it (same shit going on with NATO, btw), you are forever closed about renegotiating the deal? Well, that sounds very altruistic!

The problem is that you don't get the science. You should just talk to climatologists or physicists about that. You don't need a second planet to prove that a gas like CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will trap heat. What is complicated is the sensitivity in the response of the whole system to this increased amount of energy stored in the system. Models are getting better and better, there are of course uncertainties, but this doesn't validate the output at all, just give you a range of output. But all the models point toward the same direction, and we don't want to test the whole thing to see if the extreme events will happen.

Oh, and once again, science has nothing to do with left or right. People could debate on the way to tackle climate change, but could we at least agree to work in the same direction?

Paarslaars

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: America 1st
« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2017, 06:32:54 AM »
Don't worry guys, our planet will be fine!
It just won't be habitable anymore  ;)

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
Re: America 1st
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2017, 06:34:38 AM »
Oh, and once again, science has nothing to do with left or right. People could debate on the way to tackle climate change, but could we at least agree to work in the same direction?

Well the thing is we shouldn't try to "tackle" climate change at this point in our development as a species. We are a monkey in an airplane, have no idea what we are doing. It's likely the largest influence on climate is outside of human control anyway so we should stop spending so much energy and economic output on climate and just collect data for a few hundred years.

But yes, scaring people with fake apocalyptic tales to get power over them is so damn easy how can they resist ....
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

Desert_Rat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: America 1st
« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2017, 06:38:59 AM »
If it economically cheaper then why are subsidies required to support the technologies?  I am all for the cheaper sources winning but the actual spending of dollars that benefit primarily the rich & fund an industrial complex are my main issue.  If it is that cheap let the market decide when to make the switch without tax payer assisstance.

Packer

Should we start by removing all the subsidies for coal, oil, and gas?  Your doing partial economics. 

Its fine by me, if the US wants to bypass all future tech. development and let the rest of the world profit from it instead.  If someone doesn't rein this idiot in, then the US will find itself behind the 8 ball a few years down the road, when it gets screwed over by everyone else. 

This outcome is beyond appalling.  Fortunately, there are others in the US, corporate, and government who are going to circumvent this nonsense.  It wouldn't surprise me if a few states and mayors decided to go it alone or together and go to climate talks without the US. 

Anyone who supports this should be aware that Trump doesn't actually read or know anything.  95% of the government positions go unfilled.

There is really no such thing as oil subsidies, but if you want proof of how extreme CE subsidies are just look at Musk's bank account. I'm off-grid which means I don't pay a dime for power. For those savings my govt reimbursed me 30% of entire project, which means me - a well off Texan - received money from unemployed folk so I could have more. It's preposterous.

I'm thinking of buying an electric car so I can rake the unemployed of another 10 grand.

Jurgis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4072
    • Porfolio
Re: America 1st
« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2017, 06:40:52 AM »
Toxic threads like this is why CoBF is dying.


And screw Trump and his nationalist racist dark-age idiot supporters!

We shall overcome!
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 06:43:03 AM by Jurgis »
"Before you can be rich, you must be poor." - Nef Anyo
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"American History X", "Milk", "The Insider", "Dirty Money"

jeffmori7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
Re: America 1st
« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2017, 06:42:30 AM »
Oh, and once again, science has nothing to do with left or right. People could debate on the way to tackle climate change, but could we at least agree to work in the same direction?

Well the thing is we shouldn't try to "tackle" climate change at this point in our development as a species. We are a monkey in an airplane, have no idea what we are doing. It's likely the largest influence on climate is outside of human control anyway so we should stop spending so much energy and economic output on climate and just collect data for a few hundred years.

But yes, scaring people with fake apocalyptic tales to get power over them is so damn easy how can they resist ....

Are you implying that many scientists are not understanding what is happening and that you don't benefit from science in your life? Because you can't cherry pick what you like or not about science...
 
This eternal argument that scientists are doing that just to get power or money is so ridiculous. I think most non-scientists don't get that most scientists are working on interesting topics first for the pleasure of finding things out like would say Feynman, just to understand the world we live in.

I will stop discussing this here as I am quite disgusted by the short-sighted view of so many...what a sad world we live in.

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
Re: America 1st
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2017, 06:43:38 AM »
These threads should be limited to 1 post per user - say your piece, and get out. (this is my 3rd post :D )
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | cash