US Politics Thread 2016-2020 - Page 202

Mr Quatro · 06-01-17, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Yes, I noticed that particular trait in you a lot.

06-01-17, 11:24 PM

Well, words fail me when I read something like above.
And honestly, I don't think I can be blamed for it.
I thought about investing the time to tell you what's wrong about it, but I could also try to ask the sun not to shine...
Fortunately, sometimes an emoji says more than enough.

Dowly · 06-02-17, 01:10 AM

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson

To those "on the fence" about climate change, I heartily recommend to watch Potholer54's series on it.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Skybird · 06-02-17, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson

While I see what he wanted to aim at, this statement, set up in this wording, is wrong, is misled. Science creates no truths, but theories. And no matter how well-founded in evidence and empirical data a theory is - it never reaches a probability of 100%. Only if you have a theoretically unlimited ammounts of retests done - which is impossible to achieve - you could claim that it is a truth (has a 100% likelihood to state an existing, undeniable fact).

True would be a statement like The good thing about math is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. Whether or not 2+2 is 4, is no question of believing this or that - you can prove it.

One thing about scientific theory building is best said in radical constructivism, in the words of the famous Paul watzlawick: "Die Wirklichkeit wird von uns weniger ge-funden, als vielmehr von uns er-funden." (We do not so much discover reality - we invent/create/construct it). A theory is all that science produces - no absolute truths. No final, last, absolute realities. Still, if the theory is so far well-founded in emircal evidence and restest and offers solid explanatory potential, it is not justified trying to ridicule or minimise it by formulating like you can often hear from religious zealots who say somethign like "But evolution is only a theory!" Everything science says, is theory. And still it can be a million times better founded in empiry and argument than just claiming some esoteric hear-say.

-----

Trump cannot differ between climate and weather. The first is longlasting by trends and hyper-regional, the latter is short lasting and local. Idiot.

However, the climate change research is seriously haunted by flaws, thinking commands, corruption and wealth redistrubutuon efforts as well. Unfortunately the whole academic world is heavily infested with corruption and manipulated "studies". This is especially true in fields of power-political and sociological relevance. Global wealth-redistribution, education, psychology, and gender-joking are such areas.

Point is: I take it for granted that our climate is getting warmer. And still I do not care for this Paris freak show. We adapt, or we don't. Thats what it is about. 2.0 or 1.5 or 1.673 degrees as a limit - I laugh about this approach.

Trump'S No may or may not have consequences. As I already indicated, climate is nothing that lasts short, but is a long-lasting thing, and it changes slowly only, is hard to be influenced in the one or the other direction on the temperature scale. If Trump is gone one day, the US will or will not stick to his policy to refuse Paris agreements. If the US gets rid of Trump in 8 or 4 years (or 3 or 2 or 1 years, for that matter), and the next government does not follow in his climate policy trail, then Trumps No will have meant nothing and will not leave a foot trace in the histoy of climate change. If the Us however follows this rejection of climate protection policies for decades to come, then it will leave a signature in climate history, obviously.

I do not think that the No will stand for much longer than just Trump'S reign. The world, trade partners will let the US feel its disgust - in trade and financial investments withdrawn. Its not as if the US economy is as autark and independent as Trump seems to think it is(which means nothing else than that other competitors offer products that world market asks more for than for American products - become competitive again, America - fairness or unfairness have nothing to do with it all).

And if you look at European poltics and recent German foreign diplomacy and state visits, you can see that the rest of the world will not just leave to itself the vacuum left by the US, but will fill it up with candidates ready to take over where America left: India, and China.

06-02-17, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ So there is no global warming. Says Trump, and China. All made up.
99,9 percent of evidence is not the truth.

China said there is no global warming?
I doubt that...considering that they are aboard and just criticized Trumps latest stunt. I mean, if even China points out what a bad idea that is... it should really ring a bell. But it doesn't, as we can see.

Make America great again durr!

Catfish · 06-02-17, 02:50 AM

lol not again, sorry for deleting.
Trump said that CHina made up the hoax of a global warming. I am sure that China did not invent this as a hoax, of course. Because Beijing, but not only.
No i meant China can say what it wants, and sign treaties, but does not act accordingly.

edit: i see it a bit more relaxed than a year ago. The witdrawal will last for four years. Thinking globally and acting locally also has its merits.

Von Due · 06-02-17, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

While I see what he wanted to aim at, this statement, set up in this wording, is wrong, is misled. Science creates no truths, but theories. And no matter how well-founded in evidence and empirical data a theory is - it never reaches a probability of 100%. Only if you have a theoretically unlimited ammounts of retests done - which is impossible to achieve - you could claim that it is a truth (has a 100% likelihood to state an existing, undeniable fact).

True would be a statement like The good thing about math is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. Whether or not 2+2 is 4, is no question of believing this or that - you can prove it.

That can not be said too often, unfortunately. The idea of 100% truth violates the scientific method. Still, this idea that science is about absolutes is strong among many on both sides of the aisle. Another thing that is equally important is how science uses words like "proof" and "evidence". The meanings of those words are very different from "proof" in mathematics or "evidence" in a criminal case, just like the word "if" in mathematical proofs has a different meaning than in every day speech.

As for CC denial, it has multiple sources:
Convenience (it would cost us too much if it is real)
Deceit (out of own interests. I can't keep at what I'm doing if it is real so I'll say to you it isn't real)
The drive to position oneself against the political opposition (man made climate change is fake because Stalin)
Distrust in media that disagrees with one's own views (it was in the WP therefor conspiracy vs Breibart says it's fake so it's fake)
Religion (it is a sin not to show god we are thankful by spending and using all the things right now. Science and climate change is of the devil and in any case, god will give us a new earth once we have spent this one. Equally scary are the ones who see pollution as a holy duty to call for armageddon and a life in heaven) [I can assure you, these people are around]

Throw all of this into your blender and you have one hell of a potpourri.

vienna · 06-02-17, 03:10 AM

An interesting aspect of the Trump argument is his continuing reference to the coal industry. Coal has been faltering for quite some time now and the fault doesn't lay with a Paris Accord or global warming 'fanatics', it lays with the fact coal is steadily becoming an obsolete energy source as a simple result of changing technology. It has become increasingly apparent other forms of energy, many of them renewable, are more economically attractive than coal; it is similar to what has happened to other "old" or "fading" technologies. It is a bit akin to the light bulb: first there was the incandescent bulb, relatively short lived and energy inefficient, costly; then there was the fluorescent light, a bit more longer in life span, a bit more energy efficient, but still, overall, costly; now there is the LED, very long-lived, by multiples of time over incandescent and/or fluorescent, highly energy efficient, by multiples of reduced consumption over incandescent and/or fluorescent, and, because of long-life and energy savings, very much more economical than incandescent and/or fluorescent. Look at all the businesses and local and state governments that have converted from incandescent and/or fluorescent to LED and are reaping savings. The City of Los Angeles has been completing the conversion of all its street lighting to LED and the current and projected savings has been highly impressive; as an added measure to cut costs, the City has also been adding solar panels to the light poles to further reduce the need to draw on power company resources (a particular irony since the City actually owns the local power company). All in all, improving an advancing technology, like the LED, is making some areas of lighting obsolete, for economic reasons, not environmental...

...and what has this got to do with coal? Coal, like incandescent and/or fluorescent lighting, has become an increasingly less desired energy source: it is dirty, requires the need and cost to be mined and processed, requires the need and cost to be transported, requires the need and cost to be stored in a safe manner and in such a way as to not impinge on the lives of those near the storage place, and the need and cost to consume the coal in a safe and clean manner; all in all, coal is a fairly costly and rather troublesome commodity. In comparison, alternative, clean energy sources, particularly renewable sources, are usually almost always built and located in the areas they will serve, obviating the costs of transportation and commodity storage and, since they are more "local", they are not subject to whatever may be the influences on prices of a far away source. There also tends to be less of a negative reaction to being near a, 'solar farm' than being near a coal mine or coal processing or storage locale...

Using the coal industry as a metric in the argument against the Paris Accord and 'preserving' coal jobs is like using the light bulb as an argument to preserve the very few incandescent and/or fluorescent lighting factories still in existence; both are fading, not by jobs going overseas or perceived unfair competition, but, rather by the inexorable fact technology is leaving them behind, much in the same ways CRTs, fax machines, manual typewriters, and a slew of other once familiar and now faded or extinct aspects have met their fate. Coal jobs will continue to disappear as new energy technologies improves and entrenches itself in everyday life. My grandparents continued to use a wood-burning stove and oven for a very long time after gas and electric stoves came on the market, but even they, set in their ways, came around to the fact time and technology wait for no one. The coal industry may seem to have gotten a temporary boost by the pullout from the Paris Accord, but what is going to happen when the domestic market continues to shrink at an increasing rate, and overseas demand decreases as those nations who either have their own coal sources and don't need US coal or are continuing to develop renewable, clean energy sources have no need for US coal? What will happen to all those coal industry jobs? Will the US government have to spend taxpayer dollars to subsidize and support a failing industry, much like the USSR and Red China have done in the past in order to artificially maintain obsolete jobs, or will the smart coal worker need to wake up and realize, if they really want good jobs, they should learn how to work in the newer energy technologies? Will it be socialistic artificial governmental prop-ups or will it be free-market adapt or perish self-determination?...

<O>

Dowly · 06-02-17, 03:53 AM

@Skybird: He doesn't speak of any of that in the quote, but simply states that science/scientific method in general is there no matter what you believe.

We could debate semantics all day long, but I rather not as we both know how science works.

vienna · 06-02-17, 04:08 AM

<O>

Dowly · 06-02-17, 04:21 AM

When in doubt, burn the heretic.

06-02-17, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

When in doubt, burn the heretic.

vienna · 06-02-17, 06:00 AM

Where did you get that footage of a Trump rally?...

<O>

06-02-17, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna

Where did you get that footage of a Trump rally?...

<O>

Bilge_Rat · 06-02-17, 07:34 AM

when it comes to climate change, people don't seem to realise that CO2 emissions have been falling in both the USA and the EU. The big polluters are now China and India:

Quote:

For the most recent 10-year period, U.S. emissions declined by 622 million tons. This represents a 10% decline in carbon dioxide emissions over that time period. Once more, the UK was in 2nd place for this time period with a decline of 139 million tons (down 24% over the decade). China led all countries with an increase of 3.1 billion tons, which represented a 51% increase in China's carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade. India was again in 2nd place with a gain of 1.0 billion tons, but its growth rate for emissions was higher at 83% for the decade.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier.../#3657d3645f48

That is why the Paris accord was such a bad deal.

1. The USA had the highest target for CO2 reduction (26-28 %), but China and India were allowed to increase their CO2 level until 2030!

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india.html

2. The economic cost to the USA could be enormous:

Quote:

According to one report commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation with support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, “the Paris climate accord could cost the U.S. economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040…”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/paris-c...was-a-bad-deal

3. even with all that, the overall climate effect would be marginal:

Quote:

One might argue that this is a matter of life or death, so the sacrifice is justified if it saves humanity. Here’s where the deal really falls apart. According to another study, the Paris deal would shave about 0.2 degrees off warming by 2100. You heard me right. Assuming everything works perfectly according to plan, we could plausibly be trading 6.5 million jobs for a 0.2-degree payoff.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/paris-c...was-a-bad-deal

so the U.S. had the highest targets to meet even though it is no longer the biggest polluter, the biggest polluters could keep increasing their emissions for another 13 years and the accord would have next to no effect on global temperature. The Paris accord is just another bad deal negotiated by Obama.

06-02-17, 02:50 AM	#3021
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 16,897 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	lol not again, sorry for deleting. Trump said that CHina made up the hoax of a global warming. I am sure that China did not invent this as a hoax, of course. Because Beijing, but not only. No i meant China can say what it wants, and sign treaties, but does not act accordingly. edit: i see it a bit more relaxed than a year ago. The witdrawal will last for four years. Thinking globally and acting locally also has its merits. __________________ >^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong.

06-02-17, 03:10 AM	#3023
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,507 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	An interesting aspect of the Trump argument is his continuing reference to the coal industry. Coal has been faltering for quite some time now and the fault doesn't lay with a Paris Accord or global warming 'fanatics', it lays with the fact coal is steadily becoming an obsolete energy source as a simple result of changing technology. It has become increasingly apparent other forms of energy, many of them renewable, are more economically attractive than coal; it is similar to what has happened to other "old" or "fading" technologies. It is a bit akin to the light bulb: first there was the incandescent bulb, relatively short lived and energy inefficient, costly; then there was the fluorescent light, a bit more longer in life span, a bit more energy efficient, but still, overall, costly; now there is the LED, very long-lived, by multiples of time over incandescent and/or fluorescent, highly energy efficient, by multiples of reduced consumption over incandescent and/or fluorescent, and, because of long-life and energy savings, very much more economical than incandescent and/or fluorescent. Look at all the businesses and local and state governments that have converted from incandescent and/or fluorescent to LED and are reaping savings. The City of Los Angeles has been completing the conversion of all its street lighting to LED and the current and projected savings has been highly impressive; as an added measure to cut costs, the City has also been adding solar panels to the light poles to further reduce the need to draw on power company resources (a particular irony since the City actually owns the local power company). All in all, improving an advancing technology, like the LED, is making some areas of lighting obsolete, for economic reasons, not environmental... ...and what has this got to do with coal? Coal, like incandescent and/or fluorescent lighting, has become an increasingly less desired energy source: it is dirty, requires the need and cost to be mined and processed, requires the need and cost to be transported, requires the need and cost to be stored in a safe manner and in such a way as to not impinge on the lives of those near the storage place, and the need and cost to consume the coal in a safe and clean manner; all in all, coal is a fairly costly and rather troublesome commodity. In comparison, alternative, clean energy sources, particularly renewable sources, are usually almost always built and located in the areas they will serve, obviating the costs of transportation and commodity storage and, since they are more "local", they are not subject to whatever may be the influences on prices of a far away source. There also tends to be less of a negative reaction to being near a, 'solar farm' than being near a coal mine or coal processing or storage locale... Using the coal industry as a metric in the argument against the Paris Accord and 'preserving' coal jobs is like using the light bulb as an argument to preserve the very few incandescent and/or fluorescent lighting factories still in existence; both are fading, not by jobs going overseas or perceived unfair competition, but, rather by the inexorable fact technology is leaving them behind, much in the same ways CRTs, fax machines, manual typewriters, and a slew of other once familiar and now faded or extinct aspects have met their fate. Coal jobs will continue to disappear as new energy technologies improves and entrenches itself in everyday life. My grandparents continued to use a wood-burning stove and oven for a very long time after gas and electric stoves came on the market, but even they, set in their ways, came around to the fact time and technology wait for no one. The coal industry may seem to have gotten a temporary boost by the pullout from the Paris Accord, but what is going to happen when the domestic market continues to shrink at an increasing rate, and overseas demand decreases as those nations who either have their own coal sources and don't need US coal or are continuing to develop renewable, clean energy sources have no need for US coal? What will happen to all those coal industry jobs? Will the US government have to spend taxpayer dollars to subsidize and support a failing industry, much like the USSR and Red China have done in the past in order to artificially maintain obsolete jobs, or will the smart coal worker need to wake up and realize, if they really want good jobs, they should learn how to work in the newer energy technologies? Will it be socialistic artificial governmental prop-ups or will it be free-market adapt or perish self-determination?... <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

06-02-17, 04:08 AM	#3025
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,507 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	<O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

06-02-17, 06:00 AM	#3028
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,507 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Where did you get that footage of a Trump rally?... <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

06-01-17, 11:24 PM	#3017
Nippelspanner Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Well, words fail me when I read something like above. And honestly, I don't think I can be blamed for it. I thought about investing the time to tell you what's wrong about it, but I could also try to ask the sun not to shine... Fortunately, sometimes an emoji says more than enough.

06-02-17, 01:10 AM	#3018
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,005 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -Neil deGrasse Tyson To those "on the fence" about climate change, I heartily recommend to watch Potholer54's series on it. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP

06-02-17, 03:53 AM	#3024
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,005 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	@Skybird: He doesn't speak of any of that in the quote, but simply states that science/scientific method in general is there no matter what you believe. We could debate semantics all day long, but I rather not as we both know how science works.

06-02-17, 04:21 AM	#3026
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,005 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	When in doubt, burn the heretic.