ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th November 2017, 06:59 AM   #201
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,038
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
There’s no need to wait for people in power to make decisions. If we all took it seriously and actually cared, we’d be doing it already. And sure some people are, but again, not nearly enough. We like things the way they are.
If only we had started sooner.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...r-panel-array/

Is Reagan still considered a conservative?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 07:18 AM   #202
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,321
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sometimes doing something is even worse than doing nothing.
Not in this case.
__________________
This space for rent.
In conservative heads!
NoahFence is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 09:27 AM   #203
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,779
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Yes, they do! And most people, at least those who are reality-focused, know that you can’t stop global warming with a doomed-to-fail 4 year scheme to install half a billion solar panels.
You would think those reality-focused people would have noticed that the "scheme" in question wasn't proposed to stop global warming. It’s simply a measure to address it. It’s one step in a long and complicated process.

I'm also have wondering why these reality-focused people think that this "scheme" is doomed to fail. There seems to be a curious lack of reasoning for this bold claim.

And finally, I have to wonder what particular reality they are focusing on when they equate addressing a problem with denying the problem exists.

It’s almost as if these people are more focused on ideology rather than reality.

Quote:
Strawman Alert!
Quite rich, considering how dishonestly you misrepresented the solar panel proposal.

Quote:
I never said that we can’t do anything, so it’s stupid to try…
No, you just take a giant dump on anything proposed to address the problem without actually explaining what’s wrong with the proposal or offering a better one. And then you complain that no one is willing to do anything about it.

Quote:
…only that 1)The things being proposed will not stop anything…
Exactly. The same way an overweight person isn’t going to instantly be in shape after one workout. I guess they should just lie on the floor and wait to die, right?

Quote:
… and 2)We, in general, aren’t willing to do what it would actually take to stop warming.
Only if the “we” in that sentence refers to conservatives.

Last edited by johnny karate; 16th November 2017 at 09:43 AM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 10:04 AM   #204
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,982
The Roy Moore Batcrap Crazy Remark Thread has lots of links to Alabama supporters of Moore denying that he could be guilty
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 10:10 AM   #205
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
The Roy Moore Batcrap Crazy Remark Thread has lots of links to Alabama supporters of Moore denying that he could be guilty
Well, that's better than the, "Joseph married the teenaged Mary" or "It wasn't illegal" defenses.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 02:33 PM   #206
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,526
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Maybe, but not in the case of global warming and removing energy dependence on the Middle East
Depends what the something is.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 02:35 PM   #207
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,526
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Not in this case.
In *every* case, it's possible to take actions that will make the situation worse than if you had taken no action at all.

You cannot simply assert, "we must do something, this is something, we must do this!"
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 02:37 PM   #208
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,503
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
You would think those reality-focused people would have noticed that the "scheme" in question wasn't proposed to stop global warming. It’s simply a measure to address it. It’s one step in a long and complicated process.

I'm also have wondering why these reality-focused people think that this "scheme" is doomed to fail. There seems to be a curious lack of reasoning for this bold claim.
You answered your own question in the first paragraph: "the "scheme" in question wasn't proposed to stop global warming." Maybe it's just me, but I would like measures proposed to address a problem to actually, you know, address the problem. Installing 500 million solar panels is a bandaid that will waste 4 years and billions of dollars all in the name of "doing something." It's theater. We need to do that AND several other things all at the same time.

Quote:
And finally, I have to wonder what particular reality they are focusing on when they equate addressing a problem with denying the problem exists.
Denying the problem and proposing ineffective solutions to the problem both have the same outcome.

Quote:
Quite rich, considering how dishonestly you misrepresented the solar panel proposal.
How did I misrepresent the proposal. Will it effectively address the problem? No.

Quote:
No, you just take a giant dump on anything proposed to address the problem without actually explaining what’s wrong with the proposal or offering a better one. And then you complain that no one is willing to do anything about it.
I take a giant dump on ineffective, unrealistic proposals. And the fact that no one is actually willing to make the changes necessary is just that -a fact. All the people who accept AGW right now are not making the changes even though they know just how big the problem is.

Quote:
Exactly. The same way an overweight person isn’t going to instantly be in shape after one workout. I guess they should just lie on the floor and wait to die, right?
This is actually an excellent analogy. A person who is morbidly obese isn't going to solve their problem by just adopting a workout routine. They can't possibly workout enough to make up for their calorie overload and they can't sustain that over the long haul due to basic human psychology and biology. It would take a complete lifestyle change: the way the eat, their activity level and the way they think about things. Thus, we cannot solve the nation's obesity problem by simply installing more gyms around the country, You could say, "Hey, we are doing something!" But you aren't really doing anything because nothing is going to change.

Only if the “we” in that sentence refers to conservatives.[/quote]
Ah, because the liberals are all driving electric cars, installing Tesla roofs and batteries, buying only sustainably produced food, keeping their population down, making sure reforestation is actually happening . . .
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 03:54 PM   #209
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,779
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You answered your own question in the first paragraph: "the "scheme" in question wasn't proposed to stop global warming." Maybe it's just me, but I would like measures proposed to address a problem to actually, you know, address the problem. Installing 500 million solar panels is a bandaid that will waste 4 years and billions of dollars all in the name of "doing something." It's theater. We need to do that AND several other things all at the same time.

Denying the problem and proposing ineffective solutions to the problem both have the same outcome.

How did I misrepresent the proposal. Will it effectively address the problem? No.

I take a giant dump on ineffective, unrealistic proposals. And the fact that no one is actually willing to make the changes necessary is just that -a fact. All the people who accept AGW right now are not making the changes even though they know just how big the problem is.

This is actually an excellent analogy. A person who is morbidly obese isn't going to solve their problem by just adopting a workout routine. They can't possibly workout enough to make up for their calorie overload and they can't sustain that over the long haul due to basic human psychology and biology. It would take a complete lifestyle change: the way the eat, their activity level and the way they think about things. Thus, we cannot solve the nation's obesity problem by simply installing more gyms around the country, You could say, "Hey, we are doing something!" But you aren't really doing anything because nothing is going to change.

Only if the “we” in that sentence refers to conservatives.
Ah, because the liberals are all driving electric cars, installing Tesla roofs and batteries, buying only sustainably produced food, keeping their population down, making sure reforestation is actually happening . . .
So much garbage to wade through...

It all boils down to your repeated and errroneous assumption that an incremental change reperesents the solution as a whole, and your repeated and baseless assertions that these changes are ineffective.

And this is all just a smokescreen to distract from your ridiculous claim that people who seek to address a problem are equally out of touch with reality as those who deny the problem's existence.

Last edited by johnny karate; 16th November 2017 at 03:56 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 03:58 PM   #210
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Depends what the something is.
Obviously that is trivially true, but it's also a silly statement in this case.


For example building 100 Chernobyl class nuclear reactors on earthquake and tsunami zone regions would probably cause more problems than they solved.

Building "clean coal" plants based on unproven technology isn't likely to help.
If you are talking about doing something along the lines of what was being proposed then doing something is better than nothing.

Massively ramping up renewable energy production especially solar and wind is likely to further reduce the costs of solar and wind as there'd be more capital investment in manufacturing as well as efficiency improvements. Regardless of the impact on global warming it would reduce local pollution and probably improve grid resilience (see Puerto Rico).

It also would have an effect on reducing US greenhouse gas emissions, which are some of the highest per capita emissions in the world.

From a political point of view, that would make it easier to persuade others to reduce their own emissions, as well as promoting the technology to do so whilst still having economic growth.

In this case, doing something is better than nothing.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 04:17 PM   #211
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,760
Quote:
Why aren’t we talking about effectiveness ?
Because the subject of the the thread is conservative rejection of reality. That's laid out in the thread title, which can be found towards the top of the page.

Quote:
What is the point in doing something when that something isn’t going to result in a positive outcome.
In your opinion, based on personal incredulity.

On the one hand we have the manifest reality of AGW, which many conservatives flat out deny exists. On the other we have the manifest unreality of your projection of the US in 2020, which I deny exists. There is not the remotest equivalence between the two.

You claim that half a billion solar panels are meant to "solve global warming" when in fact nobody claims that US domestic policy can solve global warming ("global" is a clue), nor is anybody claiming that a global policy can solve global warming in four years. You're just making stuff up now.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 05:07 PM   #212
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,503
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
So much garbage to wade through...

It all boils down to your repeated and errroneous assumption that an incremental change reperesents the solution as a whole, and your repeated and baseless assertions that these changes are ineffective.
Incremental change is not sufficient to solve the problem; the change has to be all-encompassing and needs to happen now. As for converting our energy supply to 50% renewable in a decade, here's a site that explains why that's only 1/8th of the solution. Here's another article that talks about how the scope of the problem goes beyond much more than renewable energy.

Quote:
And this is all just a smokescreen to distract from your ridiculous claim that people who seek to address a problem are equally out of touch with reality as those who deny the problem's existence.
Strawman Alert! That isn't what I said. I said that people who seek to address a problem with ineffective solutions are equivalent to people who deny the problem in that they get the same outcome.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 05:19 PM   #213
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,503
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Because the subject of the the thread is conservative rejection of reality. That's laid out in the thread title, which can be found towards the top of the page.
Yes. My overarching point is that conservatives do deny reality because they are human and all humans deny reality. The democrat/climate change stuff was an illustration of that.


Quote:
In your opinion, based on personal incredulity.

On the one hand we have the manifest reality of AGW, which many conservatives flat out deny exists. On the other we have the manifest unreality of your projection of the US in 2020, which I deny exists. There is not the remotest equivalence between the two.

You claim that half a billion solar panels are meant to "solve global warming" when in fact nobody claims that US domestic policy can solve global warming ("global" is a clue), nor is anybody claiming that a global policy can solve global warming in four years. You're just making stuff up now.
If they aren't meant to solve global warming, then what are they meant to do? Make us feel like we are doing something when, clearly, we aren't doing anywhere near enough and certainly not fast enough?

The whole point is that it's reality-denial to say that we can implement these kinds of slow changes and then claim that we are "combating global warming," when global warming will continue unabated under such proposals. Nobody wants to face the actual reality that we need to make drastic, drastic cuts to our emissions AND rapidly develop and implement carbon sequestration technologies AND remake the way we feed ourselves AND . . . certainly not either one of our political parties because the People of the US have their blinders on and such drastic changes are not politically viable.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 07:21 PM   #214
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,699
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Not in this case.
In *every* case, it's possible to take actions that will make the situation worse than if you had taken no action at all.

You cannot simply assert, "we must do something, this is something, we must do this!"

Is that what you think he did?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 06:45 AM   #215
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
IOW, it's just as effective as Republican inaction which is to say, not at all effective.
Incorrect. Replacing half of fossil fuel use with low CO2 alternatives would make a huge difference. At the very least it would buy us many additional decades to move even more energy production away from fossil fuels.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Why aren’t we talking about effectiveness ? What is the point in doing something when that something isn’t going to result in a positive outcome.

Nurse: Doctor! The patient is bleeding out.
Doctor: Well, let’s put a bandaid on it.
N: Why? That isn’t going to stop the bleeding, you cut the artery!
D: Hey,! We are doing something aren’t we?
More like…

Nurse: Doctor, why aren’t you used suture to close to wound
Doctor: well one isn’t going to do much is it.
Nurse: But you don’t stop after just one!
Doctor: if the first one doesn’t completely solve the problem clearly we are just wasting out time.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 06:54 AM   #216
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Quite possibly, but the real "scientific denial" in the GOP IMO is that they deny that global warming is happening so as far as they are concerned, there are no consequences of continued fossil fuel usage.
If you’ve followed climate denial long enough you’ll realize that most of the culprits are happy to argue every item on Roger Ramjets list simultaneously even though they all contradict each other. The problem is they have already decided on “the truth” and the course of action they want to take. To them science is just a way of marketing and rationalizing those decisions, not something to inform their decision making process.


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Global Warming denial staircase:-

1. It's actually cooling
2. Not happening
3. Happening, but not caused by humans
4. Partly caused by humans, but our contribution is insignificant
5. Partly caused by humans, but we don't know how much is our fault
6. Caused by humans, but mostly by China so we shouldn't have to do anything
7. Caused by us, but it's too late to do anything about it
8. Caused by us, but our attempts to fix it are ineffective
9. Caused by us, but too expensive to fix
10. Caused by us, we can fix it, but I don't want to pay for it!
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 07:10 AM   #217
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Incremental change is not sufficient to solve the problem; the change has to be all-encompassing and needs to happen now. As for converting our energy supply to 50% renewable in a decade, here's a site that explains why that's only 1/8th of the solution.
The site in this link is explicitly rejecting the argument you are attempting to make, it’s saying the technology to begin addressing CO2 does exist. But thanks for providing more evidence of Conservatives rejecting reality!
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 08:08 AM   #218
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,682
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Nurse: Doctor, why aren’t you used suture to close to wound
Doctor: well one isn’t going to do much is it.
Nurse: But you don’t stop after just one!
Doctor: if the first one doesn’t completely solve the problem clearly we are just wasting out time.
Typical leftist "logic." Obviously the solution is to leave the artery open and let the free market handle it. Too much medical regulation!
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 08:52 AM   #219
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,503
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
The site in this link is explicitly rejecting the argument you are attempting to make, it’s saying the technology to begin addressing CO2 does exist. But thanks for providing more evidence of Conservatives rejecting reality!
Strawman Alert! I have never attempted to make an argument that the technology does not exist. The reason I linked to that site is to illustrate the fact that renewable energy in the form of wind and solar will not solve the problem by itself. Nobody* is proposing policy to increase use of nuclear energy. Nobody is making serious efforts to halt deforestation or to plant a crapload of new trees. Nobody is implementing recapture technology and such technology, while it exists, is not ready for primetime mass deployment. Nobody is proposing that every gas powered car be scrapped and replaced with hybrid or, better yet, electric cars. The reasons why nobody is doing this, while you can call them "denials of reality," are actually more to do with the cost of doing so -both to the economy and to the lifestyles we have all become accustomed to.

Ergo, my main point -every human denies reality to some extent or another and such denial of reality leads to impacts on policy -conservative and liberal; democrat and republican; politician and citizen-at-large. What differentiates the two parties is that the conservatives are more likely to use stupid justifications -"everything is going to be OK because it isn't happening!" whereas liberals are more likely to propose ineffective and impractical solutions -"everything is going to be OK because we'll install 500 million solar panels in 4 years!". Same denial of reality; same outcome.



*When I say "nobody" here, what I really mean is that, while I'm sure there are few, it isn't anywhere near enough "bodies" to make a difference.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 09:47 AM   #220
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,526
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Is that what you think he did?
Yes.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 10:11 AM   #221
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,699
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Yes.

I can't imagine why. It certainly could not have been reasonably inferred from what he had written in the quote you included.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 10:21 AM   #222
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by quadraginta
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Not in this case.
In *every* case, it's possible to take actions that will make the situation worse than if you had taken no action at all.

You cannot simply assert, "we must do something, this is something, we must do this!"

Is that what you think he did?
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Yes.
Really? How is aiming to migrate 50% of the US energy use to renewables something that might make the situation worse, as opposed to being an ambitious plan for something that is good of itself? ETA: How does this equate with doing something that would be counterproductive in the context of global warming?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Last edited by jimbob; 17th November 2017 at 10:25 AM.
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 10:46 AM   #223
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Strawman Alert! I have never attempted to make an argument that the technology does not exist
You were pretty clear that you felt the technology doesn’t help with global warming.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The reason I linked to that site is to illustrate the fact that renewable energy in the form of wind and solar will not solve the problem by itself.
The site you linked is explicitly saying renewable energy technologies CAN be implemented and CAN make a difference. So again it’s refuting your positon not supporting it.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Nobody* is proposing policy to increase use of nuclear energy.
Simply false. Lots of people are. Wind/solar are simply taking the forefront because they are more cost effective and more amenable to private development and at a sufficiently mature point in their development.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Nobody is making serious efforts to halt deforestation or to plant a crapload of new trees. .
Again false. Lots of people are. In the overall scheme of things deforestation is small potato’s compared to fossil fuels.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Nobody is proposing that every gas powered car be scrapped and replaced with hybrid or, better yet, electric cars
Correct. Not even renewables target you are arguing against are proposing this, so what exactly are you trying to say?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 11:25 AM   #224
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,503
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
You were pretty clear that you felt the technology doesn’t help with global warming.
Not at all. We could do a large chunk of it right now. The argument I’m making is that converting to 50% renewable is too little, too late. We need to be at 100% like, yesterday <exaggeration for effect>. Nobody wants to do that because of the cost to society.

Quote:
<snip>Correct. Not even renewables target you are arguing against are proposing this, so what exactly are you trying to say?
I am saying that proposing only one, incomplete “wedge” solution that will address only a small part of the problem is akin to doing nothing at all because the outcome is the same: warming continues unabated. In order to abate warming we must pursue all “wedges,” right now all over the world -something that nobody is proposing or even willing to do.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 11:37 AM   #225
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Not at all. We could do a large chunk of it right now. The argument I’m making is that converting to 50% renewable is too little, too late. We need to be at 100% like, yesterday <exaggeration for effect>. Nobody wants to do that because of the cost to society.


I am saying that proposing only one, incomplete “wedge” solution that will address only a small part of the problem is akin to doing nothing at all because the outcome is the same: warming continues unabated. In order to abate warming we must pursue all “wedges,” right now all over the world -something that nobody is proposing or even willing to do.
I make this #7 and #8


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Global Warming denial staircase:-

1. It's actually cooling
2. Not happening
3. Happening, but not caused by humans
4. Partly caused by humans, but our contribution is insignificant
5. Partly caused by humans, but we don't know how much is our fault
6. Caused by humans, but mostly by China so we shouldn't have to do anything
7. Caused by us, but it's too late to do anything about it
8. Caused by us, but our attempts to fix it are ineffective
9. Caused by us, but too expensive to fix
10. Caused by us, we can fix it, but I don't want to pay for it!


However if the US went to 50% renewable energy use, that would have a massive effect on what the rest of the world considered possible.

Global warming also isn't a binary situation where there is either no problem or disaster - it is a continuum so reducing the use of fossil fuels is going to make any attempts at mitigation better.

Your argument only makes sense if that is the case.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 11:47 AM   #226
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,526
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I can't imagine why.
Yes, I know.

Quote:
It certainly could not have been reasonably inferred from what he had written in the quote you included.
I'm sure you believe this.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 11:57 AM   #227
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by theprestige
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I can't imagine why.
Yes, I know.

Quote:
It certainly could not have been reasonably inferred from what he had written in the quote you included.
I'm sure you believe this.
Can you explain your reasoning please?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 12:06 PM   #228
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,526
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
However if the US went to 50% renewable energy use, that would have a massive effect on what the rest of the world considered possible.
How quickly is global warming overtaking us? How quickly do you calculate this "massive effect" will convert into a substantial gain on global warming?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 02:49 PM   #229
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,503
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I make this #7 and #8

However if the US went to 50% renewable energy use, that would have a massive effect on what the rest of the world considered possible.
I make this as "feel-good symbolism."

Quote:
Global warming also isn't a binary situation where there is either no problem or disaster - it is a continuum so reducing the use of fossil fuels is going to make any attempts at mitigation better.

Your argument only makes sense if that is the case.
You are wrong. There is already a disaster. We have a problem right now and even if we were to cut all emissions today, the problem would still exist for quite some time; i.e. committed warming.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 02:54 PM   #230
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I see anti-nuclear power policy as another popular liberal position that is often based on unscientific reasoning. That said, both nuclear and GMO at least have clear potential to be bad if implemented in ways that can cause problems, even if those problems can be avoided through careful and correct implementation.

This is fundamentally different than trying to deny that climate change is happening, or suggesting that climate change is not caused primarily by humans, or denying that evolution happens, or young-earth creationism, or insisting that Low-Drama-Obama was born in Kenya.

Both sides can be unscientific. I'll start a list

Both sides (on the fringes, at least):
  1. Anti GMO
  2. Anti Vax

Liberal:
  1. Anti nuclear power
  2. Naturopathy, homeopathy, etc....

Republican:
  1. Anti-Evolution
  2. Climate change denialism
  3. Role of humans in climate change
  4. Young earth creationism
  5. Performance of trickle-down economics
  6. Effectiveness of abstinence-only education
  7. Danger of marijuana
  8. medical impact of abortion
  9. Barack Obama's birthplace


Perhaps others can add to the lists. I didn't get into the more fringe-type beliefs from the very far right, the Agenda 21, Der-coming-fur-our-gunz!, Killary's kill list type nonsense which rarely has any liberal counterpart.
Your list for republicans is redundant. For liberals, you're lumping homeopathy, naturopathy, etc. all together into one item... But for conservatives you're splitting out climate change denial and role of humans in climate change as if they're separate items. You're also treating creationism and anti-evolution as if they're different... and those two are tightly coupled with abstinence only education and abortion. You've also attributed Anti-GMO and ANti-Vax to both sides, although there seems to be a much larger proportion of both on the liberal side than the conservative side.

I'd say a more realistic list would look more like this:

Predominantly Liberal:
  1. Anti GMO
  2. Anti Vax
  3. Anti nuclear power
  4. Naturopathy, homeopathy, etc....
  5. Effectiveness of welfare economies

Predominantly Conservative:
  1. Anti-Evolution (including YEC)
  2. Anti-Climate Change (including human contribution to)
  3. Performance of trickle-down economics
  4. Female reproductive rights (including abortion and abstinence only education)
  5. Barack Obama's birthplace

ETA: Neither of these is intended to be an all-encompassing and exhaustive list. I'm sure a properly motivated person could easily find more things to add to either list.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 17th November 2017 at 03:29 PM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:03 PM   #231
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Yes, there is - Math. Math is completely objective, and is the ultimate basis for the hard sciences.

Climate change, and the human role in it, are basic math. Perception does not matter, the math documents the reality.

The application of mathematics, through application of the scientific method and statistical analysis of results clearly supports evolution, the effectiveness of sexual education in reducing teen pregnancy, the age of the earth.

Basic math disproves the effectiveness of trickle-down economics. Some conservative political concepts may have economic value - but not that one.
Okay, yes, math is completely objective. The problem with your premise is that models are not completely objective. Models depend on assumptions, and assumptions are not necessarily objective. I've seen many mathematical models that produce false results - not because the math was wrong, but becuase the assumptions were biased by the belief of the modeler.

There's a very solid reason for Twain;s quote: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:09 PM   #232
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
If the GOP admits that their objections to evolution, the age of the earth/universe, objections to sex education, and the various other positions I have listed are completely irrational but are based instead on values and how the GOP wants things to be, rather than the way things actually are, then we'll have a starting point.

If they said "On one hand we have reality, and on the other hand we have our conservative world-view", there might be a degree of rationality in there.

The catch is, the GOP does not actually do that.
There's a fundamental flaw in your approach here: People who hold religious views do not see their views as being based solely on emotion. It's a problem of belief - and that religious faith is not limited to conservatives. The complete irrationality of religious faith from our shared perspective is independent of the poltical leaning of the faithful - it's just as irrational coming from a liberal as from a conservative.

And while it's true that a higher proportion of fundamentalist christians tend to be conservative in view... It's not exactly a hard-and-fast rule. There are lots of fundamentalists in the liberal spectrum. You also end up with some unusual intersections - fundamentalist Jews and Muslims are somewhat more likely to lean to the Democrats than to the Republicans... which in the US tends to mean that they're more associated with a liberal view than a conservative one. You also end up with some very fundamentalist black evangelicals being significantly more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:14 PM   #233
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,526
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Your list for republicans is redundant. For liberals, you're lumping homeopathy, naturopathy, etc. all together into one item... But for conservatives you're splitting out climate change denial and role of humans in climate change as if they're separate items. You're also treating creationism and anti-evolution as if they're different... and those two are tightly coupled with abstinence only education and abortion. You've also attributed Anti-GMO and ANti-Vax to both sides, although there seems to be a much larger proportion of both on the liberal side than the conservative side.

I'd say a more realistic list would look more like this:

Predominantly Liberal:
  1. Anti GMO
  2. Anti Vax
  3. Anti nuclear power
  4. Naturopathy, homeopathy, etc....
  5. Effectiveness of welfare economies

Predominantly Conservative:
  1. Anti-Evolution (including YEC)
  2. Anti-Climate Change (including human contribution to)
  3. Performance of trickle-down economics
  4. Female reproductive rights (including abortion and abstinence only education)
  5. Barack Obama's birthplace
Female reproductive rights isn't really a question of reality, though. It's a question of which axioms you hold.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:15 PM   #234
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,934
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In *every* case, it's possible to take actions that will make the situation worse than if you had taken no action at all.

You cannot simply assert, "we must do something, this is something, we must do this!"
Well, no kidding. But the suggestions at hand are not worse than nothing. They're somewhat better than nothing, far as we can judge.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:17 PM   #235
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Grey2000 View Post
Aromatherapy, Homeopathy, "Identifying", Transcendental Meditation, Hypnotism, Seances, Acupuncture, Reflexology.

I'd say that there's a fair few liberals who reject reality too.
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
And I don't see anyone denying that there are. What I do see is people pointing out that this doesn't impact on the policies of mainstream liberal parties.
Well, aside from several predominantly liberal states doing things like requiring that naturopaths be considered primary care physicians by any medical insurer, and requiring that acupuncture and massage therapy be offered as medical benefits alongside chiropractic and physical therapy.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:23 PM   #236
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
There’s no need to wait for people in power to make decisions. If we all took it seriously and actually cared, we’d be doing it already. And sure some people are, but again, not nearly enough. We like things the way they are.
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Maybe, but not in the case of global warming and removing energy dependence on the Middle East
Well... that and convincing that a really, really large number of people in developing countries should cease developing so they don't damage the environment.

The US and Western Europe can be as green as we want... and our efforts are still going to be insufficient to offset the impact of India, China, and a host of other highly-populated areas that are currently clawing their way into the developed world through manufacturing. Unless we can get an actual global approach adopted by the whole globe... we're extremely unlikely to be successful.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:30 PM   #237
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Female reproductive rights isn't really a question of reality, though. It's a question of which axioms you hold.
It seemed like a reasonable way to get the idea of abortion and abstinence and all the other mess across without typing out a three-line sentence.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:35 PM   #238
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,832
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Female reproductive rights isn't really a question of reality, though. It's a question of which axioms you hold.
And the example I provided was not about female reproductive rights anyway.

I don't see the decision as to whether or not life begins at conception to be a scientific question, it is more of a spiritual or philosophical question (a clump of cells is clearly alive, but science cannot tell us if it has a soul, capital "L" life so to say). Questions regarding a woman's right to make decisions about abortion fall under that as well.

Whether or not abortion has actual health effects such as an increase in the prevalence of certain types of cancer has no moral, spiritual, or philosophical basis at all - it is a purely scientific question. That's the denial of reality part - many Republicans still insist that having an abortion increases the risk of cancer, even though that has been disproven.

ETA: Although I admit it makes sense to lump "Health impacts of Abortion" with "Effectiveness of Abstinence-Only sex education" under something along the lines of "Female Reproductive health related facts".

I am not sure of the anti-Vax anti-GMO thing. My impression is that both viewpoints are very popular within the home-schooling arch-Christian groups. The FLDS members, for example, have very low vaccination rates but are very clearly not liberal. Anti-GMO is quite popular with the black helicopter set as well.

Last edited by crescent; 17th November 2017 at 03:41 PM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:42 PM   #239
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
And the example I provided was not about female reproductive rights anyway.

I don't see the decision as to whether or not life begins at conception to be a scientific question, it is more of a spiritual or philosophical question (a clump of cells is clearly alive, but science cannot tell us if it has a soul, capital "L" life so to say). Questions regarding a woman's right to make decisions about abortion fall under that as well.

Whether or not abortion has actual health effects such as an increase in the prevalence of certain types of cancer has no moral, spiritual, or philosophical basis at all - it is a purely scientific question. That's the denial of reality part - many Republicans still insist that having an abortion increases the risk of cancer, even though that has been disproven.

ETA: Although I admit it makes sense to lump "Health impacts of Abortion" with "Effectiveness of Abstinence-Only sex education" under something along the lines of "Female Reproductive health related facts".

I am not sure of the anti-Vax anti-GMO thing. My impression is that both viewpoints are very popular within the home-schooling arch-Christian groups. The FLDS members, for example, have very low vaccination rates but are very clearly not liberal. Anti-GMO is quite popular with the black helicopter set as well.
Is it the FLDS or the Black-Helicopter groups that are so prevalently represented in California?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:50 PM   #240
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,832
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Is it the FLDS or the Black-Helicopter groups that are so prevalently represented in California?
I don't know - although when I lived in the deserts along the state line between of SE California and Nevada, people were more conservative than anywhere else I ever lived.

How about all them arch-liberals in Idaho?
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.