For those who demean those that disagree with your position

[Standard Issue]

How is it possible to do better going alone? In theory with international accords the buck can be passed. We need to force someone to pay more, but we have to do that because of some international agreement. My impression of America today is we aren't going to take any sacrifice, no matter how small. So unless we can solve global warming by reducing taxes to 0, I don't know how we do alone. Especially since the party in power seems to be made up of 30% of people who flat out do not believe the earth is warming and 65% who believe that it is warming but it is flat out impossible humans are involved.

And this supposed to be the "Can Do" country. When was the last time we were presented with a challenge and actually stepped up? Technologically speaking i think getting to the moon was the last big idea that we hunkered down and did it.

Now we whine that things are to hard and it will put us at a disadvantage. It's as if people don't realize that global warming is our next big job creator (as horrible as that sounds).

Carbon Sequestration
Wind
Solar
Tidal
Geothermal
Energy efficient design
HVAC
Insulation materials
Battery materials
...

Instead we deny, whine and acquiesce the lead position to China. Good God It's embarrassing!

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Does anyone on this board know Dave, personally? I am asking because, several years ago when I was moderating this board, he told me (and has posted about it since) that he was dying from cancer. That was quite a while ago and, perhaps I am late to this party, but I'm wondering if we (I) are/am being played.

Dave posted several times about his poor health. I never had the impression that he misrepresented his condition. I wonder why you would raise the issue.

FWIW, I think the posts in this thread about him are despicable and they reveal much about these posters than they criticize Dave. I know Dave pushes a lot of buttons in an inelegant manner, and cites to some questionable sources, but the personal attacks directed at him are always over the top.

The board has become a cesspool with a number of conspicuous turds (most of whom posted in this thread) that always stand out. I guess we have become like the rest of the country. Sad.

 

[twenty02]

Dave posted several times about his poor health. I never had the impression that he misrepresented his condition. I wonder why you would raise the issue.

FWIW, I think the posts in this thread about him are despicable and they reveal much about these posters than they criticize Dave. I know Dave pushes a lot of buttons in an inelegant manner, and cites to some questionable sources, but the personal attacks directed at him are always over the top.

The board has become a cesspool with a number of conspicuous turds (most of whom posted in this thread) that always stand out. I guess we have become like the rest of the country. Sad.

I've looked back through the thread.....what exactly was said about Dave that's so despicable?

Anyone who posts a questionable diatribe, and ends with "this is my last post ever" is in for some ribbing.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And this supposed to be the "Can Do" country. When was the last time we were presented with a challenge and actually stepped up? Technologically speaking i think getting to the moon was the last big idea that we hunkered down and did it.

Now we whine that things are to hard and it will put us at a disadvantage. It's as if people don't realize that global warming is our next big job creator (as horrible as that sounds).

Carbon Sequestration
Wind
Solar
Tidal
Geothermal
Energy efficient design
HVAC
Insulation materials
Battery materials
...

Instead we deny, whine and acquiesce the lead position to China. Good God It's embarrassing!

You are fooling yourself. That is also embarrassing. Most of those jobs are like digging holes and then filling them. There is no way that solar energy requires the number of people than does steam-driven turbines for the equivalent output--even if such were a practical possibility. 50 years from now we will ask ourselves why were so dumb with wind turbines. The near term future is fracking and nukes. Both of those will cost jobs. Long term is super-conductivity and fusion.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I've looked back through the thread.....what exactly was said about Dave that's so despicable?

Anyone who posts a questionable diatribe, and ends with "this is my last post ever" is in for some ribbing.

Looking back through this thread you are correct. I dunno, maybe some posts were deleted. Your's is the worst .

 

[twenty02]

Looking back through this thread you are correct. I dunno, maybe some posts were deleted. Your's is the worst .

I probably posted that after some late night cocktails last night, but come on, it's some poorly executed sarcasm.....when someone gets so "offended" by some nameless msg board posters that they have to announce their departure, that's just ripe for some blowback. Oh well.

 

[twenty02]

You are fooling yourself. That is also embarrassing. Most of those jobs are like digging holes and then filling them. There is no way that solar energy requires the number of people than does steam-driven turbines for the equivalent output--even if such were a practical possibility. 50 years from now we will ask ourselves why were so dumb with wind turbines. The near term future is fracking and nukes. Both of those will cost jobs. Long term is super-conductivity and fusion.

What's the joke about fusion? It's the energy of the future, and it always will be?

 

[Standard Issue]

You are fooling yourself. That is also embarrassing. Most of those jobs are like digging holes and then filling them. There is no way that solar energy requires the number of people than does steam-driven turbines for the equivalent output--even if such were a practical possibility. 50 years from now we will ask ourselves why were so dumb with wind turbines. The near term future is fracking and nukes. Both of those will cost jobs. Long term is super-conductivity and fusion.

Embarrassing? Hardly.
You picked one thing from the list and made it the crux of your argument.
Designing, building and installing all the things I listed don't require just digging holes. You've got people working at all economic and income levels. Fracking and nukes have their own obvious inherit risks especially nukes. When was the last time a new nuclear power plant was brought online? If you proposed one today could you get it built in your lifetime?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Largely because of fracking, we are among leaders, if not the world's leader, in reducing carbon emissions. We don't need Paris to do what we do. The rest of the world mostly committed to a Paris reduction that is nothing different than the reduction we all expect from advancing technology and reduced use of coal without regulation or commitment. Uncle Sam, on the other hand, for better or worse, made very ambitious commitments, which likely will not be kept, thus we will pay billions in make-up fees; not to mention the havoc brought by job and economic disruption with attempted compliance. .

There are no make up fees or penalties of any kind in Paris.

 

[twenty02]

I don't know. But like I said, if he's not, then it presents a golden chance for them to call his bluff, dunnit?

Personally, I think we're better off going it alone. We can set our own goals and, that way, if and when we need to make adjustments, we can do so of our own volition...rather than subjecting them to an international panel of competitors who would love nothing more than to hamstring us.

I guess so, will have to wait and see how others react. I'm far from an expert on this topic, I just don't like seeing international agreements not honored because of domestic political grudges between parties. Particularly when there didn't seem to be dire consequences on the line.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't know. But like I said, if he's not, then it presents a golden chance for them to call his bluff, dunnit?

Personally, I think we're better off going it alone. We can set our own goals and, that way, if and when we need to make adjustments, we can do so of our own volition...rather than subjecting them to an international panel of competitors who would love nothing more than to hamstring us.

We could have done all of that and stayed in Paris. You guys really have a screwed up understanding of what Paris is and does.

 

[toastedbread]

Looking back through this thread you are correct. I dunno, maybe some posts were deleted. Your's is the worst .

I probably posted that after some late night cocktails last night, but come on, it's some poorly executed sarcasm.....when someone gets so "offended" by some nameless msg board posters that they have to announce their departure, that's just ripe for some blowback. Oh well.

crocodile tears? That's probably the 10th time he's posted that he's leaving. He's usually back within a few weeks or even days. There was nothing remotely out of bounds given his penchant for "leaving".

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

What's the joke about fusion? It's the energy of the future, and it always will be?

I thought that was Dippin Dots

 

[toastedbread]

I guess so, will have to wait and see how others react. I'm far from an expert on this topic, I just don't like seeing international agreements not honored because of domestic political grudges between parties. Particularly when there didn't seem to be dire consequences on the line.

We could have done all of that and stayed in Paris. You guys really have a screwed up understanding of what Paris is and does.

we gain 0 from pulling out. We lose credibility for no reason. We gave a middle finger to one of the only truly global agreements. How often does the entire world agree on anything?

Look at how this Qatar situation is being handled and that's another strike at our credibility as a serious broker.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There are no make up fees or penalties of any kind in Paris.

Funding for the Green Climate Fund is unsettled. One of the talked about funding mechanisms has to do with results based funding, which means those nations who don't achieve their self-imposed goals will pay more. You are right to the extent that there is no present committment. But the GCF is way underfunded so . . . . . .

See.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Funding for the Green Climate Fund is unsettled. One of the talked about funding mechanisms has to do with results based funding, which means those nations who don't achieve their self-imposed goals will pay more. You are right to the extent that there is no present committment. But the GCF is way underfunded so . . . . . .

See.

So what?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So what?

Well you said there are no make up fees "of any kind". I pointed out that they are not off the table and having them are more likely than not. That's what.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well you said there are no make up fees "of any kind". I pointed out that they are not off the table and having them are more likely than not. That's what.

How is that a reason to drop Paris? If there are any penalties for not meeting goals, they will be implemented in some future conference. Staying in Paris doesn't commit us to any sorts of penalties that haven't even been implemented yet.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

How is that a reason to drop Paris? If there are any penalties for not meeting goals, they will be implemented in some future conference. Staying in Paris doesn't commit us to any sorts of penalties that haven't even been implemented yet.

Paris is like Weight Watchers. Everyone sets their own goals, and there is not real penalty for not reaching the goals (at least not at this time). A "membership" fee is paid. How you lose weight/carbon is entirely up to the individual. I've heard people flat out say Paris bans coal, which it doesn't do at all. I don't know what it is about Paris that so angers so many people.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Paris is like Weight Watchers. Everyone sets their own goals, and there is not real penalty for not reaching the goals (at least not at this time). A "membership" fee is paid. How you lose weight/carbon is entirely up to the individual. I've heard people flat out say Paris bans coal, which it doesn't do at all. I don't know what it is about Paris that so angers so many people.

Two reasons, probably. Some interested parties are scared to death of even promising to tackle climate change. The rest are just gullible, to be blunt about it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Paris is like Weight Watchers. Everyone sets their own goals, and there is not real penalty for not reaching the goals (at least not at this time). A "membership" fee is paid. How you lose weight/carbon is entirely up to the individual. I've heard people flat out say Paris bans coal, which it doesn't do at all. I don't know what it is about Paris that so angers so many people.

I think you have hit on the main problem. It is illusory. It's theater. Except for Uncle Sam. We have made serious and important commitments. While there is no enforcement mechanism, and congress likely will not go along with some of the commitments, it does effectively ban coal for us. The Clean Energy Plan, which was done administratively is a case in point. It hurts millions of people, but it doesn't meaningfully impact world temperatures. It is just a feel good talking point.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

How is that a reason to drop Paris? If there are any penalties for not meeting goals, they will be implemented in some future conference. Staying in Paris doesn't commit us to any sorts of penalties that haven't even been implemented yet.

For many people it isn't a reason to exit Paris. Could Trump have walked back the US carbon reduction commitments, (which everybody agrees will not be achieved) without exiting Paris? I suppose so, but the practical effect of that is tantamount to withdrawing from Paris.

 

[Rockfish1]

Two reasons, probably. Some interested parties are scared to death of even promising to tackle climate change. The rest are just gullible, to be blunt about it.

The Republican tribe ideologically opposes any government action to limit emissions, so (unlike any other major political party in the world) the tribe denies climate science. Add that Paris is a multilateral agreement, which is also anathema. Plus this really sticks it to liberals, Euros, elites, and pretty much everyone else the tribe detests.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Two reasons, probably. Some interested parties are scared to death of even promising to tackle climate change. The rest are just gullible, to be blunt about it.

...or think any such thing is ultimately futile.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

ribe denies climate science.

LOLOLOLOLOL. You don't even know the differences among climate science, cilmate models, climate projections, climate opinion, and climate policy. For you any disagreement about the AGW POV on those issues is "denying science".

 

[Rockfish1]

LOLOLOLOLOL. You don't even know the differences among climate science, cilmate models, climate projections, climate opinion, and climate policy. For you any disagreement about the AGW POV on those issues is "denying science".

Said the guy who thinks he's a climate scientist.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think you have hit on the main problem. It is illusory. It's theater. Except for Uncle Sam. We have made serious and important commitments. While there is no enforcement mechanism, and congress likely will not go along with some of the commitments, it does effectively ban coal for us. The Clean Energy Plan, which was done administratively is a case in point. It hurts millions of people, but it doesn't meaningfully impact world temperatures. It is just a feel good talking point.

So now the problem is that it's illusory? That's exactly the opposite of what you've been arguing. You are engaging in extremely fallacious argument here. If A, then B, but if not A, then also B. That's a form of question begging. You don't even need an argument for dropping out of Paris, because you're assuming from the outset that it's the proper course of action, and simply applying all facts - even contradictory ones - as evidence of your "conclusion."

 

[DougS]

Dave posted several times about his poor health. I never had the impression that he misrepresented his condition. I wonder why you would raise the issue.

FWIW, I think the posts in this thread about him are despicable and they reveal much about these posters than they criticize Dave. I know Dave pushes a lot of buttons in an inelegant manner, and cites to some questionable sources, but the personal attacks directed at him are always over the top.

The board has become a cesspool with a number of conspicuous turds (most of whom posted in this thread) that always stand out. I guess we have become like the rest of the country. Sad.

The reason I am asking is because he posted about it several years ago, indicating that he felt he only had months to live.

I am well aware that some folks beat the odds. He also claimed to be the son of a well known judge whom, I believe Lagoda knew. If memory serves, his father passed away a few years back.

I have no ide if Dave is on the level or not. Hence, my question as to whether anyone had actually ever met him.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We could have done all of that and stayed in Paris. You guys really have a screwed up understanding of what Paris is and does.

Oh, I know. Don't take it up with me, though. Take it up with those who went into cardiac arrest over our exit.

Of course we can still determine our own targets outside of Paris -- and, this way, we don't have to subordinate ourselves to other nations (many of which, as I said, would love nothing more than to hamstring us).

 

[iu_a_att]

The Republican tribe ideologically opposes any government action to limit emissions, so (unlike any other major political party in the world) the tribe denies climate science. Add that Paris is a multilateral agreement, which is also anathema. Plus this really sticks it to liberals, Euros, elites, and pretty much everyone else the tribe detests.

Can we also say that the energy and extraction sector is a key part of the republican coalition. The deeper problem is that we can never reach deals to buy off those who lose from the provision of public goods. We can't do it with trade, we can't do it with the environment. Any buyout produces howls from the majority that people are getting something for nothing. The minority can't trust that the benefits promised will materialize. So we have to wait until utter catastrophe to act. In the mean time the energy and extraction sectors (like other sectors producing public bads) just figures it is better to build a robust political coalition that will withstand regulation as long as possible. They leverage ressentiment when possible. Its a crappy system that may kill us all.

 

[Rockfish1]

So now the problem is that it's illusory? That's exactly the opposite of what you've been arguing. You are engaging in extremely fallacious argument here. If A, then B, but if not A, then also B. That's a form of question begging. You don't even need an argument for dropping out of Paris, because you're assuming from the outset that it's the proper course of action, and simply applying all facts - even contradictory ones - as evidence of your "conclusion."

This hopping from one leg to the other is a classic form of evasion and diversion. When you're here he goes there. When you follow him there he goes here.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Of course we can still determine our own targets outside of Paris -- and, this way, we don't have to subordinate ourselves to other nations (many of which, as I said, would love nothing more than to hamstring us).

Paris didn't subordinate us to anyone.

 

[bawlmer]

For many people it isn't a reason to exit Paris. Could Trump have walked back the US carbon reduction commitments, (which everybody agrees will not be achieved) without exiting Paris? I suppose so, but the practical effect of that is tantamount to withdrawing from Paris.

I disagree, strongly. My guess is many countries will miss their goals. Even if we were the only one, and even if the new administration were to reject some of the goals, that would not make anywhere near the statement of withdrawal.

The practical effect of withdrawal was we went from being a leader on the issue to an outcast.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So now the problem is that it's illusory? That's exactly the opposite of what you've been arguing. You are engaging in extremely fallacious argument here. If A, then B, but if not A, then also B. That's a form of question begging. You don't even need an argument for dropping out of Paris, because you're assuming from the outset that it's the proper course of action, and simply applying all facts - even contradictory ones - as evidence of your "conclusion."

Pay attention. I said it was illusory, but not for Uncle Sam. We made commitments that likely will not be met. We are also in it financially cuz we are a so-called developed nation while the undeveloped nations need financial help to develop renewable energy. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where the money is coming from.

The best thing we could do is to pull the plug and start over with realistic commitments. I don't see the issue here and I certainly don't see your befuddlement with what I have said.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Paris didn't subordinate us to anyone.

Mm, I disagree. When you make a commitment to an international accord of any kind, you either abide that commitment or else face the wrath of everybody else in it if you don't.

Even you said that penalties for non-compliance could come at a future conference. Are we to leave then? Or does our understanding that this day is likely to come mean that we're already in a subordinate position?

Anyway, if it really is a matter of us just establishing goals and either meeting them or not, without consequences if we don't, then we can do that just fine on our own.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Can we also say that the energy and extraction sector is a key part of the republican coalition.

So what? The energy extraction sector is millions of families, millions of jobs, hundreds of thousands of businesses, and is the largest single reason for economic growth since the "worst crash since the Great Depression."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The practical effect of withdrawal was we went from being a leader on the issue to an outcast.

I don't follow. We have, can, and will lead with our energy technology. Paris doesn't change a bit of that.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The practical effect of withdrawal was we went from being a leader on the issue to an outcast.

To what end, though?

I'm not sure I see the downside to being an outcast on this. Does it mean that we can't have solar and wind and other renewable energy industries? No. Is it going to disrupt our international trading relationships? I guess that remains to be seen -- but I seriously doubt it. About all I can see is that it's made Merkel, Macron, Pope Francis, etal say mean things about us. Oh well.

What next? Are they going to say "Now, go away or I zhall taunt you a zecond time-ah."

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Does anyone on this board know Dave, personally? I am asking because, several years ago when I was moderating this board, he told me (and has posted about it since) that he was dying from cancer. That was quite a while ago and, perhaps I am late to this party, but I'm wondering if we (I) are/am being played.

i remember his discussing he had serious health issues.

hopefully he's doing better.

 

[iu_a_att]

So what? The energy extraction sector is millions of families, millions of jobs, hundreds of thousands of businesses, and is the largest single reason for economic growth since the "worst crash since the Great Depression."

Did I say so what? No, I didn't say that. Manufacturing, energy and extraction looks like about 12% of the economy. Energy and extraction is considerably less. But millions of lives are tied up with it. The fossil fuel sector decided to follow the tobacco industry playbook with great political success. My whole point is that the debate over the environment and energy is not tribal as much as sectoral. The trouble now is that so many people have persuaded themselves of their own bs.