https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingan...li=BBnbfcL

(11-26-2019 01:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingan...li=BBnbfcL

Right now, I don't trust either party enough to want unified government. When I don't really agree with the direction that either party is going, I much prefer gridlock.

If Trump is re-elected, and the democrats keep the house, I fully expect them to take 2 or 3 more runs at impeachment during the second term. Good. That gridlocks them and keeps them from other mischief.

As for republicans, what do they actually stand for? There's an old saying that I have used in other contexts, if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. Republicans don't stand for anything, so they have fallen for Trump. Whatever you think of Trump, IMO he is still better than any democrat in the current presidential field. But neither he nor the republicans would really be my choice, except in the context of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So it's a choice between one side that doesn't stand for anything and another that stands for everything I abhor. Not a pretty picture.

(11-25-2019 11:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 09:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  we have to lead by example.

We have been the example for democracy for a long time. How's that working with China?



I think the lead by example is a fallacy and an excuse for unilateral, futile action. We will just end up all alone in left field.

Not sure what you’re suggesting with regards to climate action. There are numerous countries we would consider allies that are doing substantially more to address and adapt to climate change.

I think lad buys in to the idea that if the United States 'buys in' to GHG reduction, then the really big polluters will all automatically view the expertise of the United States as paramount, realize the 'error', and all become good citizens by rapidly curbing their growth trajectories.

I dont think he understands the parallel rejection of another US example of the ideals of representative government and individual rights by that same country. At least he didnt go coffee3 on you.

Or perhaps lad doesnt realize who the country with the largest GHG output (almost double of the next) is.

But at the end he chooses to use a non-sequitor in a slut-shame mode. All in all he doesnt seem to understand that the leading GHG producer is not really a prime example for his feel good 'lead by example' paean.

It also really doesnt seem that the lad is aware that US GHG sources have actually declined roughly 15% since the 2004-2006 time period. Bad bad USA.

Lad an I have fundamentally different viewpoints on a lot of things.

He thinks unilateral environmental action will save the world. I don't.

he thinks China will will follow our example is we just do good. I don't.

He thinks global warming is man-caused, and therefore man-reversible. I don't.

he thinks chasing those goals is worth pushing our our economy into a bad state. I don't.

He thinks things would be so much better now if only we had elected Hillary. I don't.

He thinks any Democrat is better than Trump. I don't.

I respect Lad. he will discuss, and sometimes even do it nicely. As you say, this time he didn't use the cup of coffee.

I respect FBO, too, although he has see fit to absent himself from discussions.

Even Fountains.

Some names are conspicuously absent.

(11-26-2019 09:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think lad buys in to the idea that if the United States 'buys in' to GHG reduction, then the really big polluters will all automatically view the expertise of the United States as paramount, realize the 'error', and all become good citizens by rapidly curbing their growth trajectories.

I dont think he understands the parallel rejection of another US example of the ideals of representative government and individual rights by that same country. At least he didnt go coffee3 on you.

Or perhaps lad doesnt realize who the country with the largest GHG output (almost double of the next) is.

But at the end he chooses to use a non-sequitor in a slut-shame mode. All in all he doesnt seem to understand that the leading GHG producer is not really a prime example for his feel good 'lead by example' paean.

It also really doesnt seem that the lad is aware that US GHG sources have actually declined roughly 15% since the 2004-2006 time period. Bad bad USA.

You’re off quite a lot with your assumptions.

I don’t think that our lead will immediately encourage other countries to reduce their emissions. But if we want to pressure and encourage them to, we must be making demonstrable steps towards reduction. So if we want China to embrace GHG reductions, our government must first do so.

And we must push to try and curb GHG reductions in areas that will be effective in our country and others - concrete manufacturing is a perfect example of where we can push research to try and find alternative energy sources. I just saw that Bill Gates is funding a company that recently made a rather large breakthrough in thermal heat generation.

And while GHG emissions in the US are not at a peak, we can still be more aggressive at looking for solutions to further reduce our emissions. We still do not have a method of capturing the negative externalities of these emissions in our economy, which is a major blind spot, IMO. Plus, I’ve read recently that emissions have risen significantly this past year, driven primarily by transportation, which is so cheap because low oil prices don’t really capture the full cost of GHG or other emissions.

But go ahead and keep making assumptions if you would like. It would be a lot more interesting discussion if you wanted to actually discuss these points as opposed to going on ******* attack mode right off the bat.

(11-26-2019 07:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 11:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 09:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  we have to lead by example.

We have been the example for democracy for a long time. How's that working with China?



I think the lead by example is a fallacy and an excuse for unilateral, futile action. We will just end up all alone in left field.

Not sure what you’re suggesting with regards to climate action. There are numerous countries we would consider allies that are doing substantially more to address and adapt to climate change.

Following our lead? Sounds like you want to follow their lead.

Using my "roomful of smokers" analogy, are those the guys with the cigars? If the guys with cigars don't stop smoking, what have we accomplished?

And more importantly, at what cost?

(11-26-2019 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad an I have fundamentally different viewpoints on a lot of things.

He thinks unilateral environmental action will save the world. I don't.

he thinks China will will follow our example is we just do good. I don't.

He thinks global warming is man-caused, and therefore man-reversible. I don't.

he thinks chasing those goals is worth pushing our our economy into a bad state. I don't.

He thinks things would be so much better now if only we had elected Hillary. I don't.

He thinks any Democrat is better than Trump. I don't.

I respect Lad. he will discuss, and sometimes even do it nicely. As you say, this time he didn't use the cup of coffee.

I respect FBO, too, although he has see fit to absent himself from discussions.

Even Fountains.

Some names are conspicuously absent.

There’s no illusion that us acting will immediately cause others to fall in line. But us not acting means there is no pressure on countries like China or India to do anything about non-smog related emissions.

I think climate change is impacted by our actions - basic science makes it abundantly clear that we are having an effect. I think it is important to try and limit our impacts as much as possible because climate adaptation by both humans and other organisms will not happen quickly. We must try and limit our impacts as much as possible to try and reduce negative impacts as much as possible.

I do not think anthropomorphic climate change is reversible - we must now do all we can to reduce further change and adapt to the changes we are seeing and will see.

I think environmental action is necessary in the same way it was when Love Canal happened or the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. There was a time when we didn’t know lead was dangerous, but we made the decision to act when we realized it was.

(11-26-2019 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 07:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 11:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 09:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  we have to lead by example.

We have been the example for democracy for a long time. How's that working with China?



I think the lead by example is a fallacy and an excuse for unilateral, futile action. We will just end up all alone in left field.

Not sure what you’re suggesting with regards to climate action. There are numerous countries we would consider allies that are doing substantially more to address and adapt to climate change.

Following our lead? Sounds like you want to follow their lead.

Using my "roomful of smokers" analogy, are those the guys with the cigars? If the guys with cigars don't stop smoking, what have we accomplished?

And more importantly, at what cost?

So we should keep puffing our cigars, getting an immediate nicotine rush that is detrimental to our long term health?

We won’t be able to convince the other cigar smokers to stop until we do...

(11-26-2019 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad an I have fundamentally different viewpoints on a lot of things.

He thinks unilateral environmental action will save the world. I don't.

he thinks China will will follow our example is we just do good. I don't.

He thinks global warming is man-caused, and therefore man-reversible. I don't.

he thinks chasing those goals is worth pushing our our economy into a bad state. I don't.

He thinks things would be so much better now if only we had elected Hillary. I don't.

He thinks any Democrat is better than Trump. I don't.

I respect Lad. he will discuss, and sometimes even do it nicely. As you say, this time he didn't use the cup of coffee.

I respect FBO, too, although he has see fit to absent himself from discussions.

Even Fountains.

Some names are conspicuously absent.

There’s no illusion that us acting will immediately cause others to fall in line. But us not acting means there is no pressure on countries like China or India to do anything about non-smog related emissions.

I think climate change is impacted by our actions - basic science makes it abundantly clear that we are having an effect. I think it is important to try and limit our impacts as much as possible because climate adaptation by both humans and other organisms will not happen quickly. We must try and limit our impacts as much as possible to try and reduce negative impacts as much as possible.

I do not think anthropomorphic climate change is reversible - we must now do all we can to reduce further change and adapt to the changes we are seeing and will see.

I think environmental action is necessary in the same way it was when Love Canal happened or the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. There was a time when we didn’t know lead was dangerous, but we made the decision to act when we realized it was.

Boils down to buying time. If the world ends in 2180 instead of 2160, will you be happy? Will it make you happier if it involves personal sacrifice from you now to buy those twenty years later? What if the personal sacrifice were you losing your job?

I agree on adaptation. But the entire focus from the left is not on adapting to changes, but on reversing them. Else we might be taking the purchase Greenland more seriously, instead of trying to make the glaciers there advance again.

(11-26-2019 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 07:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 11:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 09:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  we have to lead by example.

We have been the example for democracy for a long time. How's that working with China?



I think the lead by example is a fallacy and an excuse for unilateral, futile action. We will just end up all alone in left field.

Not sure what you’re suggesting with regards to climate action. There are numerous countries we would consider allies that are doing substantially more to address and adapt to climate change.

Following our lead? Sounds like you want to follow their lead.

Using my "roomful of smokers" analogy, are those the guys with the cigars? If the guys with cigars don't stop smoking, what have we accomplished?

And more importantly, at what cost?

So we should keep puffing our cigars, getting an immediate nicotine rush that is detrimental to our long term health?

We won’t be able to convince the other cigar smokers to stop until we do...

Whoosh.

WE are NOT the cigar smokers. We have cut our habit down to a half pack of cigarettes, yet the cigar smokers pay no mind, they just keep puffing those cigars, and now you say if we cut down further to 1/4 pack, they will take notice?

(11-26-2019 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 07:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 11:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have been the example for democracy for a long time. How's that working with China?



I think the lead by example is a fallacy and an excuse for unilateral, futile action. We will just end up all alone in left field.

Not sure what you’re suggesting with regards to climate action. There are numerous countries we would consider allies that are doing substantially more to address and adapt to climate change.

Following our lead? Sounds like you want to follow their lead.

Using my "roomful of smokers" analogy, are those the guys with the cigars? If the guys with cigars don't stop smoking, what have we accomplished?

And more importantly, at what cost?

So we should keep puffing our cigars, getting an immediate nicotine rush that is detrimental to our long term health?

We won’t be able to convince the other cigar smokers to stop until we do...

Whoosh.

WE are NOT the cigar smokers. We have cut our habit down to a half pack of cigarettes, yet the cigar smokers pay no mind, they just keep puffing those cigars, and now you say if we cut down further to 1/4 pack, they will take notice?

Our government has not taken steps to cut back to 1/2 a pack - we do not have a large-scale system to manage and reduce GHG emissions (e.g. cap and trade) and our federal government is fighting a state that is trying to implement tighter emission standards, while also trying to expand exploration into sensitive environments we don't really need to go into.

So I reject your perspective of where we are, based on that.

But even if we are at half a pack a day, we need to cut further so we can stand on solid footing as we attempt to negotiate with the pack a day smokers to reduce their use.

As I have been repeating (and you seem to keep ignoring), it isn't our position alone that will cause China to make reductions. But there is no hope for us to pressure them to reduce emissions if we have not made that grand leap first.

(11-26-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad an I have fundamentally different viewpoints on a lot of things.

He thinks unilateral environmental action will save the world. I don't.

he thinks China will will follow our example is we just do good. I don't.

He thinks global warming is man-caused, and therefore man-reversible. I don't.

he thinks chasing those goals is worth pushing our our economy into a bad state. I don't.

He thinks things would be so much better now if only we had elected Hillary. I don't.

He thinks any Democrat is better than Trump. I don't.

I respect Lad. he will discuss, and sometimes even do it nicely. As you say, this time he didn't use the cup of coffee.

I respect FBO, too, although he has see fit to absent himself from discussions.

Even Fountains.

Some names are conspicuously absent.

There’s no illusion that us acting will immediately cause others to fall in line. But us not acting means there is no pressure on countries like China or India to do anything about non-smog related emissions.

I think climate change is impacted by our actions - basic science makes it abundantly clear that we are having an effect. I think it is important to try and limit our impacts as much as possible because climate adaptation by both humans and other organisms will not happen quickly. We must try and limit our impacts as much as possible to try and reduce negative impacts as much as possible.

I do not think anthropomorphic climate change is reversible - we must now do all we can to reduce further change and adapt to the changes we are seeing and will see.

I think environmental action is necessary in the same way it was when Love Canal happened or the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. There was a time when we didn’t know lead was dangerous, but we made the decision to act when we realized it was.

Boils down to buying time. If the world ends in 2180 instead of 2160, will you be happy? Will it make you happier if it involves personal sacrifice from you now to buy those twenty years later? What if the personal sacrifice were you losing your job?

I agree on adaptation. But the entire focus from the left is not on adapting to changes, but on reversing them. Else we might be taking the purchase Greenland more seriously, instead of trying to make the glaciers there advance again.

You have a grand misunderstanding of what environmentalists on the left advocate for if you think their entire focus is on reversing changes...

And regarding the world ending, what a weird and transactional way to approach what could be a rather dire issue. So just because we can't pinpoint exactly when catastrophes will hit, we should not act? I see no other way to interpret that comment. Can you explain further?

(11-26-2019 11:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad an I have fundamentally different viewpoints on a lot of things.

He thinks unilateral environmental action will save the world. I don't.

he thinks China will will follow our example is we just do good. I don't.

He thinks global warming is man-caused, and therefore man-reversible. I don't.

he thinks chasing those goals is worth pushing our our economy into a bad state. I don't.

He thinks things would be so much better now if only we had elected Hillary. I don't.

He thinks any Democrat is better than Trump. I don't.

I respect Lad. he will discuss, and sometimes even do it nicely. As you say, this time he didn't use the cup of coffee.

I respect FBO, too, although he has see fit to absent himself from discussions.

Even Fountains.

Some names are conspicuously absent.

There’s no illusion that us acting will immediately cause others to fall in line. But us not acting means there is no pressure on countries like China or India to do anything about non-smog related emissions.

I think climate change is impacted by our actions - basic science makes it abundantly clear that we are having an effect. I think it is important to try and limit our impacts as much as possible because climate adaptation by both humans and other organisms will not happen quickly. We must try and limit our impacts as much as possible to try and reduce negative impacts as much as possible.

I do not think anthropomorphic climate change is reversible - we must now do all we can to reduce further change and adapt to the changes we are seeing and will see.

I think environmental action is necessary in the same way it was when Love Canal happened or the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. There was a time when we didn’t know lead was dangerous, but we made the decision to act when we realized it was.

Boils down to buying time. If the world ends in 2180 instead of 2160, will you be happy? Will it make you happier if it involves personal sacrifice from you now to buy those twenty years later? What if the personal sacrifice were you losing your job?

I agree on adaptation. But the entire focus from the left is not on adapting to changes, but on reversing them. Else we might be taking the purchase Greenland more seriously, instead of trying to make the glaciers there advance again.

You have a grand misunderstanding of what environmentalists on the left advocate for if you think their entire focus is on reversing changes...

And regarding the world ending, what a weird and transactional way to approach what could be a rather dire issue. So just because we can't pinpoint exactly when catastrophes will hit, we should not act? I see no other way to interpret that comment. Can you explain further?

The thing that will kill us is overpopulation. All this climate change stuff is just a symptom of the real problem, too many people, too few resources. But the left puts it as people acting irresponsibly. For example, your cartoon.
We will run out of water, of food, and killing the oil industry now is not going to help then.

And they say I am obtuse.

As for what environmentalists advocate that is not reversing changes, perhaps you could tell me what you mean...what I see is a hysteria to switch to solar/wind from oil so we can get GHG back to where they were perfect.

A big uncertainty seems to be whether the proposed "climate action" policies would actually make a positive difference in climate. If they will, then I understand (though not without concerns) Lad's principle that if it's gotta start somewhere, it might as well start with us. But I really don't know how effective they would be.

If this uncertainty is not itself sufficient reason for wariness, additional reasons include:
- The consistent falsity of leftist doomsday predictions over the last two-plus centuries (the 1970s histrionics of Paul Ehrlich, Barry Commoner et al. come to mind).
- The idiocy of some of the climatistas (but of course every policy issue has its share of idiots).
- The obvious power-lust of many more: to a great many leftists, it seems that the meteorological success of "climate action" is fundamentally irrelevant, as the real motive is to increase command and control of society -- just as the fundamental motive of communist "land reform" throughout history has been not to reduce hunger or save lives, but to maximize the dominance of the state. My sense is that Lad sincerely cares about effectiveness, and that Ocasio-Cortez cares not one whit.
- The time-proven short-term dangers and long-term harm (environmentally and otherwise) of command and control (the environmental record of the USSR, China and Venezuela come to mind -- as well as their record on little things like liberty and life).
- The time-proven dangers of panic-driven decisions (the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2 to address the exaggerated threat of "sabotage" come to mind).

Well said, George. As usual, you do a much better job than I do of putting things into words.

Yes, I think much of this futile. If I thought we could even reach a stable equilibrium, I would support it so much more. But so many of the goals are couched in terms such as "to reduce XYZ by 40% in ten years'.

I don't want to spend what is left of my life financing boondoggles.

I'm so excited for the day when I finally accept that a better world isn't possible. Only then will I be truly free.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

(11-26-2019 02:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well said, George. As usual, you do a much better job than I do of putting things into words.

Aw shucks . . . . but you know, I used to get paid a fair bit for doing that. Now I work in academia, where the words are supposed to be their own reward. :)

More bad news for Democrats:

New highs in all major indices today.

(11-26-2019 04:30 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-26-2019 02:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well said, George. As usual, you do a much better job than I do of putting things into words.

Aw shucks . . . . but you know, I used to get paid a fair bit for doing that. Now I work in academia, where the words are supposed to be their own reward. :)

Actually, I don't know. But I can sure believe it.