Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11269 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 9:24 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RayD wrote:
What I see as your and Goats agenda? Ok. Tell me if I'm wrong but I see a Libertarian Ayn Randian view that government is the problem when it comes to addressing most any issue.

Since AGW can't be addressed by individuals alone, it must not exist!

Inherently flawed logic there.

Wether govt is a problem has nothing to do with the issue of AGW's basis and arguments.

And AGW as claimed, is entirely solvable by the claimant individuals anyway, without a single govt action or law...assuming the believer's will to do so in their own lives and accept the consequences of what they claim to believe.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 14210 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 9:26 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
Pretty sure this thread wouldn't have over 10,000 posts if the content here wasn't adding both value and energy to the forum.

Well considering that about 95% of the posts are from the same 4 people that is not value and energy. That is a circle jerk.

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11269 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 9:27 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Yeah, It's almost like the thinking skills that scientists learn for their professional careers effects the way in which they view human relations and politics.

Hubris and self admiration does not have a good effect on how they view human relations and politics. This is the kind of humble bragging we get on so many things. They're just so smart they just know better...about things they cannot know better in the first place.

I think they're more twisted by the inverted incentives, infighting, and power struggles in academia ( I observed this stuff in faculty as a kid, my dad was a professor) , such as the fact they operate in social conditions where they do not have to actually produce things for non captive customers who don't have to pay them if they don't want to. They just have to schmooze and gladhand until they get grants or money from people who are spending someone else's money, which fundamentally changes the equation.

It's more like evidence they don't apply skills they've learned to their own ideas because of an inflated self image which gives them the impression other folks need to be told what to do by the observer, who is of course so smart and knows better. By their own standard, which they don't wish to admit to.... other than the humble bragging.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11269 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 9:28 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant wrote:
Well considering that about 95% of the posts are from the same 4 people that is not value and energy. That is a circle jerk.

Then why are you posting here or even reading it?

I am unaware of a standard which uses percentages to validate unstated standards for value and energy.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6683 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 9:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
And AGW is entirely solvable by individuals anyway, without a single govt action or law...assuming the believer's will to do so in their own lives and accept the consequences of what they claim to believe.

Interesting claim -- sort of like claiming that SMOG problems in 1960s Los Angeles could be solved by everyone simply stop driving their cars.

The problem is a bit more demanding -- it's not just to stop emissions, but it is protect the environment while still supporting robust economic growth.

The catalytic converter was a technological development and it's wide spread usage a regulatory development that both cleaned up the air and allowed folks to continue their lifestyle with minimal disruption.

Pursuing a similar outcome is a solution -- a combination of technological development and regulatory changes is what has been effective in the past.

What evidence do you have to support that human beings would in fact make your proposed radical changes voluntarily ?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1590 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 9:48 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RayD wrote:
I'd hope so. What we have here is a Senator being a moron while your previous post was of a nobody named St Greta. Your agenda is obvious by your previous posts. Even Goat admits to having an agenda. Don't be shy, admit to yours

An elected US representative - "Whatever, I don't know that guy". "Not from my state, what can I do!"

A kid from another country - "GET HER" "Land of the free.. .BUT NOT FREE THINKING GET THE PORTAGALLOWS"

*Some guys go from looking silly to creepy. Doing great.

Parked Out wrote:
whole agenda idiocy anyway

OK OK I'm sorry I used the word in this thread, it's just some fancy sounding word I heard while I was switching past Fox, talk to them tongue.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11269 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 9:49 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Interesting claim -- sort of like claiming that SMOG problems in 1960s Los Angeles could be solved by everyone simply stop driving their cars.

Oh, so you mean a true claim.

RandyHiker wrote:
The problem is a bit more demanding -- it's not just to stop emissions, but it is protect the environment while still supporting robust economic growth.

That doesn't change the core argument a bit. These folks living their own demands would necessarily create entirely new markets and vastly increase existing ones in 'green' tech and employment.

Robust growth doesn't need to be managed, or imposed. It merely needs to be allowed, and not interfered with.

RandyHiker wrote:
The catalytic converter was a technological development and it's wide spread usage a regulatory development that both cleaned up the air and allowed folks to continue their lifestyle with minimal disruption.

That something was imposed is not evidence it would not be sold anyway to people who wanted to solve the problem they perceived.

RandyHiker wrote:
What evidence do you have to support that human beings would in fact make your proposed radical changes voluntarily ?

I didn't make that claim. The fact that those who proclaim to be concerned don't choose to make the huge cuts to their standard of living, is proof they will not choose to live what they claim to value and believe, but they will support forcing others to do so in order to make it easier on themselves.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6683 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 10:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
The catalytic converter was a technological development and it's wide spread usage a regulatory development that both cleaned up the air and allowed folks to continue their lifestyle with minimal disruption.

That something was imposed is not evidence it would not be sold anyway to people who wanted to solve the problem they perceived.

Again that's your proposed theory of human behavior -- of which you have provided zero supporting evidence.    History has plenty of counter examples

Quote:
Did you know? The first catalytic converter was developed around 1950 for use in smoke stacks. It was invented by the French engineer Eugene Houdry. However, widespread use of the catalytic converter in cars began only in 1975, when regulations restricting air pollution produced by automobiles were introduced.

LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1590 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 10:22 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant wrote:
Parked Out wrote:
Pretty sure this thread wouldn't have over 10,000 posts if the content here wasn't adding both value and energy to the forum.

Well considering that about 95% of the posts are from the same 4 people that is not value and energy. That is a circle jerk.

Can we meet in the middle and just call it an energetic circle jerk?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
catsp
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Jun 2017
Posts: 95 | TRs

catsp
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 11:30 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
The entire 'problem' exists because the people who claim to be a majority, who claim to care the most and that something must be done, refuse to actually take the steps in their own lives to do the drastic cuts and take the hits to their own standard of living. ...

The fact is, they claim to be a majority and if every single one of them lived the claims, they could slash carbon without a single new law. But...that's where it will be easier to live their ideals if they can force others to as well, comes in.

MtnGoat wrote:
There are many facets here. ... Another is that people claiming it's a problem won't do the radical reductions themselves in their own lives.

MtnGoat wrote:
[H]ypocrisy ... is an argument against folks who would use force against other people in order to compel them to serve the ends the proponents of same won't choose to voluntarily serve with their own dime, time, and risk.

MtnGoat wrote:
The fact that those who proclaim to be concerned don't choose to make the huge cuts to their standard of living, is proof they will not choose to live what they claim to value and believe, but they will support forcing others to do so in order to make it easier on themselves.

If I understand MG's argument on this particular point, it's two-fold. One is that if the people who believed certain actions should be taken to slash carbon output (or whatever else was needed to counter AGW) would simply take such actions themselves, just these people doing so would be enough for the results they seek. I'm not sure many of those people believe that to be accurate, and haven't myself seen anything to believe that it's accurate, and there are probably a number of observations one could make to call the assertion into question.

But I'm guessing that argument is sort of secondary to the primary one on this point anyways: the "hypocrisy" argument. If I understand correctly, MG's complaint is that the "believers" don't even want to voluntarily make changes/incur burdens in an effort to combat AGW. If that's an accurate understanding, to me it seems like a point that weighs in favor of government-imposed action, not against it.

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for even a "believer" to decline to carry the entire burden for countering AGW. It seems to me that it's akin to saying that since you agree that some wilderness places are overrun, you alone should carry the burden of no longer going there.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 497 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 03, 2019 7:06 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
What a weenie!

climate weenie
climate weenie

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11269 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 8:33 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Times like these. When you've worked yourself into a frenzy over beneficial changes there is no unique empirical evidence you can do anything about...but your revolutionary spirit doesn't extend as far as reducing your own standard of living by choice.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11269 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 8:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Hi catsp

These folks claim to be in the majority. As such making the changes in their own lives will necessarily induce massive changes in what they consume thus what is produced.

Next, if people won't even choose to live their own claimed beliefs, why is it ok to force others into service of those beliefs? The proponents already demonstrate its not important enough to them to live them.

Using someone else's lives to serve those ends, to make it easier for the believers, is an issue I've raised more than once. No one was put here to be a tool for someone else's beliefs,

I really appreciate your approach with decent arguments dealing with what I've actually stated, no use of strawman arguments, no ad homs.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6683 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 8:56 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Next, if people won't even choose to live their own claimed beliefs

What about advocates that live their beliefs and advocate for free market solutions? -- e.g. Amory Lovins
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11269 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 12:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Again that's your proposed theory of human behavior -- of which you have provided zero supporting evidence.    History has plenty of counter examples

RandyHiker wrote:
LINK

There's no theory required for this argument, merely fact.

You cannot know what people would have chosen when conditions allowing the choice were not allowed.

All that's going on here is you're attempting to justify the impositions on the basis that you can't achieve your ends without them.

You pointed out history is littered with examples of innocent people not choosing what they're told to choose, until the 'or else we harm you, your rights, bank account, etc" condition is imposed.

The idea that's its acceptable because you can't achieve the desired ends without compulsion of innocent people, doesn't make it ok or justifiable. It's ends justify the means argument

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday smmslt, chris_NWUE!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy