|
Jaxyon posted:The argument isn't "failure is great, you get something better next time", the argument is "Popular sentiment" is not a synonym for what politicians are willing to do. Your argument relies on the idea that the death of an incremental step somehow underwear-gnomes its way into much larger steps. But no one has given an example of this ever occurring. There is no logic in the idea that politicians not being open to even an incremental step means that they're going to be more open to much larger, more transformational change later. Especially with climate change, where the consequence to doing literally nothing compounds the problem by orders of magnitude that require, of course, even larger steps to address than before. quote:Hence, So which one is it? Lack of political will or lack of popular sentiment? You can't just switch back and forth between these two goalposts just based on what is more convenient to your argument. Pick one.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:there are many people who are blithely asserting that; unfortunately the facts do not bear out that conclusion (which is why those facts are being widely ignored by the "do nothing" camp in favor of such blithe assertions). that is, however, a much better argument (as grievously flawed as it is given that the facts falsify it) against the bill compared to "well its not giving me a car" What facts are you referring to here exactly Are you describing projections produced by greenwashing outfits directly funded by the likes of ExxonMobil and Blackrock as facts? Because that's not what the word "fact" means and you should probably employ more precise language in this instance
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The argument isn't "failure is great, you get something better next time", the argument is "its arguable" means nothing. argue it! obviously, the preference is "pass everything you want, right now" once we accept that is not currently possible, there are basically two choices: (a) pass what you can get now; (b) do not pass what you can get now. so yes, option b does require you to believe that failure is good and you'll get something better next time (what you actually want). the problem is, going down in failure means people are hesitant to try again next time - after all, you went down in failure last time. how are you going to convince people this time is going to be different? or, you don't go down in failure - you succeed to a large degree - and then next time when you ask people to go farther you can say both (a) we succeeded last time; and (b) it's a much smaller lift now so success is even more likely the farther you try to change something, the harder it is. that is especially true for something like climate change, where you have to spend a ton of money and impact a lot of people. spending 370b now means that the next time we need to spend less - making it all the easier to get it by whoever the 50th vote going "its too much money!" is Jaxyon posted:being an obvious course but never actually happening. Obama is the one that killed the public option, not lack of a majority. the reason nothing happened post-2010 has a lot to do with who had power, rather than there being lower impetus for democrats to do a thing. the past year and a half has been the only time it was even theoretically possible, and it was incredibly narrowly theroetically possible - so there have been some improvements (in the bill we just discussed!). that said, in 2020 biden and the democrats ran on implementing a public option - but they don't have a solid enough majority to deliver it (sinema is probably more of the problem than manchin, but both would be problems).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Xombie posted:"Popular sentiment" is not a synonym for what politicians are willing to do. Your argument relies on the idea that the death of an incremental step somehow underwear-gnomes its way into much larger steps. But no one has given an example of this ever occurring. Navigation, in their post, specifically was referring to politicians, but also gave a scientific study later on as far as the sentiment portion. quote:There is no logic in the idea that politicians not being open to even an incremental step means that they're going to be more open to much larger, more transformational change later. Especially with climate change, where the consequence to doing literally nothing compounds the problem by orders of magnitude that require, of course, even larger steps to address than before. The argument is that them passing one incremental policy leads them to have an excuse not to support further policies later. The evidence for this is them not supporting further policies later, on healthcare. CA is a great example of having a supermajority yet somehow not being able to build significantly on the ACA. And yes I'm ware that CA is comparatively good at the incremental portions, which is how they push off arguments about them actually doing something major, case in point. quote:So which one is it? Lack of political will or lack of popular sentiment? You can't just switch back and forth between these two goalposts just based on what is more convenient to your argument. Pick one. I did. The switch is something you misread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:"its arguable" means nothing. argue it! I am, right now. quote:obviously, the preference is "pass everything you want, right now" once we accept that is not currently possible, there are basically two choices: (a) pass what you can get now; (b) do not pass what you can get now. This does nothing to support the argument that we can build on the incremental successes, it simply agrees that what passes, like the ACA, is probably the most that will be passed. quote:the farther you try to change something, the harder it is. that is especially true for something like climate change, where you have to spend a ton of money and impact a lot of people. spending 370b now means that the next time we need to spend less - making it all the easier to get it by whoever the 50th vote going "its too much money!" is "Why do a dramatic change to healthcare, we just passed the ACA! Let it do it's job!" quote:the reason nothing happened post-2010 has a lot to do with who had power, rather than there being lower impetus for democrats to do a thing. the past year and a half has been the only time it was even theoretically possible, and it was incredibly narrowly theroetically possible - so there have been some improvements (in the bill we just discussed!). that said, in 2020 biden and the democrats ran on implementing a public option - but they don't have a solid enough majority to deliver it (sinema is probably more of the problem than manchin, but both would be problems). Obama ran on the public option and was the specific person who killed it. Politicians running on things isn't proof of anything, that's simply campaigning. There's all sorts of policies that either party has run on but largely failed to deliver on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:What facts are you referring to here exactly The Princeton and U.N. studies say basically the same thing as the Rhodium and Blackrock studies. The Princeton study is considered the gold standard in climate study and they predict it getting us ~66% of the way to the goals set in the Paris Accords. Which is a little lower than the other studies predicting 69.7%, but pretty much the same ballpark. https://repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_IRA_Prelminary_Report_2022-08-04.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Navigation, in their post, specifically was referring to politicians, but also gave a scientific study later on as far as the sentiment portion. Which are two completely different things. Again, pick one. As evilweasel pointed out, the ACA has led to an increase in popular support for UHC. Politicians simply haven't followed. quote:The argument is that them passing one incremental policy leads them to have an excuse not to support further policies later. Once again, this implies the reverse is also true: That if they fail at incremental policy, they'll support more transformative policy. Where is the evidence of this happening? quote:The evidence for this is them not supporting further policies later, on healthcare. CA is a great example of having a supermajority yet somehow not being able to build significantly on the ACA. And yes I'm ware that CA is comparatively good at the incremental portions, which is how they push off arguments about them actually doing something major, case in point. "They didn't support this before, and still don't support it now" isn't evidence that they didn't support it because they got some other, less transformative policy win. You're claiming that one [i]causes[/i[ the other. But all your argument really means is that it doesn't have much effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Princeton and U.N. studies say basically the same thing as the Rhodium and Blackrock studies. The Princeton study is considered the gold standard in climate study and they predict it getting us ~66% of the way to the goals set in the Paris Accords. Which is a little lower than the other studies predicting 69.7%, but pretty much the same ballpark. The Princeton lab is directly funded by ExxonMobil. I'll cop that I should have been clearer but I was referencing them(as well as Rhodium) in the post
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Which are two completely different things. Again, pick one. As evilweasel pointed out, the ACA has led to an increase in popular support for UHC. Politicians simply haven't followed. There's been a slight increase in support for UHC post ACA but I didn't see anyone post clear causation instead of correlalation. But in case my previous post wasn't clear, I'm talking about the lawmakers not the public opinion. quote:Once again, this implies the reverse is also true: That if they fail at incremental policy, they'll support more transformative policy. Where is the evidence of this happening? No, it implies that the incremental policy is the maximum that will be passed and that legislators aren't using incrementalism as stepping stones. It's incremental or it's nothing with the current crop. The argument that it can be built on doesn't hold water independent of the question of whether anything more transformative was possible. quote:"They didn't support this before, and still don't support it now" isn't evidence that they didn't support it because they got some other, less transformative policy win. You're claiming that one [i]causes[/i[ the other. But all your argument really means is that it doesn't have much effect. The argument was: navigation posted:Insufficient policies reduce support for larger ones. I think that some of the legislators were never going to support more than the incremental, but those that might have supported more are fine to just rest on the incremental and not push for further stuff. So it maxes out with what the worst lawmakers will support and passing at that level effectively caps progress for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Srice posted:tbh if I genuinely believed that a politician would implement, say, M4A, I wouldn't give a dang how big of a hypocrite they were as long as they could do their best to deliver the goods. Oh of course. Folks who rag on conservatives for “hypocrisy” are either jealous or fools. Who cares about hypocrisy if you gain meaningful results? Conservatives have won the major political wars in the past 30 years. Folks may foolishly point to Obama as evidence of a conservative loss but Obama did more to advance the Republican agenda than Trump via hubris and straight up signing into law Republican plans. He killed the ground game he created and decimated important organizations (such as Acorn). Anyone who sees the Dem winning the war is lying to themselves or bullying folks to donate. Trump demonstrated to the American public how little hypocrisy matters and that should be taken as the gift it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This does nothing to support the argument that we can build on the incremental successes, it simply agrees that what passes, like the ACA, is probably the most that will be passed. i'm not sure what you mean, because i assume the really obvious response of if it's the most that will be passed ever, you pass it, is hard to dispute. if you agree the ACA is the best that could ever be (I don't think anyone takes this position) then you take it as soon as you can. the question is, if what you have isn't as much as what you want, do you take your half a loaf or do you say gently caress it let it fail. given what happened with manchin over the past year i think it's clear we've got what we can get for now - so the question is, take it or don't take it. so i'm not sure what you're arguing in response, beyond restating your position. Jaxyon posted:Politicians running on things isn't proof of anything, that's simply campaigning. There's all sorts of policies that either party has run on but largely failed to deliver on. so i think this is a key issue: if something is worth campaigning on, then there's clearly pressure to do it. yes, that promise might not be followed through on. but if there is value in promising it to voters, then clearly there is still pressure to deliver it. otherwise - why bother promising it? i mean, there's no value in promising something there's no public pressure for and then not following through, you just look stupid. so clearly, there is pressure to build on the ACA if people are promising to do it. so then you have the question of, well if you win the election, do you do it? that requires, of course, winning enough power to do it - having enough of a majority in the house and senate to do it. the fact that joe biden ran on it doesn't mean, say, kristin sinema ran on it (or didn't change her mind from when she did). your argument seems to be: you can pressure wavering legislators or non-believer legislators who don't really care to do more if the problem is severe than if you have done a half-measure (and if not, correct me). there is no good reason that would be easier if last time you swung for the fences and failed utterly, vs you got halfway there and you're asking them to go the rest of the way. after all: they don't want to do it (or you wouldn't be concerned about public pressure), or they're nervous about doing it. they don't want to get on board if it's going to fail, and the more you're asking them to do the more skittish they'll be about getting on board. and if you failed miserably last time rather than take the half-loaf last time: what makes you think they can't just offer up that same half-loaf as the farthest they'll go this time? if you've pocketed that, they have to be for or against going farther. if it's a huge problem they can be for going halfway and seem to be more receptive to that public pressure than if they're just saying "no"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Doesn't explain the presidency which historically trends towards the incumbent in the latter scenario. --Trump is an uniquely bad Presidential candidate, most people hate him, and his unique shittyness causes him to not do particularly well in Presidential elections in. But this also provides him a diehard floor of really lovely people. --As lovely a candidate as Trump is, he still more or less functions exactly like a Republican Presidential candidate. So he had an advantage in 2016 opposing the outgoing Presidential party and had an advantage in 2020 as the incumbent President. Kasich, Cruz or whoever would have probably beaten Hillary Clinton and honestly probably Sanders in 2016. They may not have gotten the majority of the popular vote, but no Republican Presidential candidate probably is going to go again. I think they would have probably had more decisive victories in the swing states that would have handed them the electoral win. Trump in our actual reality got the same victory because he's just another Republican candidate running in a year when Republicans should win. But he did it by the skin of his teeth because he's Trump and most people hate him. Inversely, he lost 2020 because most people hate him, but also didn't lose by as much as some people thought he might have lost because (1) He's the incumbent (2) The economy had been doing relatively well (3) A national emergency like COVID tends to help politicians not hurt them. That is all to say that I think with a Presidential Kasich--who in material terms would probably be as bad as Trump in most ways--but there would have also probably been in a blue wave in 2018, maybe not as big, and we'd probably have a President Kasich sitting in the White House for his second term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:The Princeton lab is directly funded by ExxonMobil. I'll cop that I should have been clearer but I was referencing them(as well as Rhodium) in the post The Princeton study isn't funded directly by Exxon Mobile. You might be thinking of the fact that they fund engineering grants and faculty projects for the school. The Princeton study is funded exclusively by grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and grants from the Hewlett foundation. It is considered the gold standard by all the major climate groups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Kasich, Cruz or whoever would have probably beaten Hillary Clinton and honestly probably Sanders in 2016. Sanders has been the most popular politician in America for years now, this position is just laughable at this point
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
selec posted:I think we crossed the event horizon where hypocrisy matters like 10+ years ago. It doesn’t matter, it’s just a way to pep rally your own team, but doesn’t fundamentally change or affect rhetoric or political leanings. People know everything about our country and history have hypocrisy baked in so we can ignore our own any time we want, while observing it in others. Has all the actual political salience of adding gold fringe to a flag and saying it means something significant. This. "Surely this example of open hypocrisy will move the needle, despite it not doing so since at least 2010" isn't compelling. We're dealing with fascists. Fascists think it's awesome when their side gets away with lying. Sartre's quote about fascists and their knowingly playing word games comes into play here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i'm not sure what you mean, because i assume the really obvious response of if it's the most that will be passed ever, you pass it, is hard to dispute. if you agree the ACA is the best that could ever be (I don't think anyone takes this position) then you take it as soon as you can. the question is, if what you have isn't as much as what you want, do you take your half a loaf or do you say gently caress it let it fail. I'm saying you take it, but also don't believe that it will be build on, and using the ACA as an example it will be chipped away at, largely unenforced(like mental/behavioral health parity), and used as an argument to not push for more substantial change. quote:so i think this is a key issue: if something is worth campaigning on, then there's clearly pressure to do it. yes, that promise might not be followed through on. but if there is value in promising it to voters, then clearly there is still pressure to deliver it. otherwise - why bother promising it? i mean, there's no value in promising something there's no public pressure for and then not following through, you just look stupid. so clearly, there is pressure to build on the ACA if people are promising to do it. There was pressure for single payer and public option, especially among the youth vote, that got Obama elected, and he is specifically the person who killed it. quote:your argument seems to be: you can pressure wavering legislators or non-believer legislators who don't really care to do more if the problem is severe than if you have done a half-measure (and if not, correct me). there is no good reason that would be easier if last time you swung for the fences and failed utterly, vs you got halfway there and you're asking them to go the rest of the way. after all: they don't want to do it (or you wouldn't be concerned about public pressure), or they're nervous about doing it. they don't want to get on board if it's going to fail, and the more you're asking them to do the more skittish they'll be about getting on board. No the argument is that while what passed might have been the most that could have been passed at the time, it also likely hurts the ability to do anything BUT what was passed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think the way that I've started to look at Trump is that there are two opposing forces that Trump has to find a balance with during elections cruz would absolutely not have won in 2016 at all against hillary or sanders. kasich, rubio, or christie would have though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
^ My gut agrees with you, but I honestly don't know how Ted Cruz ever held political office to begin with. ^Failed Imagineer posted:Sanders has been the most popular politician in America for years now, this position is just laughable at this point Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Aug 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
navigation posted:Insufficient policies reduce support for larger ones. I'm not really sure how people can believe otherwise, just listen to the rhetoric Manchin et al will use the next time action on climate is proposed. It'll absolutely be "we already did a dramatic and vastly successful action, we need to focus on other things". You'd have to believe that that message is ineffective or would be drowned out by overwhelming and continuous calls for action coming from other sources in order to believe that this bill passing is some sort of momentum builder; that doesn't feel realistic to me but I suppose that's where subjective opinion kicks in. Climate policy is a massive subject that impacts dozens of industries. It's an extremely complex web of numerous policies, many of which don't really interact directly. I don't think it's fair to say that electric car subsidies reduce the chances of regulating cryptocurrency mining, for instance. The article you posted specifically focuses on a carbon tax, as a wide measure that could potentially impact every industry involved in carbon emissions. But the article itself admits that carbon taxes are politically unlikely. The more closely I read it, the more I'm convinced that they're really delivering a very simple conclusion: support for an unpopular-but-necessary policy decreases if people believe that the same goal could be met using a different policy that's far less unpopular. This is consistent with the study's findings that the best ways to minimize the diminishing effect are to emphasize that the smaller measure is smaller and to try to minimize the apparent cost of the larger policy. Lastly, and most importantly, that article does not say that passing a small and popular policy reduces support for a larger unpopular policy. It says that mentioning a small popular policy reduces support for a larger unpopular policy. In other words, it's not a study about long-term legislative strategy at all, it's a study about short-term messaging strategy, where the main takeaway is to be careful about introducing a range of policies to people without making the relative impact of those policies clear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Princeton and U.N. studies say basically the same thing as the Rhodium and Blackrock studies. The Princeton study is considered the gold standard in climate study and they predict it getting us ~66% of the way to the goals set in the Paris Accords. Which is a little lower than the other studies predicting 69.7%, but pretty much the same ballpark. Is there anything on the horizon that will get us the rest of the way there in time? I’m skeptical because it’s the government and I can see them just leaving it all to this bill. It’s been over ten years since the ACA has passed and there hasn’t been anything meaningful that would make it better or get us single payer. Will there be anything meaningful that will get us the rest of the way there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Is there anything on the horizon that will get us the rest of the way there in time? I’m skeptical because it’s the government and I can see them just leaving it all to this bill. It’s been over ten years since the ACA has passed and there hasn’t been anything meaningful that would make it better or get us single payer. Well you gotta get dems into a bare majority and then hope they will do the things they didn't do when they had a fillibuster proof one OR Not vote for them and be assured you'll not get anything better Great options!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Is there anything on the horizon that will get us the rest of the way there in time? I’m skeptical because it’s the government and I can see them just leaving it all to this bill. It’s been over ten years since the ACA has passed and there hasn’t been anything meaningful that would make it better or get us single payer. There's nothing in the tank legislatively at the federal level. There's 3 areas where things are happening/possible that could provide big chunks of the remaining gap. 1) Is the new EPA rule on passenger car and truck emissions for 2023 through 2026 models and the follow-up for 2027 models. https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions 2) Is a proposed methane regulation rule that would sharply reduce allowable methane emissions from all existing oil and gas wells in the U.S. https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry/epa-proposes-new-source-performance 3) Is for the $250 billion in green energy loans in the IRA to spur a lot of carbon reduction. They weren't modeled because they can't accurately say how it will play out and only modeled the the ~$400 billion in direct spending. #1 is happening and that is good. #2 has been extended and tied up over court cases and complaints from the oil and gas industry. Who knows if/when it will happen and what the final rule will look like? Could be huge, could be nothing. #3 we have no clue on. The rest will be stuff done at the state level, technology improvements, or private advancements. There's no real way to accurate calculate how all of those different things will play out over the next ~8 years. Maybe there will be another major climate push legislatively at the federal level in the next few years, but who knows? It would need to be around 2027 or earlier and fairly significant to get us the rest of the ~33% to the Paris goals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think the way that I've started to look at Trump is that there are two opposing forces that Trump has to find a balance with during elections I don't disagree with your analysis, but it does seem to agree with the fact going more extreme and outwardly fascist has had a negative effect on the GOP's power if going with the more moderate candidate would have given them a two-term president. Because this goes back to the claim Trump's psychotic bullshit and criming doesn't actually move the needle with anyone. 2018 was also a massive wave election. Even if the Democrats lose the house this year we have to look at the comparitive margins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Princeton study isn't funded directly by Exxon Mobile. You might be thinking of the fact that they fund engineering grants and faculty projects for the school. I didn't say the study, I said the lab. If you want to talk individual studies and individual individuals, though, Jenkins and Mayfield's previous study was directly bankrolled by BP and ExxonMobil. It's not really a roundabout connection Even assuming, however, that you think fossil fuel money has nothing to do with the figures they produced, they're still projections that come with giant caveats at the end regarding the assumptions their math is based on. To flatten theoretical calculations that require specific constraints that are unlikely to hold in the real world to "facts" as evilweasel did is inaccurate and potentially dishonest, because they are not factual
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:I didn't say the study, I said the lab. If you want to talk individual studies and individual individuals, though, Jenkins and Mayfield's previous study was directly bankrolled by BP and ExxonMobil. It's not really a roundabout connection The caveats are a fair thing to point out, but those caveats exist for all studies. All of the major studies come out somewhere between ~60% and ~70% of the way to meeting the Paris goals. That's really an issue with the concept of modeling than with a specific study. You can't predict with 100% accuracy, which is why they all provide ranges. I would think that the U.N. and most major environmental groups probably all haven't bene hoodwinked by Exxon Mobile to use the Princeton study for the last decade or more in order to boost the IRA 10 years later. The fact that every other major study by every other group shows roughly the same projection also seems to indicate that Princeton is not somehow corrupted by Exxon. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Aug 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:I didn't say the study, I said the lab. If you want to talk individual studies and individual individuals, though, Jenkins and Mayfield's previous study was directly bankrolled by BP and ExxonMobil. It's not really a roundabout connection i will plead guilty to having been slightly imprecise about the difference between the current gold-standard studies on the relative impact of the bill and a fact; i should have said "strong evidence" rather than facts leaving aside the fact-free nature of your challenges to the existing studies: which studies do you believe we should rely on? besides, like, your gut feeling that the best estimates must show the impact be marginal at best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i will plead guilty to having been slightly imprecise about the difference between the current gold-standard studies on the relative impact of the bill and a fact; i should have said "strong evidence" rather than facts distrusting the ExxonMobil PR department's approved numbers on matters of climate change has significantly more factual basis than trusting them, actually. while it is in the moment politically convenient to pretend they are the gold standard of climate science, historically speaking this typically results in a 'whoopsie, turns out we fully lied to your faces, sorry about that' several years down the line.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:distrusting the ExxonMobil PR department's approved numbers on matters of climate change has significantly more factual basis than trusting them, actually. My dude, surely you must know that calling Princeton University and the climate model used by the U.N. and every major climate group - that has existed for over a decade the "ExxonMobil PR department" is just wildly wrong. If you have at least been following the last page. If anything, they are the Hewlett Foundation and "De-carbonization project at the DOE" PR group. Their figures also match every other major model, so the problem would have to be with the concept of modelling in general rather than Princeton and Hewlett being compromised propaganda outfits Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Aug 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:My dude, surely you must know that calling Princeton University and the climate model used by the U.N. and every major climate group - that has existed for over a decade the "ExxonMobil PR department" is just wildly wrong. If you have at least been following the last page. If anything, they are the Hewlett Foundation and "De-carobinzation project at the DOE" PR group. I knew Big Chocolate was behind this
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I knew Big Chocolate was behind this Took me too long to work that one out. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Can't afford. KIA NIRO EV
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Is battery longevity gonna be big concern for buying used? On the Nissan Leaf (no thermal battery management) yes. On almost anything else? No.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The caveats are a fair thing to point out, but those caveats exist for all studies. All of the major studies come out somewhere between ~60% and ~70% of the way to meeting the Paris goals. That's really an issue with the concept of modeling than with a specific study. You can't predict with 100% accuracy, which is why they all provide ranges. You guys keep saying "gold standard" according to "environmental groups" but it's the vaguest poo poo imaginable and would be a lot more persuasive if you actually named the groups you were talking about evilweasel posted:i will plead guilty to having been slightly imprecise about the difference between the current gold-standard studies on the relative impact of the bill and a fact; i should have said "strong evidence" rather than facts Are you a climatologist? How are you personally even able to determine whether it's strong evidence or not? It seems like all you've actually done is repeated claims you heard someone else make and framed them as bulletproof based on reputation I am not a climatologist either. However, I am capable of basic critical thinking, and I have access to Google, so I am capable of looking up where the funding for these outfits originates. I am inherently skeptical that studies and studiers trying to solve a problem are going to produce objective results when the bad actors responsible for creating and propagating the problem in the first place are paying for them to study it--whether it's directly funding them, or else funding their parent institute, or funding the researchers' previous work upon which their new work is based--and the studies result in surprisingly friendly conclusions towards the bad actors. I am doubly skeptical when those bad actors appear broadly pleased with legislation that purports to attack the problem fundamental to their business model, legislation which contains a significant concession to that bad actors' industry and which would make it easier for their continued propagation of the problem, and that's being brushed off based on the study the bad actors paid for And like just for specific context, the 60 million acres the government has commanded itself to offer up per individual offshore wind lease issued is more than double the size of all federal land currently claimed by the oil industry, and almost 10% of the total land owned by the federal government. That's loving crazy But hey, let me reframe it: if the NRA bankrolled research from sufficiently prestigious universities and they came to the conclusion that gun manufacture wasn't actually as big a deal as we make it out to be, and the play is actually to give everyone coupons to everyone for high-end TVs and streaming subscriptions so they can feel safe watching Law And Order reruns, and when they passed a law doing that it also came with a rider that increased the gun industry's ability to manufacture and sell guns even easier, what would you think? Would you be suspicious, or would the reputations of the research institutions be enough to persuade you that there's nothing to see there
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
"you guys linked studies, while I have basic critical thinking and access to Google" isn't any sort of rebuttal unless you start linking credible things from your googling
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
Well, one climate scientist that comes to mind is Michael Mann: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1556484270268596224
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:You guys keep saying "gold standard" according to "environmental groups" but it's the vaguest poo poo imaginable and would be a lot more persuasive if you actually named the groups you were talking about Since you have access to Google can you copy and paste over your findings?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:And like just for specific context, the 60 million acres the government has commanded itself to offer up per individual offshore wind lease issued is more than double the size of all federal land currently claimed by the oil industry, and almost 10% of the total land owned by the federal government. That's loving crazy That is not even close to how it works. I think you might not be as well informed on this as I thought. If it was 60 million acres per individual offshore wind lease, then there would only be 1 wind lease allowed in the next 10 years for the entire country. They have to hold an auction for an oil and gas lease at least once in the past year or reach a cumulative total 60 million acres for lease auctions in the past year in order to issue an unlimited amount of leases for wind farms on federal land. TheIncredulousHulk posted:But hey, let me reframe it: if the NRA bankrolled research from sufficiently prestigious universities and they came to the conclusion that gun manufacture wasn't actually as big a deal as we make it out to be, and the play is actually to give everyone coupons to everyone for high-end TVs and streaming subscriptions so they can feel safe watching Law And Order reruns, and when they passed a law doing that it also came with a rider that increased the gun industry's ability to manufacture and sell guns even easier, what would you think? Would you be suspicious, or would the reputations of the research institutions be enough to persuade you that there's nothing to see there The Princeton study and models existed long before ExxonMobile donated anything to Princeton and $0 of it went to the study. ExxonMobile and BP's combined funding to the Princeton endowment is less than 0.4% and it directly funded a bunch of faculty projects on chemical engineering - the entire list is on the website. And literally every other model shows the same range. Why is every major climate model, climate scientist, and every major climate group from Evergreen Action to the Natural Resources Defense council to the United Nations been hoodwinked and missed this thing that you have googled? Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Aug 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Since you have access to Google can you copy and paste over your findings? I mean I already did? ExxonMobil funds Andlinger Center, and it's been a charter member of their corporate funding program since 2015. Them and BP funded the Net Zero America study, which two of the Princeton researchers in the new report worked on and credit on their website But hey maybe we really can make a huge difference in protecting the climate for a lower annual price than our 2022 Guns For Ukraine budget. It's neat it's that easy, wonder why we took so long. Wonder too why Exxon spent so much time and energy actively concealing climate science and funding disinformation for decades to protect their business model only for it to turn out all they had to do was pay a few more taxes here and there. Must feel like big ol goofs Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That is not even close to how it works. I think you might not be as well informed on this as I thought. If it was 60 million acres per individual offshore wind lease, then there would only be 1 wind lease allowed in the next 10 years for the entire country. Oh okay I misread the CRS release. You are right, tripling the land available for lease in a year is not that much in comparison
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
Debate & Discussion > USCE Summer 2022: I have basic critical thinking and access to Google
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:I mean I already did? I mean you talked about it. Linking it would be great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 00:44
|
|