American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

I do think its wise to analyze bias and no where more important than in ourselves. I'm an accountant and no you should not hate us (unless its a small company). The ones you should hate are the financial analysts. Those are the people asking you why you spent money on x or telling you not to spend money on that thing you 100% need to spend money on. They also come up with the forecasts. And even for a business forecast in the short term I don't think I've EVER seen it be right in 10 years.... I also live in Wisconsin and our weather can be pretty unpredictable. Lets just say I get why people could be leery of long term forecasts even if done with the best will in the world.

So ya its a fair question to challenge such a belief if you have it. And in general I try to challenge political assumptions. Politics is after all about power. Never forget that. So yes lets assume that the side being funded by the fossil fuel industry is JUST as likely to be right as the side of scientists across multiple disciplines, institutions, countries, ect. Lets set aside any actual recent evidence in high temperatures. Throw out what I know from my own interest in geologic history as that is also an uncertain science. Lets throw out that the fossil fuel industry itself for a long time has done its own studies and come to the conclusion its causing harm. BTW this is all correct if you want to challenge your own assumptions. This is a time to chuck out your own logic. Does any of the things I'm saying to ignore or take as equal actually logically make sense to me. HECK NO. But you SHOULD be able to give the other side advantages and your ideas still hold up. Some people may recognize the above as my half argument I was using with Greenline. I only engage in political discussion here and my media is pretty normal so that has bias, but in any case I have never seen the above argument. As far as I know its an Mjmd original, although I suspect its out there somewhere. So yes lets assume equal probability between it will all be fine if we do nothing and bad things will happen if we do nothing. Lets assume halfway is the truth. Lets assume both sides have bias or are lying ect.

So should we do something if the truth is halfway in between. Yes, but much less than most are saying we need to do. Ok, lets assume that is the correct course of action. How bad will it be if what actually happens is nothing as one side says / there isn't anything we can do. Well we probably wasted a little money, but still got some useful tech, areas of cheaper energy, and slightly cleaner air which has knock on health benefits. If the truth is it ends up worse and we didn't do enough, that is magnitudes more cost and suffering. So even if you actually think the truth is halfway, to me it makes more sense to lean towards safe here even if we assume anything either way any amount from half is equally likely, there is just vastly more risk one direction. And to be clear even if we assume half is right, we aren't doing enough.

I challenge opponents to try to challenge their own bias and assumptions in a similar manner. Give the opposite side in the argument some bonuses that don't make sense to you. Assume both sides are lying (its a pretty good assumption in politics anyways).

[greenline]

So should we do something if the truth is halfway in between. Yes, but much less than most are saying we need to do. Ok, lets assume that is the correct course of action. How bad will it be if what actually happens is nothing as one side says / there isn't anything we can do. Well we probably wasted a little money, but still got some useful tech, areas of cheaper energy, and slightly cleaner air which has knock on health benefits.

I have a much higher standard for people demanding my money. The idea that a group of scientists who make incorrect, unfalsifiable predictions over and over might be right is hardly enough to support lowering my standard of living. The majority of Americans agree on this. The ones who don't - the ones who are open in wanting to see Americans drive less, eat less meat, live lower class lives on the whole - these views primarily come from the highly rich and educated. Curious.

By the way, not once in this argument has someone posted here a graph produced by "the fossil fuel industry." The fossil fuel industry doesn't charts to prove that it is valuable, because it provides the gas for my car, the fertilizer for the food on my plate, and millions of other necessities.

[Mjmd]

I challenge you to challenge yourself. I just went through an entire logical proof. Think about the logic I threw out to get to believing half is the truth. Do the same for yourself. There are logical observations you could include instead of excluding (and it sounds like you are excluding just based on unknown scale and not that they don't make sense, getting to halfway should be pretty easy here). Then do a logical proof that for some reason doing less if YOU assume that halfway is correct is still the thing to do.

US 2022 green energy subsidies were $15.6 billion ish annually. Again estimates of climate change cost can run into multiple trillions, but take a low 1Trillion estimate, cut it in half just because (so multiple levels of being conservative here). Does increasing that to $50B sound unreasonable to then prevent even $100B a year down the line (so essentially 20% reduction of 50% of a low estimate)? Again, assuming 100% of the predictions are wrong, we still end up with useful long term tech, cheaper areas of energy, and better air quality. So how much of that $50B a year is wasteful even if you are 100% right? Hard to quantify, but certainly some amount. The point being is it starts looking a lot less wasteful the farther away form absolute 0. And again there is plenty of logic that the truth is somewhere not at absolute nothing bad will happen. So run through that logical exercise. Then put yourself on a scale of between 0% of things will happen and you believe everything. Even if you end up with 20% is the truth vs my 50%, you would still come to the conclusion its cheaper to do something.

Again, when you see predictions being wrong, but being being wrong worse in the ice is melting faster than expected or the seas are warming faster than expected that doesn't mean the scientists are 100% wrong. It means climate modelling is super complex. I fully believe climate scientists are NOT 100% correct. But its not like some basic looking at temperature charts / basic understanding of science doesn't get you part way in that direction. And you don't have to go far in that direction before it makes sense to do more.

[greenline]

I challenge you to challenge yourself. I just went through an entire logical proof. Think about the logic I threw out to get to believing half is the truth. Do the same for yourself. There are logical observations you could include instead of excluding (and it sounds like you are excluding just based on unknown scale and not that they don't make sense, getting to halfway should be pretty easy here). Then do a logical proof that for some reason doing less if YOU assume that halfway is correct is still the thing to do.

It's obvious that you have no idea what a logical proof is. Most people don't, since they never actually studied formal logic, and nor would they be expected to in their daily life. Take a look at this example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch_notation. If you keep using the words 'logical proof' with your high school level understanding of logic, then I am just going to assume you really love the sound of your own voice and ignore everything else you say in this thread.

US 2022 green energy subsidies were $15.6 billion ish annually. Again estimates of climate change cost can run into multiple trillions, but take a low 1Trillion estimate, cut it in half just because (so multiple levels of being conservative here). Does increasing that to $50B sound unreasonable to then prevent even $100B a year down the line (so essentially 20% reduction of 50% of a low estimate)? Again, assuming 100% of the predictions are wrong, we still end up with useful long term tech, cheaper areas of energy, and better air quality. So how much of that $50B a year is wasteful even if you are 100% right? Hard to quantify, but certainly some amount. The point being is it starts looking a lot less wasteful the farther away form absolute 0. And again there is plenty of logic that the truth is somewhere not at absolute nothing bad will happen. So run through that logical exercise. Then put yourself on a scale of between 0% of things will happen and you believe everything. Even if you end up with 20% is the truth vs my 50%, you would still come to the conclusion its cheaper to do something.

What are these cost estimates of climate change based on? The entirely fictitious belief that an increase in hurricane intensity and damage has already occurred? What gives a climate scientist, whose only expertise is in constructing long term weather models of already dubious accuracy - any ability to forecast financial damages?

AI scientists make similar arguments. They say, AI has a non zero percent chance to destroy the world and kill all humans - so one should give them as much money as they ask for, so they can solve AI alignment. Or something. At least they have the curtesy not to try and shut down the entire industrial base as well as covering their salaries.

[Mjmd]

So you in know way want try to challenge your own assumptions? Do it in whatever way you want. Please give me the argument for doing nothing. In that argument I expect you to address current phenomenon, why past geologic periods with more carbon aren't a good indicator, and why scientists across multiple disciplines, institutions, countries are 100% wrong. Not just its unknown or scale is uncertain. Why all the basic scientific understanding of greenhouse gases is wrong. This is the thing. I don't have to be right by that much to be on the right side. Even if I just rely on basic understanding of science a little something still should be done. You have to be almost entirely right based off of ???? This is what I want you explain to me. You have to explain to me the 100% doubt. Not just some uncertain level. I agree its a complex question with uncertainty, but I don't agree that its 0. So your job is to explain it down to 0. That is why this argument is frustrating. You can't do that. You can throw uncertainty and doubt about level of certainty, but proving that we should do nothing? Go for it.

There is a reason I took a very low estimate and then cut it even more. A) its safer B) if you can prove it at a lower amount it makes the argument stronger.

Edit: ya lets ban AI. I don't want to fix it.

[greenline]

So you in know way want try to challenge your own assumptions? Do it in whatever way you want. Please give me the argument for doing nothing. In that argument I expect you to address current phenomenon, why past geologic periods with more carbon aren't a good indicator, and why scientists across multiple disciplines, institutions, countries are 100% wrong. Not just its unknown or scale is uncertain. Why all the basic scientific understanding of greenhouse gases is wrong. This is the thing. I don't have to be right by that much to be on the right side. Even if I just rely on basic understanding of science a little something still should be done. You have to be almost entirely right based off of ???? This is what I want you explain to me. You have to explain to me the 100% doubt. Not just some uncertain level. I agree its a complex question with uncertainty, but I don't agree that its 0. So your job is to explain it down to 0. That is why this argument is frustrating. You can't do that. You can throw uncertainty and doubt about level of certainty, but proving that we should do nothing? Go for it.

Bolded are the flawed assumptions you are putting forward. What climatologists have done, generously, is provide evidence for a warming of the average global temperature. That's it. Looking at the geologic record, one finds that the earth warms and cools. Climatologists say it is warming faster than it was before. This fact is ultimately one that does not speak to any significant consequences, financial or otherwise.

If the Earth is warming faster, and this is in part due to human expulsions of the greenhouse gases, then.... it is. That's all that has been proven. Any further apocalyptic scenarios: massive droughts, giant hurricanes, even "climate refugees" - these have not been proven to be a result of this change. The burden of proof is still on the climatologist to prove that these trillion dollar damages that only exist in their imagination are real. And the predictions saying when such damages will occur have proven to be repeatedly inaccurate or entirely fabricated.

[Mjmd]

Why has the Earth warmed and cooled before? What is one of the common reasons? It isn't the level of greenhouse gases by any chance? Has the climate changing ever impacted human civilization before by any chance? Please do answer these. By the way its always weird to me that you will accept some science but not all. You will accept the science that says the earth and warmed and cooled in the past, but not the science that says it will warm in the future. Just something to think about when challenging your own assumptions.

I know you wouldn't believe a scientific paper done by 100 scientist and peer reviewed by 1000, so lets take the simplest of consequences. More warm = more melting; you with me? We have these things called low lying areas that commonly inhabited (something about economic activity and port cities). Does it follow that more melting = more areas that will be affected? This is one of the major consequences predicted. Again, you can argue about the level, but since the logic of more warm = more melting is hard to argue, can we agree some amount will happen, and therefore doesn't that mean the answer IS NOT 0. Another fairly intuitive one is that we we know changing climate = changing weather patterns. We can argue on the how much and results, but as pointed out above changing weather patterns 100% have affected human civilization before. Will the cost of this be 0? Again, almost certainly not. This is just with the basic understanding of things will change because of our actions. We can very easily figure out the the consequences aren't nothing. Again, you need to prove nothing. Please address why neither of these will happen 1) water will rise 2) weather patterns will change.

[greenline]

Why has the Earth warmed and cooled before? What is one of the common reasons? It isn't the level of greenhouse gases by any chance? Has the climate changing ever impacted human civilization before by any chance? Please do answer these. By the way its always weird to me that you will accept some science but not all. You will accept the science that says the earth and warmed and cooled in the past, but not the science that says it will warm in the future. Just something to think about when challenging your own assumptions.

You said you're an accountant, right? I believe accountants are generally required to be able to read English in this country? Read this again:

But lets try to logic through something simple shall we. Warmer = more melting. Can we agree here?

Yes, but this is the extent of our agreement...

I know you wouldn't believe a scientific paper done by 100 scientist and peer reviewed by 1000, so lets take the simplest of consequences. More warm = more melting; you with me? We have these things called low lying areas that commonly inhabited (something about economic activity and port cities). Does it follow that more melting = more areas that will be affected? This is one of the major consequences predicted. Again, you can argue about the level, but since the logic of more warm = more melting is hard to argue, can we agree some amount will happen, and therefore doesn't that mean the answer IS NOT 0. Another fairly intuitive one is that we we know changing climate = changing weather patterns. We can argue on the how much and results, but as pointed out above changing weather patterns 100% have affected human civilization before. Will the cost of this be 0? Again, almost certainly not. This is just with the basic understanding of things will change because of our actions. We can very easily figure out the the consequences aren't nothing. Again, you need to prove nothing. Please address why neither of these will happen 1) water will rise 2) weather patterns will change.

Here's the most obvious answer to this quandary. There already has been visible instances of higher ice melting. Models for rising sea levels have not matched those for melting ice. Ice is melting faster than expected, but sea levels are not rising faster than expected, and more crucially, existing low lying port cities are not facing increasing, unexpected damages due to the melting that has already occurred. So clearly, the peer reviewed by 1000s of scientists papers about sea level rise are wrong, and have been wrong for the past forty years.

[Mjmd]

Ah resorting to Ad hominin. I'll take the win. Those aren't exactly hard questions to answer, so I'll assume you are avoiding them.

Again, even if you agree more warm = more melting, that isn't nothing. You need to prove nothing, so again I win.

Oh do state your source please. I'm dying to know where you are getting this information and why you think its more relevant than other sources. This would link nicely into my question about explaining phenomenon since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

[greenline]

Since the IPCC does not provide a convenient combination graph of observed vs modeled sea level rise in their reports, here is one from a UK climate organization: https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/compa...ervations/. Note the significant and repeated difference in the model observations and the observed data.

I also noted that more recent IPCC documents are keen to say that most worst case projected sea level rises will struggle to meet a one foot change in one hundred years. Hardly apocalyptic stuff.

No credible news source claims that any low lying port cities are currently spending large sums of money due to damages caused by sea level rise.

Those aren't exactly hard questions to answer...

The Earth is observed to be undergoing average warming. Warming correlates significantly to CO2 percentages in the atmosphere. Humans are observed to contribute significantly to CO2 release in the atmosphere in addition to natural sources. All of these things are true.