• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump says privately he will leave Paris climate agreement, and does!

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
That's the thing though, we ARE basing our decisions on a rational assessment of the facts. You're basing them off of youtube videos that tell you what you want to hear.

So I decided to look up the work of Bjorn Lomborg, the person whose work that youtube video is presumably about. Shockingly enough he has a long history of extreme scientific dishonesty and a total lack of expertise in the issue he's opining about. If you're rationally assessing the facts, you would be extraordinarily foolish to trust this person as he's already been outed as a dishonest source. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist#Accusations_of_scientific_dishonesty

You see that? The book was viewed as filled with lies, but because Lomborg was so incompetent they decided not to go after him further. That's the guy you're citing as a source, lol. Note that this ruling was eventually set aside over procedural issues but not because the book was found to be honest. You can read more about his poor attempts at scientific work in a book called 'The Lomborg Deception'.

Since your source has been shown to have engaged in at best extremely poor reasoning and at worst willful deception I imagine you will now no longer base your opinion on his work. Is this correct? (lol, of course it isn't)
Click to expand...


From your own citation

OqR5fQM.png


"Not providing specific statements on actual errors."

Sorry but its a consistent thing that once leftist politics infiltrated scientific institutions and such oversight boards, their objectivity and legitimacy went straight out the door.

They decided to not re-investigate their garbage work once caught out

tVa0VcQ.png


Next time, read the entire section.

Concrete science doesn't need to resort to such underhanded tactics.

This is "science" as corrupted by the left
KXItPxb.jpg
 
Last edited:
[.
Grooveriding said:
No offense meant personally, but in only four months the United States has become a joke. The President is a conspiracy theorist and is making key policy decisions that will effect the future based on his beliefs in conspiracies. There will be no living this down. History will look back at this and label him, and those who shared his deranged ideology, as sociopaths.
Click to expand...

One day, there will be a revised version of Godwin's law which says "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 100%."

He will go down in history as one of the truly bad actors of this century.
 
0roo0roo said:
From your own citation

OqR5fQM.png


"Not providing specific statements on actual errors."

Sorry but its a consistent thing that once leftist politics infiltrated scientific institutions and such oversight boards, their objectivity and legitimacy went straight out the door.

They decided to not re-investigate their garbage work once caught out

tVa0VcQ.png


Next time, read the entire section.
Click to expand...

Called it!

Lol, next time read the entire section. They said they wouldn't investigate again because they would reach an identical conclusion of dishonesty.

I am literallly 0% surprised that after saying people should rationally interpret the evidence you ignore contrary evidence based on an inability to read sources and then declare the whole thing a liberal conspiracy.

You based your opinion on a YouTube video from a known liar. Does that seem smart?

Concrete science doesn't need to resort to such underhanded tactics.

This is "science" as corrupted by the left
KXItPxb.jpg
Click to expand...

The ACLU is not a scientific organization. Your inability to evaluate sources objectively is making you an incredibly easy mark for unprincipled people. If you need tips on how to evaluate sources better please reach out to me. I'm here to help.
 
thraashman said:
It really is remarkable how utterly pathetic the losers that voted for him are.

He's the weakest President in generations, possibly ever. And the people that support him really are just the whiniest little pussy bitches.
Click to expand...
It pisses you off that he's doing what he said he was going to do, doesn't it? His supporters are happy and the fuckholes that hate him still hate him. I call that a win.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
His supporters are happy and the fuckholes that hate him still hate him. I call that a win.
Click to expand...

you have such a way with words, however what you call fuckholes, i call patriots. Trump is currently the single greatest threat to our democracy, thankfully the courts and the IC have been doing their jobs so far. he is empowering Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and anyone else who wants in on the fun. he will go down in history as one of, if not the worst Presidents in our history.

keep waving that hateful flag of yours and enjoy the side of history that you backed and promoted.
 
nathanddrews said:
Shouldn't do that either. Subsidies suck.
Click to expand...

The thing is waste from fossil fuels has a cost that is currently not borne directly by the producers or consumers of the energy. Currently that's places like Miami Beach which is paying half a billion to try and stop saltwater from bubbling up through the ground and flooding the city every king tide. That's thanks to sea level rise.

This is unlike the nuclear industry which has to retain all waste, which is paid for by the cost of electricity and taxes paid to the federal government. The renewables industry also doesn't have this problem since no waste is created during power generation.

If you don't want pay for climate change in a systematic way you'll end up paying for it in increasing costs from insurance, food prices, imports and others.
 
fskimospy said:
It was done specifically to avoid Congress. You know as well as I do that a Republican Senate would have refused to take action on climate change and frankly the issue was too important to continue to do nothing.
Click to expand...

And too important to be left to the citizens' elected representatives to consider. It sounds like what we really need here is a dictatorship.

This is a good reason to stop voting for Republican senators, by the way. If you think climate change is real and want the US to do something about it they are a big part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Perhaps another part of the problem is the democrats' willingness to do end-runs around congress to pass agreements that would otherwise be shot down if they followed constitutional processes of ratification.

Perhaps it is exactly these sorts of things that feed right-wing suspicion about the climate change agenda.
 
Atreus21 said:
And too important to be left to the citizens' elected representatives to consider. It sounds like what we really need here is a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Huh? It was entered into by the citizens' elected representative.

Perhaps another part of the problem is the democrats' willingness to do end-runs around congress to pass agreements that would otherwise be shot down if they followed constitutional processes of ratification.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any court that thinks the Paris agreement was unconstitutional. If it was, this discussion would be moot. You can't just make up things for the Constitution to say.

Perhaps it is exactly these sorts of things that feed right-wing suspicion about the climate change agenda.
Click to expand...

Nah, conservatives have been against mitigating climate change for decades. It's not the Democrats' fault they deny science, it's theirs. It's important for us to assign blame where it is deserved.
 
fskimospy said:
Huh? It was entered into by the citizens' elected representative.
Click to expand...

And there are about 100 more to consider as directed in the constitution.

I'm not aware of any court that thinks the Paris agreement was unconstitutional. If it was, this discussion would be moot. You can't just make up things for the Constitution to say.
Click to expand...

So you do not agree that the constitution says that making treaties requires the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top