Why I love Neil de Grasse Tyson. Interviewed by Ben Shapiro

[Pens1566]

Kind of looked to me like you took a shot at Shapiro mentioning his wife and kids and when a shot came back of a similar nature all of a sudden a different shoe dropped. TBH I don't think you are being very honest at all. Seems like you were happy to give what you were not so happy to take. There is a way to fix that, you know.

What shot came back?

And take your self righteous psycho babble and stuff it up your ass.

 

[cytg111]

Not so. It is total logical crap to suggest that if a = b than a = c when you have not actually proven that b = c. You just opine and assume that is sufficient for proof. You believe that b = c and nothing more because you are blind to the assumptions you make.

Boom. A failure of deduction on its most basic level. And a staggering lack of self reflection.

 

[cytg111]

....

I can see you struggling, let me set it up for you.

For the record. And this is at the core of your problem. You will also not *get it*, but here it is anyway: Anything you have offered up so far is just, only your opinion. (this is where you fail the mirror test).

Not so. It is total logical crap to suggest that if a = b than a = c when you have not actually proven that b = c. You just opine and assume that is sufficient for proof. You believe that b = c and nothing more because you are blind to the assumptions you make.

Boom. A failure of deduction on its most basic level. And a staggering lack of self reflection.

I mean, unless you suggest that your words are infallible. There is some scripture around that tosses the concept of infallible around but surely. you are not suggesting yourself to be of divine making? Wait..... that actually sort of fucking fits the bill doesnt it.

By what name shall you be known?

 

[Greenman]

It's weird that someone who has spent as much time arguing about climate change as Shapiro has was so ignorant of basic facts. Like no...we can't just all move inland (or at least not at an acceptable price) because a large majority of the world's most important cities are coastal. You can't just rebuild NYC 50 miles inland.

Second, and even worse, was that Shapiro seemed to think that we could see the rising seas coming and slowly adapt to them as they rose, not realizing the way these events really happen is that you get something like Sandy where one day NYC is fine and the next day half of Manhattan is flooded.

Scary to see the level of incompetence that is passed off as the smart right wing guys.

We can indeed rebuild NYC fifty miles inland. The project is large, but the sequence of events is very well understood, the materials are all off the shelf, and the structural designs are straight forward. It's just work.

 

[fskimospy]

We can indeed rebuild NYC fifty miles inland. The project is large, but the sequence of events is very well understood, the materials are all off the shelf, and the structural designs are straight forward. It's just work.

The fact that you couldn’t forcibly relocate 8 million people aside the property value of NYC alone is approximately $3 trillion. Can you explain where you’re getting this $3 trillion from?

 

[Mai72]

Jordan Peterson word salad. That is JP is a nut shell. He says a lot of things without ever getting to the point. I watched as debate between atheist Matt Dilhunty and Peterson. I thought that Matt held his own and was actually very convincing. Peterson OTOH was just going on this rant. About how atheist actually believe in god, and so on. He has no proof but just asserations.

 

[Jaskalas]

Scary to see the level of incompetence that is passed off as the smart right wing guys.

This is worth repeating. These are some of the smartest people the right can muster.

As academics or propagandists? Who, exactly, are they showcasing as their best and brightest?
Seems to me, they latch onto half truths and run wild with filling in the blanks. To match whatever sky fairy is rattling around in their heads. To push agendas, not to pursue knowledge.

When they got EVERYTHING wrong about economics in 2008, that was one hell of a rude wake up call. To me, not them. They just doubled down.

We may not have all the answers either, but they don't even know where to begin. Because they don't follow the scientific method. Instead they latch onto whatever is convenient and then build a narrative around it. Then their "smart" guys are merely the clowns trying to sell and spread the fud far and wide.

 

[Greenman]

The fact that you couldn’t forcibly relocate 8 million people aside the property value of NYC alone is approximately $3 trillion. Can you explain where you’re getting this $3 trillion from?

No need to forcibly relocate anyone. Once it's flooded most will likely leave on their own. Those that choose to stay are welcome to do so.
The 3 trillion will come from the same place we got the last 30 trillion, we'll print it.

Assuming the pending climate crisis is as bad as many claim, we're past the point of no return. We're in it, we'll react to the events as they unfold, and we'll pay whatever the price is because there is no other option. We're going to transition from trying to mitigate the problem to learning to live with it. If the cost is a hundred trillion dollars that's what we'll pay.

 

[fskimospy]

No need to forcibly relocate anyone. Once it's flooded most will likely leave on their own. Those that choose to stay are welcome to do so.
The 3 trillion will come from the same place we got the last 30 trillion, we'll print it.

Assuming the pending climate crisis is as bad as many claim, we're past the point of no return. We're in it, we'll react to the events as they unfold, and we'll pay whatever the price is because there is no other option. We're going to transition from trying to mitigate the problem to learning to live with it. If the cost is a hundred trillion dollars that's what we'll pay.

Thank you for so clearly proving my point. Having to relocate NYC would be one of the largest economic calamities in human history. We CAN survive these calamities, but they are world changing disasters.

My point was not that it is physically impossible to build a new city somewhere, it is that the conservative position that this is the answer is absolutely world class stupidity. It’s hard to imagine anyone being that dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

‘Why can’t we just rebuild nearly all of humanity’s largest cities?’ Is some Galaxy brain shit.

 

[Vic]

We can indeed rebuild NYC fifty miles inland. The project is large, but the sequence of events is very well understood, the materials are all off the shelf, and the structural designs are straight forward. It's just work.

You do realize that cost of moving every major coastal city inland will be many orders of magnitude more than the costs of mitigating climate change, yes?

 

[Vic]

‘Why can’t we just rebuild nearly all of humanity’s largest cities?’ Is some Galaxy brain shit.

Yes and no. The problem is that you're taking Greenman at face value about trying to solve problems related to climate change, when all he really cares about is who gets punished by the consequences of climate change.

 

[Greenman]

Thank you for so clearly proving my point. Having to relocate NYC would be one of the largest economic calamities in human history. We CAN survive these calamities, but they are world changing disasters.

My point was not that it is physically impossible to build a new city somewhere, it is that the conservative position that this is the answer is absolutely world class stupidity. It’s hard to imagine anyone being that dumb.

You asked how it could be done, I I told you.
I don't know how to fix climate change. We absolutely won't stop burning fossil fuel for the foreseeable future, most of the rest of the world has no intention of giving it up. That's where we are. Blame whoever you want, but that blame isn't going to change the high water mark by a thousandth of an inch.

 

[fskimospy]

You asked how it could be done, I I told you.
I don't know how to fix climate change. We absolutely won't stop burning fossil fuel for the foreseeable future, most of the rest of the world has no intention of giving it up. That's where we are. Blame whoever you want, but that blame isn't going to change the high water mark by a thousandth of an inch.

So to be clear you thought I was asking if it was possible to build cities?

 

[Vic]

You asked how it could be done, I I told you.
I don't know how to fix climate change. We absolutely won't stop burning fossil fuel for the foreseeable future, most of the rest of the world has no intention of giving it up. That's where we are. Blame whoever you want, but that blame isn't going to change the high water mark by a thousandth of an inch.

Please see the video I posted above for why you're fixated on blame at the expense of solutions. Meanwhile, fsky doesn't care about blame, he cares about finding solutions.

 

[Vic]

So to be clear you thought I was asking if it was possible to build cities?

Greenman sees climate change as either inevitable or that any attempts at prevention will be too personally costly. So he just wants to get in the way, kicking the down the road so that his grandchildren bear the consequences. As long as it's not him.
Please watch the video I posted above. It explains quite succinctly why liberals and conservatives talk past each other.

 

[Greenman]

So to be clear you thought I was asking if it was possible to build cities?

This was your statement.

"The fact that you couldn’t forcibly relocate 8 million people aside the property value of NYC alone is approximately $3 trillion. Can you explain where you’re getting this $3 trillion from?"

I responded to that. The question mark at the end lead me to believe you were looking for answers.

 

[Vic]

This was your statement.

"The fact that you couldn’t forcibly relocate 8 million people aside the property value of NYC alone is approximately $3 trillion. Can you explain where you’re getting this $3 trillion from?"

I responded to that. The question mark at the end lead me to believe you were looking for answers.

Only a fool would seek answers from you, pal. And Esky isn't that.

 

[fskimospy]

This was your statement.

"The fact that you couldn’t forcibly relocate 8 million people aside the property value of NYC alone is approximately $3 trillion. Can you explain where you’re getting this $3 trillion from?"

I responded to that. The question mark at the end lead me to believe you were looking for answers.

No, that was your second response - same question again.

 

[Pens1566]

‘Why can’t we just rebuild nearly all of humanity’s largest cities?’ Is some Galaxy brain shit.

Right. Now take that notional ~$3T and multiply it by 100s or 1000s to address Miami, LA, HK, Tokyo, Mumbai, Shanghai ...

 

[Greenman]

‘Why can’t we just rebuild nearly all of humanity’s largest cities?’ Is some Galaxy brain shit.

Is this the question you're talking about? If so the answer is the same, once it's underwater few will want to stay.

 

[fskimospy]

Is this the question you're talking about? If so the answer is the same, once it's underwater few will want to stay.

And instead of having them all go underwater you could…

I don’t understand why you’re playing this stupid game.

 

[Jaskalas]

And instead of having them all go underwater you could…

At this point, that may very well require carbon capture on a global scale.
Worth the attempt at least.
Bit scary if we manage to build it... and don't turn it off....

OTOH, we certainly do still control the speed at which they flood. Business as usual will really accelerate things.

 

[Greenman]

And instead of having them all go underwater you could…

I don’t understand why you’re playing this stupid game.

I'm basing my answers on the assumption that we're past the point of no return. That we can't stop the pending disaster. I started out by stating that.
If we're revising the scenario that's fine, but if you don't share that bit of information with me then we're talking about two different things.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm basing my answers on the assumption that we're past the point of no return. That we can't stop the pending disaster. I started out by stating that.
If we're revising the scenario that's fine, but if you don't share that bit of information with me then we're talking about two different things.

This was your first post. It mentions none of that and is clearly coming from the place where you were pretending to believe I didn’t think we can build cities.

We can indeed rebuild NYC fifty miles inland. The project is large, but the sequence of events is very well understood, the materials are all off the shelf, and the structural designs are straight forward. It's just work.

Seriously, I don’t know why you are playing this stupid game.