"the greater good"

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 177
#61
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
If your willing to believe that the entire scientific community has been engaged in a massive orchestrated shill effort for the last 40 years; but the large energy companies that have been actively funding anti climate change politics, studies, and attempts to change public perceptions in order to oppose and stifle policies that harm their bottom line are acting out of the goodness of their heart, then I have some magic beans to sell you.

Let me draw your attention back to the original post - as you appear to evade the point.

You keep asserting that there is probably some major conspiracy and scientists aren’t to be trusted - yet you seem to completely ignore that the opposing side of the argument had even more reason to lie, and is part of an even bigger multi billion dollar industry.

But nice trolling comparing religious nutjob theories with the broad and general consensus of thousands of individuals scientists who have studied the climate and potential outcomes of climate change.
Again, can I ask if you missed this for the second time?

Forgive me, but it seems you’re just resorting to trolling, and deflection: which I will assume is because you’re unable to deal with this fundamental issue with your position.










#62
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Forgive me, but it seems you’re just resorting to trolling, and deflection: which I will assume is because you’re unable to deal with this fundamental issue with your position.

I'll kindly ask you to stop stalking me and projecting your behavior onto me. Thanks.

#63
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You literally said that found one side more compelling than the other.

This means that if you actually reviewed the science and the information; as you are not a climate scientist, you must have trusted the conclusions of both sides: and trusted the arguments and conclusions of primarily politicians and pundits as accurate and painting as complete picture as the other side (as there are not that many individual scientists or studies on the other side)

So yes - you’re trusting one side despite them being inherently less trustworthy than the other.


Secondly: you are most assuredly putting faith in individuals and scientists, and doctor. You can call it what you will.

In our life we determine the broad trustworthiness of various groups based on many different factors: motives, trustworthiness, compulsion, etc.


To treat a tens of thousands of scientists over the last forty years with no appreciable reason to all lie, as some unknown block for which their trustworthiness is potentially shady; yet not apply the same standards to other groups, where you use much more reasonable and logical assessments; is unreasonable - in addition, you clearly treat objectively less trustworthy sources as more trustworthy for arbitrary reasons.

It leads me to conclude that your opinions on science is a retroactive explanation of your preexisting beliefs.

#64
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I’ve pointed out that your positions have major logical errors:

Firstly: you’re concluding that scientists are probably engaged in an orchestrated plot to mislead because it is theoretically possible: yet you do not apply this same standard or logic to the other side for which there is an objectively greater probability of it being a major orchestrated attempt to change the public narrative against climate change.

Secondly: You’ve compared the fact and study based consensus conclusions of the scientific community to that of religious nut job doomsday predictions when they are clearly not the same thing.

Trying to get you to address the major logical errors in your position I’ve pointed out because you have now gone three posts ignoring the key issues I raised is part of reasoned debate.

I apologize if you’ve confused my pointing out your deflection and your inability to make a logical counter argument to the criticisms of your position is “stalking”.


If you don’t want an intellectual argument on a debate website, and simply want to post misleading one liners: feel free to simply not reply to the thread.





#65
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
trust is too strong a word, I tend to take things with a grain of salt as they say.
I don't trust them, but find them about as equally credible thus one is demanding I do something, yet their zealots do not live the life of example so that does give the opposing side a slight lead in the race.
I don't believe the primary solution is removing all fossil flue, vehicles and cows.  Nor have I heard anything realistic or practical as a solution(s).  You see we just argue these points while the nothing continues with regards to air and water quality.  How can I take it seriously or give it any credibility when they won't walk the walk?
there is only one way to eat an elephant

#66
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Wait - your reason for finding a collection of individuals that base their conclusions on the broad scientific consensus of tens of thousands of scientists who work in the field less credible than a collection of individuals who are primarily affiliated with a narrative that has been pushed by the industry who stands to lose the most by any actions taken - is because their “zealots”, don’t walk the walk?

That is a ridiculously tenuous reason, don’t you think?

You then go on to express that you don’t feel the correct solution to the problem you seem not to believe really exists is the overly broad political equivalent of a position paper promoted to spur a policy discussion, and contained a tongue in cheek joke about cows that has been blown out of all proportion?



#67
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
You can also feel free to, you know, stop stalking me and stop trolling me. That would be nice.
#68
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Don't let Ramtrollu harass you with his obvious "Cathyisms"

#69
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
If you feel me pointing out that you’re not answering questions about your position, that you’re dodging the points being raised to focus on overly simplistic one liners that I have shown are straw men is “stalking”, please report the offending posts.

I will be happy go apologize personally if the moderation team feels that me asking you to defend the positions, by pointing out parts of the posts you have ignored is somehow harassment or stalking.


It really seems that you’re objection to me pointing out you’re trying to engage only in one sided discussion, is simply your own desire for a safe space where you can simply make your objectionable statements without scrutiny like the liberals you complain about so offence


Let me reiterate the specific issues that I have that you have not at any point addressed or acknowledged:

Firstly: you’re concluding that scientists are probably engaged in an orchestrated plot to mislead because it is theoretically possible: yet you do not apply this same standard or logic to the other side for which there is an objectively greater probability of it being a major orchestrated attempt to change the public narrative against climate change.

Secondly: You’ve compared the fact and study based consensus conclusions of the scientific community to that of religious nut job doomsday predictions when they are clearly not the same thing.

#70
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Please go away troll. I don't owe you anything.
#71
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
your appeal to authority doesn't persuade me, nor is the attempt to predict the future AND predict the weather of all things.  Perhaps there are some specific facts that I'm not aware of, if there is I suggest you use those.
#72
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I’m not suggesting you owe me anything, but as this is a debate website, where there is allegedly supposed to be reasoned discussion and debate, you should expect to have your beliefs challenged and questioned.

If you refuse to answer a key problematic argument, it is reasonable to expect that you be pressed for your inability to answer the question.

I am pressing you here, as you made a couple of superficial claims, that don’t appear logical when analyzed in a thread that I was in, refused to defend it against scrutiny - and now appear to be arguing that me asking you to address key issues on a political comment you made on a political form on a debate website is “stalking”.

I’m interested in why you’re trying to not address these issues so emphatically that you would rather hurl accusations than defend your position?

I’ll ask again: as I feel these questions are very relevant and have not been addressed:

Firstly: you’re concluding that scientists are probably engaged in an orchestrated plot to mislead because it is theoretically possible: yet you do not apply this same standard or logic to the other side for which there is an objectively greater probability of it being a major orchestrated attempt to change the public narrative against climate change.

Secondly: You’ve compared the fact and study based consensus conclusions of the scientific community to that of religious nut job doomsday predictions when they are clearly not the same thing.
If you don’t want a conversation on this political topic, please feel free to simply not respond to this thread: it’s frankly absurd to make a bunch of comments on a discussion website and then claim harassment when they are challenged.
#73
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
its not an appeal to authority its a comparative appeal.

10,000 scientists in disparate organizations over 40 years are less likely to be wrong, or dishonest than a handful of non scientists, and fewer scientists with ties to the industry most likely to lose profit if climate change policies are enacted.

The logical error your making is treating the one set in isolation. They aren’t. You have two sides; you’re putting your trust on the side that is objectively less trustworthy because you can’t guarantee the trustworthiness of the other. That’s nonsensical.


None of that, however addresses the nonsensical reason you just have for deeming one more plausible, why is whether one side walks the walk or not a sound basis for concluding the scientific veracity of their position?
#74
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
Second, climate change.  "the greater good" argues that although some people have significant negative economic impacts as the result of environmental policies, the cost of doing nothing is catastrophic to all humans, so even if you or someone you love has been harmed by environmental policies, your suffering is of little concern to "society at large" because statistically, way more people will suffer under the status quo.

10,000 scientists in disparate organizations over 40 years are less likely to be wrong, or dishonest than a handful of non scientists, and fewer scientists with ties to the industry most likely to lose profit if climate change policies are enacted.

You keep asserting that there is probably some major conspiracy and scientists aren’t to be trusted - yet you seem to completely ignore that the opposing side of the argument had even more reason to lie, and is part of an even bigger multi billion dollar industry.
So, assuming that climate change is as serious of a threat as those "97% of scientists" say it is, what exactly are we supposed to do to combat it?
#75
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
yeah I'm not a big fan of "do as I say not as I do"  I don't find that credible at all, makes me suspicious of the true motives.  The studies and the counters I have seen to not favor all those scientist you think are so impartial etc so....  I remember when it was global warming since that didn't pan out they came up with a different name, or where they wrong about global warming?
#76
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Christen
most of the Democrats running have plans that cost Trillions of dollars, guess where that money is going to come from, hope you don't enjoy eating too often.
#77
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@3RU7AL
This pie chart https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png shows that climate change (or global warming, whichever is the correct term) is caused by at least 25% electricity and heat, at least 14% of transportation, at least 6% of buildings, and at least 24% of agriculture.

So basically, to "fight climate change" we would have to stop using electricity, stop using any kind of transportation, stop building, and stop farming.

That means no electronics of any kind, no TV, no computer, no smartphone, no vehicles except for bikes skateboards roller skates and scooters, no buildings, and no foods that require any sort of farming, such as fruits and vegetables.

Do you need to drive to work which is miles away? Too bad. Gotta walk or ride a bike, even if it's raining or snowing.

Need to call 911 due to an emergency? Nope, 'cause calling 911 emits greenhouse gases, so you gotta fend for yourself.

Do you live in an apartment? Well, gotta move out and demolish it 'cause buildings aren't good fOr tHe eNviRoNmENt!

Also, you can't shower or do laundry either 'cause apparently those too emit greenhouse gases, nor can you have access to any kind of news like a newspaper since those too are only possible due to cutting down trees for paper and using energy.

Seriously, who wants to live like that? That's right. No one. Not even the very climate change activists themselves such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would want that.

I'm aware that "clean energy" sources such as Solar Panels and Windmills exist, but those things, especially solar panels, have proven to be unreliable. Back in 2018 I stayed in a solar-powered house, and oftentimes the air conditioner would stop, since the solar panel that powered it wasn't getting enough sunlight, and I was left to deal with the 100+ (farenheit) temperatures and sleep in a bed soaking in my sweat. Since the Wi-Fi and surveillance cameras were also solar-powered, those too would often shut down at random when there wasn't enough sunlight. With windmills, you aren't always going to get wind.
Many facilities such as hospitals cannot afford to risk relying on unreliable energy source, since there are people who depend on some machine just to stay alive and that machine needs to be functioning 24 hours a day regardless if there is wind or sun. Police departments and Fire departments need to be able to respond to emergencies with reliable energies like fossil fuels; the last thing they need is a solar panel or windmill failing to operate 'cause there wasn't enough wind or sun, and then getting someone killed because of that.

On top of all that, you have, like you said, the extremely high prices/costs to assembling these "clean energy" sources and making it so that there is enough for everyone in the country, plus the fact that there might not even be enough ROOM on this planet to build millions of solar panels and/or windmills to begin with. If there is a way to utilize clean energy that does not involve sacrificing all those important things I previously mentioned (electricity, buildings, farms, transportation) and also does not involve relying on such unreliable energy, then I'm happy to hear it.

And yes, I do enjoy "eating too often" since I have a higher metabolism, but now I may have to give that up too, and we have to give up precious tax dollars, for a bunch of unreliable solar panels and windmills.

Sources:
#78
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Christen
So basically, to "fight climate change" we would have to stop using electricity, stop using any kind of transportation, stop building, and stop farming.

~~

Also, you can't shower or do laundry either 'cause apparently those too emit greenhouse gases, nor can you have access to any kind of news like a newspaper since those too are only possible due to cutting down trees for paper and using energy.

You've confused "fight climate change" with "reduce carbon emissions to zero".

I'm aware that "clean energy" sources such as Solar Panels and Windmills exist, but those things, especially solar panels, have proven to be unreliable. Back in 2018 I stayed in a solar-powered house, and oftentimes the air conditioner would stop, since the solar panel that powered it wasn't getting enough sunlight, and I was left to deal with the 100+ (farenheit) temperatures and sleep in a bed soaking in my sweat. Since the Wi-Fi and surveillance cameras were also solar-powered, those too would often shut down at random when there wasn't enough sunlight. With windmills, you aren't always going to get wind.
Many facilities such as hospitals cannot afford to risk relying on unreliable energy source, since there are people who depend on some machine just to stay alive and that machine needs to be functioning 24 hours a day regardless if there is wind or sun. Police departments and Fire departments need to be able to respond to emergencies with reliable energies like fossil fuels; the last thing they need is a solar panel or windmill failing to operate 'cause there wasn't enough wind or sun, and then getting someone killed because of that.
Not an argument against increasing renewables. There are strategies that you can use to compensate for their variability.
#79
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Christen
right so how much is a problem and how much is ok?  they don't know, I'm a supporter of nuclear power however, solar and wind farms take a lot of real estate, including animal habitat etc, they really have no solutions other than to raise taxes, waste money and make themselves rich doing it while they make us poor.
#80
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Also how are we supposed to stop the predicted fossil fuel increases in China, India, and Africa...all of which are experiencing their own industrial revolutions requiring massive amounts of fossil fuels but their usage is magnified by their relatively much larger populations than the USA...at least 5 times more people in those emerging economies than those living in the USA and Europe combined....

Do we just docilely accept the damage these countries are inevitably going to do to the planet while we ride our bicycles in the snow munching on soyburgers?
Topic's author
#81
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Christen
So, assuming that climate change is as serious of a threat as those "97% of scientists" say it is, what exactly are we supposed to do to combat it?
(1) Significantly dial back industrial petroleum use.  Individual consumers can do almost nothing to "stop" climate change.

(2) Significantly dial back industrial pollution.  Individual consumers can do almost nothing to "stop" pollution.

(3) Plain paper, aluminum and glass can replace plastic in 90+% of consumer packaging.  But this is NOT the consumer's responsibility.
Topic's author
#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Also how are we supposed to stop the predicted fossil fuel increases in China, India, and Africa...all of which are experiencing their own industrial revolutions requiring massive amounts of fossil fuels but their usage is magnified by their relatively much larger populations than the USA...at least 5 times more people in those emerging economies than those living in the USA and Europe combined....

Do we just docilely accept the damage these countries are inevitably going to do to the planet while we ride our bicycles in the snow munching on soyburgers?
Should everyone stop going to church because that doesn't stop murderers from slaughtering innocents?

Have you ever heard of the "free-rider problem"? [LINK]
#83
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
as populations grow they need more.  I don't believe solar and wind could provide enough reliable and constant power for the U.S. population.  Is it France that has a bunch of nuclear power plants?  I think they sell off their extra to neighboring countries.  It's the only realistic option imo.
Have you seen the ads for rooftop solar panels?  I did the math, you'd break even in 30 years provided nothing needed repairs or any extra costs.
Look at the environmental impact of mining the resources for solar panels and the rechargeable batteries, and then their disposal.
What happened to hydrogen cars?  I'd be more inclined for that path.  I'm it can be made safe.
Climate change is just another way for the globalist elite to meddle in other countries.  This is pretty obvious because they don't bother fixing what they already have the authority to fix.
15 million, well you could use that to help the poor in numerous ways, apply it to clean up local pollution or buy a beach house.  Priorities right?
#84
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What happened to hydrogen cars?
It's promising.  The Hydrogen fuel cell is superior both in terms of maintenance and efficiency to petroleum, but the internal combustion engine has the advantage of established infrastructure, and the fact that there is no inherent need for the scarce resources which are most conducive to the demanding environment of catalytic converters.  Hydrogen fuel cells have been proven to have greater long term viability than lithium ion batteries for quite some time.  There's some irony with lithium storage mediums in that you need to drive them more to see savings.
#85
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Snoopy
and yet they push hard for the electric cars, lol, yeah no special interest there I'm sure.

locally, there are advertisements for natural gas generators, so as with hydrogen cars, that would work in the same way to generate household electricity.  No ugly, expensive panels or wind turbines, and yet again they push hard for these things.......  Follow the money.
#86
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
@dustryder
There are strategies that you can use to compensate for their variability.
What kinds of strategies?

Individual consumers can do almost nothing to "stop" pollution.
Maybe not, but we can plant trees, clean up trash, clean up litter, throw out garbage, avoid hoarding useless items for years, try to live a minimalist lifestyle, and keep our homes as clean as we reasonably can. That doesn't necessarily "stop" pollution, but it does drastically reduce it.

(3) Plain paper, aluminum and glass can replace plastic in 90+% of consumer packaging.  But this is NOT the consumer's responsibility.
I'm against banning plastic because plastic is easy, cheap, and versatile. It can be used to make a variety of different products and is easily disposable. When my family goes grocery shopping, they can put groceries in plastic bags to carry them home, and then store the plastic bags away somewhere else to be used as little garbage bags and used for various purposes, but now, people on the left are looking to ban plastic things.
Here is a video by The Daily Wire also explaining why plastic is useful and should not be banned. https://youtu.be/AtF0PqfJ0c0
Furthermore, how does plastic cause climate change? Plastic isn't a fossil fuel.

Should everyone stop going to church because that doesn't stop murderers from slaughtering innocents?
Yes, everyone should stop going to church not only because it doesn't stop murderers but also because it's a waste of time and money and they could be doing much better things with their lives as opposed to worshipping their "god" for the sake of going to this magical fantasy land called "heaven".

Have you ever heard of the "free-rider problem"?
Who are the ones free-riding here? It can't be the producers because they have to put in work to produce things using energy. It can't be the consumers either because they usually have to pay for things, not free-ride.


#87
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
No, you put the murderers in prison. Are you willing to put 5 billion people in prison for destroying your planet?

Are you willing to go to war with developing nations that show no sign of slowing their fossil fuel usage in the slightest to save the planet? 

Soyboy army assemble!

(who cares if you are outnumbered 5 to 1)
#88
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So you admit theres nothing at all that 1 billion people can do to stop the 5 billion people in emerging industrial nations from increasing fossil fuel usage.

Except for riding your bicycle in the snow and eating a soyburger.
#89
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Check these graphs out.

If you are all in on climate change destroying the planet, we should already be at war with India and others.
#90
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I was looking at that graph and noticed something neat. China currently has 2 times the CO2 output of the USA, and is on track for 3x CO2 output within your lifetime.


Even if USA went to "zero" CO2, the planet is already fucked.