Page 5 of 7 [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

07 Mar 2019, 9:31 pm

Pepe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Pepe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
The problem with asking laymen to look up information is that most people will look for sources that already confirm their biases and only get information from those biased sources. If your go-to for "information" is a source like Fox News, for example, you are actively misinforming yourself and doing more damage than if you simply allowed yourself to remain ignorant.


Curious that you have such a negative view on Fox News...
Are you talking about Fox News in America?

May I also suggest one does what one does...errr...I mean what I do:
1. Get views from outlets on both sides of the political divide...
2. "Deconstruct" what has been said via critical thinking...
3. Use your own life wisdom to determine what is most reasonable...

Perhaps not so simples... :mrgreen:


I don't believe there are "both sides" to factual information, so I get my information from sources that present factual information without reference to political "sides".


I didn't use the term "factual information"...
You did...

There are two major information sources I watch on the boo -tube...
One openly professes to have a politically conservative leaning...
The other may not admit to its perceived left-wing bias, (after all, it is *legally* obliged to be impartial because it is funded by the taxpayer and there is actual legislation for it to be so), but it has observably been seen to favour left-wing agendas...( Admittedly, after this issue was put under the spotlight, this left-wing leaning does seem to be mitigating on some programs at least...)

Politicising (truth sodomy) on both sides of the political divide may not be the case in America (I am assuming you are from there), but over here in Oz, this happens all the time, hence my need to check both sides of the argument from either source...
In addition to this, lies through omission is a major "sin" made by both sides...

Have you ever heard the adage: "Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see
(Be cautious about accepting something without evidence.)"?...
And to add to that I would like to point out there is a world of difference between "evidence" presented as factual and evidence which has been verified as valid...
Look at the "Global warming" threads...

How far down the rabbit hole do we want to go?
Quote:
go down the rabbit hole
To enter into a situation or begin a process or journey that is particularly strange, problematic, difficult, complex, or chaotic, especially one that becomes increasingly so as it develops or unfolds. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/go ... abbit+hole


One last observation:
It is interesting how many people seem to believe there is only one context...
The weltanschauung may not be the same here in Oz as it may be in Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain or America...
Dare I say: It is axiomatic? 8)
And to try and educate me about a culture I have lived in all my life is a tag presumptuous... 8O
Assuming that is what you are actually doing... :wink:

Pax...


You're exposing your own bias here in your preconceptions about me: I am not American. I don't live in a single one of the countries you mentioned in this ramble.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Mar 2019, 9:49 pm

There's no "k" in "America." Never has been. And there never will be a "k."



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Mar 2019, 10:18 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Pepe wrote:
One last observation:
It is interesting how many people seem to believe there is only one context...
The weltanschauung may not be the same here in Oz as it may be in Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain or America...
Dare I say: It is axiomatic? 8)
And to try and educate me about a culture I have lived in all my life is a tag presumptuous... 8O
Assuming that is what you are actually doing... :wink:

Pax...


You're exposing your own bias here in your preconceptions about me: I am not American. I don't live in a single one of the countries you mentioned in this ramble.


Bias?
How is simply being curious where you are from biased? :scratch:
Knowing where you are from might give me greater insight into other cultures...

My point about people from different parts of the world having a different Weltanschauung, is still valid, btw...
You may simply have a different view of things than me because of your culture...
This is a totally impartial/objective statement...
If you wish to infuse it with your own "colour", be my guest, but if it changes the meaning of what I am saying, please don't...

Frankly, I am confused about why you are taking this tack...
Are you projecting, is it a manifestation of insecurity or is it simply a misunderstanding?

Pax...



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Mar 2019, 10:26 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
There's no "k" in "America." Never has been. And there never will be a "k."


I never go off topic, btw...<cough> :mrgreen:

In my entire life on and off the internet, you are the only person who brings this into focus...
I guess that makes you special... :wink:

<cogitating> What is going on psychologically here with Mr CraftieCortie? :mrgreen:



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

07 Mar 2019, 10:29 pm

Pepe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Pepe wrote:
One last observation:
It is interesting how many people seem to believe there is only one context...
The weltanschauung may not be the same here in Oz as it may be in Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain or America...
Dare I say: It is axiomatic? 8)
And to try and educate me about a culture I have lived in all my life is a tag presumptuous... 8O
Assuming that is what you are actually doing... :wink:

Pax...


You're exposing your own bias here in your preconceptions about me: I am not American. I don't live in a single one of the countries you mentioned in this ramble.


Bias?
How is simply being curious where you are from biased? :scratch:
Knowing where you are from might give me greater insight into other cultures...

My point about people from different parts of the world having a different Weltanschauung, is still valid, btw...
You may simply have a different view of things than me because of your culture...
This is a totally impartial/objective statement...
If you wish to infuse it with your own "colour", be my guest, but if it changes the meaning of what I am saying, please don't...

Frankly, I am confused about why you are taking this tack...
Are you projecting, is it a manifestation of insecurity or is it simply a misunderstanding?

Pax...


You weren't being curious and asking me where I'm from, you just assumed I'm American. I'm taking this tack with you because I don't take your argument style seriously because I don't think you want to be taken seriously. You certainly don't try to express yourself very clearly so I'm just messing with you basically because it seems like that is what you're doing with your threads.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

08 Mar 2019, 1:13 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I am familiar with many of the engineering issues at play with trying to remove fossil fuels and find drastic unrealistic promises like those proposed by AOC and her followers dangerous. The Green New Deal has no hope of delivering on its promises and in my estimation has a better chance of setting off world war three (by virtue of starting an economic depression) than it does of preventing climate change.

I hadn't looked into the "Green New Deal" in any depth. It seemed to me like a bit of a meaningless phrase - kinda symptomatic of the activist class who care deeply about global warming and think the government should be doing "more", but with no idea of what the government is actually doing.

So I looked up what's behind this latest craze, and it's a real mixed bag. According to Wikipedia:
Quote:
On January 10, 2019, a letter signed by 626 organizations in support of a Green New Deal was sent to all members of Congress. It called for measures such as "an expansion of the Clean Air Act; a ban on crude oil exports; an end to fossil fuel subsidies and fossil fuel leasing; and a phase-out of all gasoline-powered vehicles by 2040."[48][49]

The letter also indicated that signatories would "vigorously oppose" ... “market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy.”


As I said either in this thread or the other one, this sort of thing is my day-to-day work. So while I don't claim to know everything, and certainly there are lots of things that experts are wrong about, and I know enough to know that I don't qualify as an expert, I also know that I am in a much better position to judge the feasibility of these proposals than most people.

So here's my take:

- an expansion of the Clean Air Act - I'm not entirely sure about either the legislative context in the US or how these activists want to change the act, but this is a piece of legislation which hasn't been amended in nearly 30 years despite huge scientific advances in this time. Air pollution is a trickier issue than people realise, but I think there's probably a good case for some sort of updating of this act.

- a ban on crude oil exports - the US is a net exporter so this makes some sense from a climate perspective, but from a policy perspective an end to US exports would just cause other countries to benefit without affecting the market much at all. There are some situations in which we still need hydrocarbons, such as certain industrial processes and long-range air transport or remote areas without reliable renewables. Carbon taxes would make more sense.

- an end to fossil fuel subsidies and fossil fuel leasing - would be a significant shock to the economy but need not be a shock to the energy system as more advanced renewables are now capable of competing subsidy-free. Remarkably right-wing policy though!

- a phase-out of all gasoline powered vehicles by 2040 - unsure exactly what "gasoline" means in this context. I think this is almost a really good idea. There needs to be a very ambitious policy to end the sale of cars powered by internal combustion engines by around that sort of date, and attempts should be made to achieve the same for other forms of road transport. Railways should largely be able to be electrified if they aren't already. Air travel is much trickier, and I think the same is currently true of boats. All vehicles? No, probably not. All cars? Yes, good suggestion.

- "vigorously oppose" ... “market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy.” - erm, this is stupid. Net zero is net zero. Obviously we need to take other things like air quality into account, but renewables are largely intermittent and can't respond to surges in demand - the only foreseeable alternative to CCUS or nuclear power is massive energy storage, which is currently rather environmentally damaging. Negative emissions technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) are necessary for the little bits of the economy that we can't decarbonise. Emissions trades and offsets can serve a similar purpose while also creating extra economic opportunities for developing countries. If a poor country discovers an oil field under a rainforest then economics will currently force them to cut down the rainforest and burn the oil. If instead we offer to pay them to plant new rainforest so we can legally burn a little more gas without damaging the environment, then we're all better off.

In theory, I think a radical investment in green technology could be extremely good for the economy as well as the environment. It's a real technical challenge that creates high-skilled jobs as well as more manual construction jobs. Everything from constructing wind turbines to re-insulating houses via installing EV charging points will help create jobs and inject stimulus into the economy. And sometimes you need to couple investment with "stick" legislation to make people abandon their polluting lifestyles. But these policies need to be thought out properly - it seems the Green New Deal people haven't even thought about domestic energy consumption for example, or smart grids, and they've dismissed most of the best tools we have.



This seems more modest than what is actually proposed in AOC's resolution. According to NPR (not traditionally a conservative outlet) her resolution "calls for a 10-year national mobilizations" source: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/69199730 ... al-outline

It promises in 10 years:

-zero emissions (engineeringly impossible and almost every expert on the planet agree)

-upgrading every existing building in the country ( a massive undertaking that while perhaps technically possible for legal reasons would never be accomplished)

- 100% employment for every American with a family sustaining wage adequate familky leave and medical leave paid vacations and retirement security (sure if we pay everyone in monopoly money that we don't have and embrace 100% inflation)

-Building enough high-speed rail to eliminate air travel (highly unlikely but may be technically possible)

-High quality Health Care for all Americans

I see nothing wrong with investing in sustainable technology and infrastructure. I think it is dangerous to consider the above proposal seriously. If adopted I think the likely scenario: many parts of the proposal are partially adopted, inflation skyrockets, economy collapses before completion of the goals of the proposal, violent backlash ensues.

Perhaps I'm being unreasonably fearful of a radical resolution that will never be put to a vote, but it concerns me that our politicians in the US are more and more about touting unrealistic fairy tales than embracing gritty solutions that actually have a chance.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

08 Mar 2019, 2:17 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
You weren't being curious and asking me where I'm from, you just assumed I'm American.


Easy fix...
Cut and paste where you think I assumed you were Amerikkan...
And I will talk you through it, one way or the other...

I'm not going to hunt down what I think you are referring to...
From memory, I may have *asked* if you were Amerikkan(?)...
People who know me know I admit to my mistakes...:wink:

Pax...

Edit:
I found out what you are talking about: "Politicising (truth sodomy) on both sides of the political divide may not be the case in America (I am assuming you are from there), "

Let me explain:
I am assuming you are an Amerikkan until you correct me...
I gave you a chance to clarify where you are from...
What I should have done was to add a question mark...
I.E.
(I am assuming you are from there?)
This is something I often do...
In this case, the question mark was implicit rather than explicit...
I will change this in future...

In any case, I don't understand why it offended you so much...
Well, actually I do...
Who wants to be a damn Ammerikkan? :mrgreen:
I am assuming you are Canadian...err...(?)... :mrgreen:



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

08 Mar 2019, 3:03 am

Pepe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
You weren't being curious and asking me where I'm from, you just assumed I'm American.


Easy fix...
Cut and paste where you think I assumed you were Amerikkan...
And I will talk you through it, one way or the other...

I'm not going to hunt down what I think you are referring to...
From memory, I may have *asked* if you were Amerikkan(?)...
People who know me know I admit to my mistakes...:wink:

Pax...

Edit:
I found out what you are talking about: "Politicising (truth sodomy) on both sides of the political divide may not be the case in America (I am assuming you are from there), "

Let me explain:
I am assuming you are an Amerikkan until you correct me...
I gave you a chance to clarify where you are from...
What I should have done was to add a question mark...
I.E.
(I am assuming you are from there?)
This is something I often do...
In this case, the question mark was implicit rather than explicit...
I will change this in future...

In any case, I don't understand why it offended you so much...
Well, actually I do...
Who wants to be a damn Ammerikkan? :mrgreen:
I am assuming you are Canadian...err...(?)... :mrgreen:


Trying to talk to you through your vague BS is a waste of time. I told you already this is why I'm not taking you seriously, you don't seem to want to be taken seriously by the way you comment. You can continue to assume what you like about me, it makes no difference. I assume your further comments will be equally as meaningless and full of jokey emoticons.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

08 Mar 2019, 3:33 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Pepe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
You weren't being curious and asking me where I'm from, you just assumed I'm American.


Easy fix...
Cut and paste where you think I assumed you were Amerikkan...
And I will talk you through it, one way or the other...

I'm not going to hunt down what I think you are referring to...
From memory, I may have *asked* if you were Amerikkan(?)...
People who know me know I admit to my mistakes...:wink:

Pax...

Edit:
I found out what you are talking about: "Politicising (truth sodomy) on both sides of the political divide may not be the case in America (I am assuming you are from there), "

Let me explain:
I am assuming you are an Amerikkan until you correct me...
I gave you a chance to clarify where you are from...
What I should have done was to add a question mark...
I.E.
(I am assuming you are from there?)
This is something I often do...
In this case, the question mark was implicit rather than explicit...
I will change this in future...

In any case, I don't understand why it offended you so much...
Well, actually I do...
Who wants to be a damn Ammerikkan? :mrgreen:
I am assuming you are Canadian...err...(?)... :mrgreen:


Trying to talk to you through your vague BS is a waste of time. I told you already this is why I'm not taking you seriously, you don't seem to want to be taken seriously by the way you comment. You can continue to assume what you like about me, it makes no difference. I assume your further comments will be equally as meaningless and full of jokey emoticons.


Why do you read my posts? 8O
There are some people's posts that I simply don't read...
Not rocket surgery... :wink:

Peace...

Edit:
There is a function which allows "enemy" posts not be fully visible...

Quote:
Foes are users which will be ignored by default. Posts by these users will not be fully visible. Personal messages from foes are still permitted. Please note that you cannot ignore moderators or administrators.


Click on: "My account"
Choose: "Manage foes"
Quote:
Add new foes:
You may enter several usernames each on a different line. [ Find a member ]


Pax... :wink:



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Mar 2019, 10:14 am

I just don't like "America" with a "k." It bothers me.

Yes, we have people deserving of the "k" in the USA. No doubt about that!

But you putting the "k" in America paints Americans with a broad stroke. It makes me feel you feel all Americans are racist, idiot bastards. Which is damned far from the truth. It's insulting to decent Americans who don't believe in that racist crap. And reactionary crap in general.

I'm not one of those flag-waving fanatics. I don't even own an American flag. But I believe we are a country who has made lots of mistakes recently--but I still believe we are, fundamentally, a decent country.

Obviously, the recipients of some of these "mistakes" have a case for being angry at us. An excellent case. And I believe the USA should really think about the effect these "mistakes" have had on the victims of those "mistakes." And take action that would prevent these mistakes from happening in the future.

If I were affected in the way, say, Yemen was affected, I'd be pissed, too.

I don't care if nobody else complains about it. I don't care if everybody complains about it. I am a majority of one.

As far as "climate change" is concerned. I believe there has been an increase in average temperature over the past 20 years or so. Especially in the Arctic. This has melted glaciers, causing sea levels to rise. This has affected other aspects of weather---- in terms of cold and of heat, and of the intensity of storms.

I feel like at least part of "climate change" could be attributed to agents which are man-made. And, yes, there could be "natural variation" as well. We had an extremely warm period during the early Middle Ages, for example, which was succeeded by the Little Ice Age, which came about just before the start of the Renaissance.



Crimadella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,644
Location: Warner Robins, Ga

08 Mar 2019, 11:03 am

I think anyone who would insist humans have no impact on climate change aren't very good at thinking, I don't think anyone has suggested that. I think regardless to which factor drives climate change the most, natural or human (which is honestly still natural), the main focus should be learning how to control our climate, which is something that is being worked on. Obviously we need energy sources that don't pollute, depending on what we learn allows us the possibility to cast the right chemicals into the atmosphere to help control climate that will change even if we didn't put chemicals in the atmosphere.

I'm assuming pepe just has a playful way in communicating, I seriously doubt he is intentionally trying to upset anyone or insisting Americans are racist.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Mar 2019, 11:09 am

Pepe's probably being playful; he's known for that.

He's like one of those people in certain cafes of the past--who wore a beret and liked to argue philosophy. And that's cool with me.

I just don't like "America." It bothers me. It's insulting. Even if my best friend wrote it, I would still express my displeasure.

I don't think he'd like "Asstralia," either....

It's nothing personal.



Crimadella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,644
Location: Warner Robins, Ga

08 Mar 2019, 12:03 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I don't think he'd like "Asstralia," either....

It's nothing personal.


lol, that one was pretty cleaver.



Crimadella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,644
Location: Warner Robins, Ga

08 Mar 2019, 12:10 pm

Here is another person that is very intelligent and not paid by 'Koch brothers', the entire conversation was very interesting, I recommend watching it all, but I know not all people like 3 hour conversations. Climate change was not his focus it just came up towards the end of the conversation. He has wrote a few books which some respected scientists have given him props for, a very interesting guy and he discusses a lot of interesting things.



Here is the whole episode...

Joe Rogan Experience #1119 - Howard Bloom



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Mar 2019, 12:16 pm

One time, I called my father "pop."

He was the type of guy who never got offended by anything; but he just hated to be called "pop." He told me, "Don't call me 'pop' again." There was no "reason why." He just didn't like it. I never called him "pop" again.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

08 Mar 2019, 5:59 pm

Crimadella wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
In theory, I think a radical investment in green technology could be extremely good for the economy as well as the environment. It's a real technical challenge that creates high-skilled jobs as well as more manual construction jobs. Everything from constructing wind turbines to re-insulating houses via installing EV charging points will help create jobs and inject stimulus into the economy. And sometimes you need to couple investment with "stick" legislation to make people abandon their polluting lifestyles. But these policies need to be thought out properly - it seems the Green New Deal people haven't even thought about domestic energy consumption for example, or smart grids, and they've dismissed most of the best tools we have.


That's one of the things I think is outrageous, the fact that valuable green technology already exists yet corporations buy the patents up, blocking people from being able to use the technology. So it's not that we don't have the technology to put a huge dent in CO2 output, so pumping more resources into creating more technology will likely follow the same current course, we really need to focus on doing something about allowing corporations to buy up patents and sit on useful technology without any intentions on using it.

I think it would be great all around for people who patent there creations to be able to sell there technology to multiple companies or individuals and outlaw the ability for one company to buy the patent and prevent others from having access to the technology. The original designer gets to make more money off of their idea(Great!), then it adds more competition which drives prices down and opens up the possibility for more people to start business rather than having corporations be able to dominate so fiercely.

I know I've responded to this in the other thread - I don't think very much patent trolling goes on in this field - but I think it's worth noting that innovation has already lowered the carbon emissions of most countries significantly. I think the UK currently has its lowest emissions for 150 years or something equally ridiculous. Wind and solar power are now capable of competing with fossil fuels without subsidy. We're soon going to see floating wind turbines in deep seas. And with technologies like insulation and electric cars, the issue isn't the engineering so much as the practicalities - people need places to charge their cars and expect that if they wait a few years then the government will pay for their insulation.