Gorum

Irontruth's page

8,628 posts (8,633 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,628 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

RAWmonger wrote:
I was hoping to get some insight on how people have handled leadership roles in their campaigns... Obviously it's still a party-related thing, but have most groups allowed the ruler to have actual, absolute decision making on all regards (like an actual leader of a kingdom would), or have you done more delegation?

I think you should examine your core assumption here.

Actual historical examples of monarchs would inform you that they delegate, and are often beholden to, their advisers quite a lot.

Philip the II (Alexander the Great's father) had to engage in a lot of machinations in order to ensure he himself was king. After his death, Alexander had to do a lot of maneuvering and fighting in order to be recognized as undisputed king.

In addition, as Alexander conquered, he often utilized the previous administration to rule for him. He'd kill the enemy king, then just leave everything else as it was. He often installed a couple of his officers as his representative, but then below that officer would be the advisers and court officials who were there before Alexander took over.

If a king orders your execution, but the executioner just sits there... does the king's order matter? If the king draws his sword to kill you, and the executioner comes to your defense... is the king really in charge?

If you need more historical examples, I can provide them. All the way from Augustus to Stalin, every powerful ruler was backed by a lot of people who had a vested interest in maintaining the ruler's power. A few were ideological fanatics, but many found it advantageous to their own ends as well.

If a king is enriching himself at the expense of those who he needs to hold onto his kingdom... that's a recipe for being assassinated.


pauljathome wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
And what conclusion do you want us to infer from that?
We're screwed

I've asked him if that was what we should infer before... he told me I was wrong.


And what conclusion do you want us to infer from that?


It's a promotional thing for a single event. We aren't going to see these any time soon.


I bought a bottle of Stranahan's Single Barrel this weekend. It is stellar. It's the first American malt whiskey I've tried. I like it enough I now want to try more American malts to see what they offer.

I finally found some Evan Williams Bottled-in-Bond as well. It is surprisingly hard to find in Minnesota (or at least the places I've been looking). Luckily one of the grocery store chains carries it. The price isn't amazing, but it is still pretty cheap.


I've gotten to love bluegrass covers of songs. There are tons of collection albums out there (90's punk are pretty good IMO).

The best though (IMO) is Iron Horse. Three examples:
Iron Horse covering "Rocket Man" (Elton John)
Iron Horse covering "Closer" (Kings of Leon)
Iron Horse covering "One" (Metallica)

I found them a couple years ago because I had been listening to Metallica one week, then some bluegrass the next week, and Google's algorithm was like "here, try this".


I think the first step should actually just be to stop giving oil and gas companies subsidies. They still get about $14b federally, and another $5b at the state level.


thejeff wrote:

Trying to draw lines for "emitters above a certain level" gets awkward and intrusive. It also feels less like a rebate and more like a giveaway if most people aren't paying the tax directly and that makes the rebate part more vulnerable.

Countries around the world have successfully implemented progressive taxes for lots of things, so your initial opposition to this immediately falls flat to me.

I might agree that a certain method of implementation of a progressive tax might be a failure, but a blanket statement that progressive taxes can't work is patently ridiculous.


Summer was really busy, and I kinda burned out on Marvel for a while. Finally got around to watching it and I liked it a lot.

I do feel smart for predicting the overall content of the end credits scene.


Quark Blast wrote:


Further, the Yellow Vest protests were a 'canary in the coal mine'. All politics aside (and I mean that - not talking politics here), there will be a metric #### ton of push-back from the middle and near middle classes worldwide with the carbon taxes that will realistically be needed to make the transition to renewables anytime before 2030. Nothing like saying #### ###! to about 4 billion people in hopes of furthering your goal. </sarcasm>
.

Except that this is how you WANT to interpret it, and your opinion on the matter isn't supported by anything. Its not even supported by claims/demands from the those participating in the yellow vest protests, in fact, some of their demands directly contradict you. You ignore huge aspects of what happened, and then you get mad when others don't take you seriously on your opinion of it.


Nothing is going to change until it does.

It sounds kinda dumb/obvious, but it's the way things are. Especially when peering into the future.

Whatever the outcome of the last few years, plus the next 10... is... it won't be obvious what it means for another 30-40 years. Partly that is due to the nature and scale of this problem, but it's also just hard to recognize the trends of history as they are happening.

I've been listening to some podcasts that delve into campaign polls for the US, and right now there is a dramatic shift in how important climate change is considered. It used to be like 15th or lower, and now it is many people's 2nd or 3rd most important issue. Another way to measure it's prominence is that in the 2016 Democratic primaries climate change was a topic in the debates for literally 2 questions. This cycle it's already gotten about 20 minutes of time in the debates, plus the 7 hour townhall of candidates individually. This is a massive shift in how important the issue is in American politics.


An interesting thought.

Inspired by a brief return of a specific goblin...

a musical interlude.


I'm reading Fools Crow by James Welch for a class (amongst many other books), but I am enjoying it a lot. Set just after the American Civil War in Montana, it follows a young man named White Man's Dog as he comes of age. I'm only about 1/3 the way through, and I'm sure it ends tragically. The writing is crisp and to the point, and it is overall a character study set in a specific time and place.

It's a lot more fun to read than A Short Account by Bartolome de Las Casas.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
I keep asking him about the Justice League and he ignores that too, Iron.

In his defense, there is a whole section of the forums devoted to comics and another one to movies. Questions about the Justice League would probably get more answers in either of those places.


I've asked him to do that for something like 2 years now, he's always refused. Hopefully you have more luck.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hint: the trailer is most likely put together and edited so as to conceal major plot twists, not reveal them.


Quark Blast wrote:


CBDunkerson wrote:
Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty about the sea ice in the Canadian archipelago. Your suggestion that the complexity of that particular detail can be extrapolated to the results of climate models in general is nonsense... and contradicts the 'certainty' you have expressed in many of your own past estimates of future climate.

"My suggestion"? Oh no! It was the author's suggestion in the paper cited. I've cited other quality published work many, many times up-thread to similar effect.

Really I'm not sure why you like being wrong so much. And publicly at that.

I'm reading that paper, and it still looks like you're conflating weather and climate when it suits you. The paper makes it clear when it switches from one to the other in regards to modeling.

Also, you should copy and paste relevant information from papers (though I wouldn't recommend the whole paper, for copyright issues). You and I have university library access, but other people aren't going to pay for articles just to debate you. If you want people to read something from a journal paper, you have to post it here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's cool, I always thought they should make a sequel to The Matrix.


My outsiders regularly flee if they are capable. Most monsters aren't capable of fleeing like this, so I use it to highlight how dangerous things like demons and devils are. Even if their CR isn't that high, they are trouble makers. It also reinforces the idea of why summoning/calling such monsters into the prime material plane is a bad idea. Once they are loose into the world it can get really hard to force them back out.

If an outsider has a specific goal, the players get the chance to set a trap for it. If the outsider has a generic goal, the players either need to find a way to lure it back, or track it down. Also, if the players don't have access to Dimensional Anchor, I let them find alternate methods (I especially like arrows enchanted to do the same, but of limited duration... like a round or two per arrow).


You're just repeating more climate change denier memes.

The Koch brothers have shown a willingness to pay scientists if they'll come up with findings they like. So, your assertion that there isn't a payday for scientists willing to buck the norm is a lie.

I mean, you just linked a professor who got paid by an anti-wind think tank just a few days ago. Academics can get paid going against the norm.


I do, and I agree that we will continue to discover new factors that will dramatically alter the conclusions we draw from those models.


Quark Blast wrote:


1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.

You're still using the term wrong. Like... you are literally wrong on this.


Sorry, I mixed up my terms, computational irreducibility. I've been watching too many apologist debates lately.


pauljathome wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Near as I can tell his position is that the scientific consensus backs his position and is getting more catastrophic. This can be trusted.

I often just skim his posts so I may be misremembering or misinterpreting but wasn't one of his positions that all the climate modelling was inaccurate (way beyond the accepted error bars) due to chaos theory? Or something like that?

The modelling is pretty darn central to the science, you can't really question one and accept the other

Yes, he's long railed against all modeling, unless it's done by Stephen Wolfram.

He argued that due to irreducible complexity (a term coined by Stephen Wolfram), the modeling isn't possible to do. Of course, this misunderstands Mr. Wolfram's definition of irreducible complexity, and so fails as a criticism of climate modeling. He thinks that the term means something can't be modeled, which is actually the opposite of how Wolfram uses the word. That argument took place about a year ago.


thejeff wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Wait, so QB is arguing that we shouldn't believe any of his links that warn us of a catastrophic future because they are the result of corrupt pressure in the field?

He does seem to be rather arguing against his own position.

As I understand his position, all the science itself is suspect, the scientists exert corrupt pressure AND the scientific consensus is optimistic and, barring magic tech, even a 2 degree warming is unachievable.

Near as I can tell his position is that the scientific consensus backs his position and is getting more catastrophic. This can be trusted.

The whole argument about "gross peer pressure and disdain for the minority opinion" in the field started as a way to discredit any defense against his attack on wind power. It has nothing to do with calling his sources into question of course.

Your take on his position is at least coherent, but it doesn't seem to match what he's posted. That's why I started harping on how his conspiracy theory take discredited his own arguments.

I agree that we aren't presenting his argument "as he presented it", but rather taking it to the next logical conclusion.


Wait, so QB is arguing that we shouldn't believe any of his links that warn us of a catastrophic future because they are the result of corrupt pressure in the field?


But he can't be wrong, he got an A in a class taught by a prominent climate scientist.


Quark Blast wrote:

Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

Spiegel wrote:

After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field....

.

The scientific journal Environmental Research Letters declined to publish a study he had authored predicting a milder greenhouse effect. Peer reviewers described the report's findings as "less than helpful" and added, "actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate-skeptic media side."

Respected German meteorologist Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center, described the justification as "scandalous" and accused the journal of politically motivated decision-making not based on scientific standards....

.

Pielke elaborates, "In a democracy people will organize around all sorts of shared interests, as they should, and many will share values that I don't. So what? Bengtsson's justifications for associating with GWPF are perfectly legitimate. That he was pressured by his peers with social and other sanctions reflects the deeply politicized nature of this issue."...

.

Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado and Pielke Jr.'s father, says, "Unfortunately, climate science has become very politicized and views that differ at all from those in control of the climate assessment process are either ignored or ridiculed. From my experience, I agree 100 percent with the allegations made by the very distinguished Lennart Bengtsson."...

.

Climatologist Michael Mann even speaks of "climate wars." For years, he says he was the subject of

...

You're citing a bunch of infighting amongst humans.

Do you have research findings from one of these people that you would like to discuss?

What findings of theirs that you think are credible and are being ignored by the scientific community? (note, I'm going to laugh if you link something that these people think warming will be less than 2.0, since that would directly contradict your own argument for the past 40 pages)


Quark Blast wrote:

Now for a far more important announcement:

Scientists: Window for avoiding 1.5C global warming ‘closed’

Climate Home News wrote:
“The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found.
Nature wrote:
The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) collectively lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to where current policies stand, but still imply a median warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Normally I love being right. This time? Not so much.

Now, I understand that some entities can overshoot their INDCs and that continued improvements in tech will allow that to happen with increasing relative ease, such that a lower median can be achieved, but that's pretty much what I've been saying all along. Namely, that current targets+efforts will get us to a +2.5°C year 2100, or more, baring near-miracle tech.

I'm still hyped on fusion cause that will actually allow CCS to be profitably engaged in and without some sort of CCS even a +2.5°C year 2100 is simply out of reach.

Now, Judith Curry would reply that she doesn't find any of this conclusive that the issue is real... right? Also, she'd say we shouldn't listen to scare mongering from politically motivated scientists.


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
As for science limiting free inquiry. We don't need to imagine "conspiracy" to have that happen. Group-think is a thing, even among the highly educated. That in fact has happened many times in the past and is happening today across several different fields. Climate science, because of the political aspect (which we won't be discussing here), has certain research programs that are anathema.

It's exactly the same conspiracy theory that climate skeptics use to explain why the science isn't on their side: Research that doesn't agree doesn't get funded or published. "I know I'm right and if the scientific literature doesn't agree, then there must be something wrong with the process. It couldn't be that I've got it wrong."

Mind you, solar is great too. I certainly wouldn't argue against solar. Though, doesn't solar have the same problems with intermittency as wind and need the same kind of power storage solutions? One advantage to having both is that they're differently intermittent. They peak at different times and shut down at different times.

My link to the travails of Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry were simply to show that credible scientists at good universities were shutdown for even daring to significantly criticize climate science. Once she announced her retirement, and why she retired, she was contacted by a number of colleagues in the US and Europe who expressed similar concerns - who dared not speak up for fear of losing their jobs. My original source was listening to an interview of Judith and not the particular link I posted above. That interview is apparently not on the InterWebs, hence the link just to show I wasn't making stuff up. I'm moderately certain I was streaming something from BBC when I listened to that interview.

As for the paper CB linked to just recently. Namely, Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid...

Was she fired? Or did she quit?

Cause... you keep adding language around her situation to make it sound like she was forced out. But she wasn't. She chose to leave. Yes, she was unhappy with her situation... but that's her choice.

So, you are trying to b$+$+~~$ this into proving your point, when it doesn't.


But guys, he got an A in one of his classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I say it.


Quark Blast wrote:
It's the $$$ you got to follow. The numbers don't work out on wind farms over their supposed lifetime.

You've made this claim, but we've already pointed out all the flaws in the article you linked (which you didn't even bother following to the source, but we did and it has serious flaws).

Go ahead, look over the two reports. Tell me why the 3000 wind turbine study in the UK is better than the 20,000 wind turbine study in the UK. Why should we take the cherry picked one over the one that analyzed all wind farms? Why should we exclude the other 17,000 wind turbines from our analysis?


But he gets an A in every class. He can't possibly be wrong.


I like TLJ overall, a couple of complaints.

The prequels though... man, no one will ever convince me that those should be watched more. Well... maybe if the dialogue is completely rerecorded to completely change the story.


Yes, one person quitting their job is certainly proof that thousands of other individuals are corrupt.


Quark Blast wrote:
DN wrote:
Your second linked site says that china wasted green energy by not constructing enough power transmission lines, which is the fault of wind energy because ... why exactly?
CB wrote:
As already noted, the second article doesn't indicate any problem with wind power at all... rather, the issue is that China is building new power (not just wind) faster than they are building a grid to distribute it.
Irontruth wrote:

This study does not cherry pick 3000 wind turbines in the UK and Denmark, but rather analyzes ALL wind turbines in the UK. This covers data from 20,000 wind turbines.

They find that there is a slightly larger than expected decline, but they did not feel it was worth abandoning wind over, rather that the cost of wind power should be updated. In the conclusion, they cite wind as costing 9% more over 20 years than originally estimated. Was the original estimate off? Yes. Was it off so much that we should abandon wind power? No.

1) Tell me which professor would get published in a reputable peer reviewed journal openly criticizing wind power? Any such submission would be shot down under the current political climate.

2) Proper citing of power generation includes connection to the power grid. That turbines were constructed significantly off grid is exactly one of the things that make these projects boondoggles.

3) They are also significantly more costly to maintain because they've been build in to-hell-and-gone nowhere.

4) The environmental costs of wind turbines are hand-waved away in the rush to install. These things kill birds (and bats) with alarming alacrity. And the birds they kill disproportionately are larger (and often threatened or endangered) birds.

5) If people were really worried about the climate they would invest in nuclear power. Current designs are as fail-safe as is humanly possible and if you're worried about site security, build them inside military bases. For that matter let the USN operate them as they have an...

Nothing you listed supports the article you posted as being credible. You didn't actually address anything I said.


Quark Blast wrote:

You can start here:

Wind Power an Even Bigger Waste of Money Than Originally Projected

And then move on to here:
China wasted enough renewable energy to power Beijing for an entire year

The school I'm at is ranked one of the better engineering schools (within the top 30), and I have the same library access as any of the eningeering students. I tracked that wind turbine article back to it's source, a Telegraph article that cites the a professors report, but lookin through online sources, it appears that it has not been peer reviewed or published yet. Not saying it is wrong, but we can't verify that it is right.

Further digging says the report is being published by the Renewable Energy Foundation.

This article sheds some light on the organization.

The report was published in 2011, but has not been peer reviewed or published in any scientific journal.

Doing a quick search at the university library, I found this peer reviewed journal article.

This study does not cherry pick 3000 wind turbines in the UK and Denmark, but rather analyzes ALL wind turbines in the UK. This covers data from 20,000 wind turbines.

They find that there is a slightly larger than expected decline, but they did not feel it was worth abandoning wind over, rather that the cost of wind power should be updated. In the conclusion, they cite wind as costing 9% more over 20 years than originally estimated. Was the original estimate off? Yes. Was it off so much that we should abandon wind power? No.

It amuses me that you routinely claim that you cite so many sources that you should be trusted. Yet, every time I check one of your sources, I find you either misrepresenting at least one idea in it, or a source that should not be trusted. Most of your sources have been fine, but you use them to arrive at conclusions that they directly contradict. This time though, you actually cited a bad source.


I picked up a bottle of Aberlour 12, and it is delightful. It's a sherry cask whisky. I don't like the highland or speysides when they taste like raisins (I did a drain pour of a bottle of Glenfarclas 10 instead of packing it up for a move). The Aberlour definitely has the dried fruit taste, but it's not raisins, so I've been enjoying it. I haven't had any Macallan in a really long time, so I can't do a direct comparison, but I've been told the Aberlour is similar but a little cheaper.


The Evan Williams Single Barrel I bought recently was only $23 and I like it just fine. I even gave a bottle as a gift recently. There are actually a fair number of good bourbons that can be had for fairly cheap. I'm planning on bringing a bottle of Wild Turkey 101. I haven't had it in over 15 years, and I wasn't a bourbon drinker yet back then. Still a kid who drank to get drunk. I've ran across numerous reviews though that all extol its virtues recently, and I am curious enough to give it a shot.


Starting a group for blind tasting whiskey. We schedule our evening and pick a theme. Then, each person buys a bottle and brings it. We then pour them, without allowing each other to see them (half the group pours for the other half), and proceed to taste them. That way you don't have the labels, just the whiskey itself. See what you like, take some notes, and then we reveal what everything was.

Our first night, we're doing bourbons that have a shelf price of less than $25. I want to try some cheap bourbons, see if I get a new favorite. Also, I wanted an easy entry for our first night.

I was expecting to get 2 other people, but it's snowballed quickly into 7 total.


It's one of those things that kinda makes sense on a small scale. When biodiesel largely consisted of home mechanics converting their vans and making deals with local restaurants the benefit was basically all positive.

At scale though, the benefits clearly start to diminish. It's not possible for cooking oil to replace all gasoline/diesel usage. Even if we did, it's still carbon emissions.


Also, I don't deny that deforestation for palm oil production is bad. But the numbers would indicate that EU demand for used cooking oil is not the primary driver of demand.

Double checking some numbers, worldwide, palm oil production is roughly 63 billion liters, which accounts for roughly 31% of all oil/fat production in the world. Rapeseed oil, which can also be used for biofuel, is produced at about 2/3's the rate of palm oil, so roughly 100 billion liters between these two oils per year.

UK's UCO consumption is roughly 0.1% of this.

The UK's UCO consumption is not even close to being a primary driver of deforestation.

If a hectare of deforestation is the same as 530 people flying from Geneva to NY, and the total deforestation is roughly 1.6 billion of these passengers, the UK's yearly UCO consumption is responsible for about 1.6 million of those.

100 million people fly internationally leaving the US every year.

The carbon footprint of deforestation as a result from the UK's yearly UCO consumption is about the same as 6 days worth of international flights leaving the US.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would you call it the darkest timeline?


I'm not a fan of biodiesel. It's not a solution.

That said the article is leaving some numbers out to fully understand the situation.

How much cooking oil does China use?

Best as I can tell, China is importing 7,570,000,000 liters of palm oil. (note, that this doesn't even represent all of China's used cooking oil)

The UK is then importing 117,000,000 liters of UCO.

The UK is importing 1.5% of the oil that China imported first. Are we really attributing ALL of the deforestation for palm oil to biofuels in the UK? That seems a little bit ridiculous.

How much palm oil China imports.
Palm oil's density at 30C is 885 kg/m3, if you want to do the math yourself to convert metric tons to liters.

I don't deny that the EU demand for biofuels is increasing the demand for palm oil, but it would appear to me based on the actual numbers to be a drop in the bucket of palm oil production. If the EU banned importing palm oil for biofuels (used or new) right now, the overall drop in demand for palm oil would pretty minimal.

For comparison, the UK's yearly consumption of Chinese palm oil is equal to 5.4 days of China's consumption of palm oil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Will's protestations to change are also representative of a desire to return to the way things were. While his friends have witnessed and experienced trauma, Will has certainly undergone more. His attempt to hold onto a pre-Upside-Down world is his attempt to take himself back to his existence before that evil entered his life. Sexuality could be part of it, but very easily it could just be PTSD. His s3 arc ends with acceptance of change, which is accepting the experiences that have happened to him as being part of his life. He's no longer denying his trauma, and allowing himself to grow after it.

Also, as one of the only unmarried people in my gaming groups, I'm looking forward to the memes and gifs of Will from this season.


Probably one of my 10 most quoted lines in my life.


Steve and Robin

Spoiler:

I disagree about Steve's romantic journey. When we first met Steve he's this super suave, sexually successful (for lack of a better description) guy. The overall moral of his story with Robin is in some ways similar to his story with Nancy. In both cases, the reason the relationship failed didn't really have much to do with him. He's had to learn to grow as a person.

By the writers 'taking him down a peg' in this way takes him from idealized male sexual prowess into a more everyman character. He's just a dude living a pretty average life dealing with all these weird situations (the extra-dimensional monsters).

In addition, the show is about friendship, not romantic coupling. Romantic coupling is more likely to be an obstacle in the characters path than a goal by which to measure success. In some ways it would have been weird if Steve and Robin got together in the last 2 episodes. Eleven and Mike started together, and kind of rekindled at the end, but for the most part their relationship was a wedge, not just between them, but for all those in their orbit as well.

Because the show is more about friendship, having their romantic coupling fail AND result in a deeper friendship is exactly what the show is about.


You changed the verb. Changing the verb radically alters the meaning of an idea.

I said predicting the future is b%**!+%$. I didn't say I'm unwilling to discuss it.

Since it's relevant, think of it like weather prediction. We are very very accurate 3 days out. Very accurate 5-7 days out, and it quickly drops off from there. A 10 day forecast is fairly good, but 20 days is close to a shot in the dark.

When we go way out... like predicting next year, we can only go with general trends. In North America, June tends to be warmer than May. That won't be true if we compare each day of both months against each other, but it will right more often than it's wrong given sufficient data. With all of the climate data, we can make probability statements about trends, and that is it.

The further out we go, the less conclusive we can be about our statements. Especially when we get to anything involving large groups of humans. We know the 2020 election will be contentious, but I think if anyone says they know who will win, they have as much chance of being right as if we let a monkey throw a dart at all the candidates pictures. So much is going to change in just 16 months, that it isn't an answerable question right now. Of course, the closer we get to it, the better our predictions will be (even if just a winnowing of options).

Now, I don't want to debate politics (unless we are conspiring to shut this thread down permanently). But, which party controls the white house, senate, and house of reps, will be a major determining factor in the consequences of climate change. A dedicated president could do a lot to institute change that could prevent global warming. Even if they don't solve it in 4-8 years, we could be on a path towards a solution. On the other hand, if DJT wins, we will make zero progress towards any solution (from the federal government side of things), and likely as not the problem will potentially be worse.

Since we can't predict the outcome of the 2020 election (16 months away), I don't see how we can make a prediction about what efforts will actually be in place to mitigate climate change in 2023 (4 years from now).

edit: all that said, it's still useful to talk about what efforts will be necessary and/or possible.


pauljathome wrote:


For the record, I think QB is essentially right. We are very, very, very unlikely to manage to keep warming below +2C by 2100. There is a very real possibility that our civilization has basically already decided to end itself.

I think anyone making predictions about human history 4 years into the future is full of s@#!, let alone 80 years into the future.

There is a chance they are right, but it would purely be by chance. QB's explanation for why he "knows" what will happen demonstrates to me that he doesn't understand the past or present in regards to politics and culture. If someone doesn't understand the past or present, then I fail to see how their predictions for the future should be considered reliable.

A favorite example of mine, back in 1987 a market analyst correctly predicted the Black Monday crash. When someone asked him how he knew it was going to happen, he said, "I've been predicting it every week for the last 10 years."

When it comes to his analysis of politics, he doesn't look at the evidence and see where it takes him. Instead, QB knows what the result is going to be, and looks for evidence to back him up. Anyone who starts at the conclusion will always find ways to justify their conclusion. It is a bad way to identify the truth though.

1 to 50 of 8,628 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>