All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Cunt]

Cunt wrote:

The greatest contributor I know of myself, is air travel...

Simply incorrect. World wide, the greatest single contributor to global CO2 is burning coal to generate electricity.

That aside, air travel does make a contribution. I've suggested elsewhere that many international business and government meetings could be replaced by high-tech digital conferences - surely by now the technology is mature enough to work effectively...

Might be incorrect, but I don't have any experience being around coal-fired generators.

I have worked the ramp at a northern airline, and have a more tangible understanding of how much bigger they are than say, a fat lazy redneck with a truck idling.

It may be incorrect, but I like to go to the scales I understand, to help wrap my head around things. Also, I am thinking of fuel tanks used, not carbon emissions (which I haven't ever measured or played with)

[pErvinalia]

You advocate solving poverty. That's not a solution, that's an idea. How are you going to achieve that. Not to mention it's a stupid idea if the goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions.

You advocate taxing fuel, as if people will get away from something you tax...

Of course they will. The more expensive something is, the less of it will be bought. This is basic economics.

I sure hope that isn't true, or something about income tax will be having a very negative effect on people...

It is true, and it's obvious that people would take on more hours if they weren't taxed.

It's a nonsense idea as I've already explained. Richer nations produce massively greater greenhouse emissions per capita than poor nations. Peterson is an idiot. You need to realise that.

Peterson doesn't sound like an idiot to me, but then I'm not securely fastened to any ideas he seems to challenge. Maybe he seems like an idiot to you because he is from academia, and they HAVE earned that kind of disrespect...

He's an idiot because of the ideas he espouses. In addition to his dumb theory about poverty and greenhouse emissions, have a look at his bonkers ideas about human behaviour based on lobsters. Fucking lobsters!

The greatest contributor I know of myself, is air travel. It's already motivated by huge fuel costs, to economize. How would a further fuel tax change their use? I mean, they just pass along the costs to their customers, via their VERY clear and robust tariff schedule. (at least in Canada)

So how is your fuel tax going to cut? Are my local communities just going to go back to dogsled and barge for all their amazon shopping needs?

People will travel less until industry makes air travel more efficient. This all basic stuff.

[Tero]

I was reading some book where a person driving an American car, say a 6 cylinder SUV, some hundreds of miles burns the same amount of fuel as he would as passenger in a plane (past a certain puddle jumper inefficient flight). If you have 4 people in the car, the car is clearly better.

[Cunt]

He's an idiot because of the ideas he espouses. In addition to his dumb theory about poverty and greenhouse emissions, have a look at his bonkers ideas about human behaviour based on lobsters. Fucking lobsters!

Where did he say that?

The only thing I heard him say about lobsters, was that they have heirarchies, (which he argues exist everywhere, like it or not).

If he said human behaviour is based on lobsters, I missed it.

Are you sure you didn't misunderstand? I've noticed it is very common for him to be misunderstood.

People will travel less until industry makes air travel more efficient. This all basic stuff.

Tell me how that is likely to work out for people who rely on air travel, rather than the leisure travelers you describe here.

[pErvinalia]

I didn't describe leisure travellers. Commercial needs will be reduced by using video conferencing like Jim has described twice to you now. And of course leisure travelling will be reduced too. As I said, this is basic stuff. If you can't even understand this stuff you are not going very well.

[Svartalf]

It's a nonsense idea as I've already explained. Richer nations produce massively greater greenhouse emissions per capita than poor nations. Peterson is an idiot. You need to realise that.

That's as may be, but developing nations are massively increasing their greenhouse output, and won't hear calls for moderation with (admittedly not totally undeserved ) comments on the order of "'were you ever moderate in your consumption, now it's our turn".

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

The greatest contributor I know of myself, is air travel...

Simply incorrect. World wide, the greatest single contributor to global CO2 is burning coal to generate electricity.

That aside, air travel does make a contribution. I've suggested elsewhere that many international business and government meetings could be replaced by high-tech digital conferences - surely by now the technology is mature enough to work effectively...

Might be incorrect, but I don't have any experience being around coal-fired generators.

I have worked the ramp at a northern airline, and have a more tangible understanding of how much bigger they are than say, a fat lazy redneck with a truck idling.

It may be incorrect, but I like to go to the scales I understand, to help wrap my head around things. Also, I am thinking of fuel tanks used, not carbon emissions (which I haven't ever measured or played with)

Is it all personal experience to you? Have you ever studied authoritative figures for world energy consumption - I know I have...

If you want to contribute meaningfully to an evidence based discussion, then do your homework, rather than relying on personal anecdotes and right-wing prejudice...

[Svartalf]

bad Jim, pushing people to cave in to argumenta ad auctoritatem... I did not think you'd stoop that low.

[Cunt]

Is it all personal experience to you? Have you ever studied authoritative figures for world energy consumption - I know I have...

If you want to contribute meaningfully to an evidence based discussion, then do your homework, rather than relying on personal anecdotes and right-wing prejudice...

As I've said, I'm 'left' more than right. Except when the facts I bring up are uncomfortable.

Then I get a predictable attack on my character, and dismissal. Good for you, you classy old white guy.

I was saying, that I try to use my experience to get a feel for the scale of things. I haven't studied whichever evidence your media-pushed hype and left-wing prejudice has required of you, but trust me, it isn't important to the point I was making.

I was explaining my lack of understanding.

Since you know everything, why don't you have better things to do than shit on me for not being more like you?

[Hermit]

...

[Hermit]

Without Bannon and Breitbart it will be harder. But Trump and staff are cooking up an event.

A war against the marauding rapists, drug dealers and gang members invading the US by crossing the Mexican border? A war to liberate Venezuela's freedom-loving citizens from their tyrant? A war against all the other NATO members? Any war at all that can be found an excuse for?

[Hermit]

Is it all personal experience to you? Have you ever studied authoritative figures for world energy consumption - I know I have...

If you want to contribute meaningfully to an evidence based discussion, then do your homework, rather than relying on personal anecdotes and right-wing prejudice...

As I've said, I'm 'left' more than right. Except when the facts I bring up are uncomfortable.

Then I get a predictable attack on my character, and dismissal. Good for you, you classy old white guy.

Trouble is that Jimbo did not attack your character. He pointed out an instance of you not bringing up facts, like when you wrote "I don't have any experience being around coal-fired generators." You then doubled down on your failure to argue with the assistance of facts by saying you are"...thinking of fuel tanks used, not carbon emissions (which I haven't ever measured or played with)."

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

I haven't studied whichever evidence your media-pushed hype and left-wing prejudice has required of you, but trust me, it isn't important to the point I was making.

Factual information about the relative CO2 contribution made by various human activities has nothing to do with "media-pushed hype and left-wing prejudice". It has everything to do with providing an objective background when analysing the causes and effects of global warming.

And I certainly don't trust any personal anecdotes of yours as contributing anything meaningful to a discussion which is clearly beyond you.

[Animavore]

It's mostly just the US which has turned the issue of climate change into a "right vs left" thing (not that some haven't tried in the UK and Australia). Which just goes that to show you that the issue has nothing to do with leftwing politics or the media in the States, they just accept what everyone else who understands the science does, and everything to do with the right manufacturing the "controversy" and accusations of the other side doing the same is projection.

The issue is apolitical.

[Animavore]