AGW is relative

[s243a]

If these people REALLY wanted to improve the world, for about $10 a pop they can buy DDT treated mosquito nets, to help infested regions break the cycle of the terrible epidemic of malaria. Instead they want to impose taxes to enrichen cronies of people in government, over "climate change".

For example: https://www.cdcfoundation.org/bednets

But let's not talk about opportunity cost to an AGW believer! They will keep on chanting about the precautionary principle! Or maybe they'll tell us that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. How much was the green new deal supposed to cost again?

[jafadmin]

If these people REALLY wanted to improve the world, for about $10 a pop they can buy DDT treated mosquito nets, to help infested regions break the cycle of the terrible epidemic of malaria. Instead they want to impose taxes to enrichen cronies of people in government, over "climate change".

For example: https://www.cdcfoundation.org/bednets

But let's not talk about opportunity cost to an AGW believer! They will keep on chanting about the precautionary principle! Or maybe they'll tell us that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. How much was the green new deal supposed to cost again?

No need to denigrate people. Like devout religious people, they adopt their beliefs based on how virtuous they will appear. Kinda like wearing a cross of gold ..

[s243a]

If these people REALLY wanted to improve the world, for about $10 a pop they can buy DDT treated mosquito nets, to help infested regions break the cycle of the terrible epidemic of malaria. Instead they want to impose taxes to enrichen cronies of people in government, over "climate change".

For example: https://www.cdcfoundation.org/bednets

But let's not talk about opportunity cost to an AGW believer! They will keep on chanting about the precautionary principle! Or maybe they'll tell us that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. How much was the green new deal supposed to cost again?

No need to denigrate people. Like devout religious people, they adopt their beliefs based on how virtuous they will appear. Kinda like wearing a cross of gold ..

Doesn't the religious right in the United States of America worship the golden calf? Also the way some Evangelical preachers use their money it reminds of living large like in a rap video.

Nothing wrong with watching porn but here is an interesting stat:
"APPARENTLY, PEOPLE IN THE BIBLE BELT WATCH THE MOST PORN, SAYS NEW STUDY"

[jafadmin]

Nothing wrong with watching porn but here is an interesting stat:
"APPARENTLY, PEOPLE IN THE BIBLE BELT WATCH THE MOST PORN, SAYS NEW STUDY"

Maxim? Seriously? Let's try to keep this topic scientific, shall we?

.

[s243a]

Nothing wrong with watching porn but here is an interesting stat:
"APPARENTLY, PEOPLE IN THE BIBLE BELT WATCH THE MOST PORN, SAYS NEW STUDY"

Maxim? Seriously? Let's try to keep this topic scientific, shall we?

.

What kind of data would you like? Google search results?
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/smut-j ... t-content/

Or is the bible belt the home to the most porn friendly VPNs?

[jafadmin]

What kind of data would you like? Google search results?
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/smut-j ... t-content/

Or is the bible belt the home to the most porn friendly VPNs?

Start you own thread. How about that?

[s243a]

What kind of data would you like? Google search results?
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/smut-j ... t-content/

Or is the bible belt the home to the most porn friendly VPNs?

Start you own thread. How about that?

The irony here is that you thought your first post would be triggering but I seem to have hit a nerve!

[jafadmin]

The irony here is that you thought your first post would be triggering but I seem to have hit a nerve!

No, you did't hit a nerve. What you did was try to hijack a topic. Big difference.

You aren't being smart. You are being annoying. Big difference. Remember this ..

[s243a]

The irony here is that you thought your first post would be triggering but I seem to have hit a nerve!

No, you did't hit a nerve. What you did was try to hijack a topic. Big difference.

You aren't being smart. You are being annoying. Big difference. Remember this ..

It's totally relevant because in this thread people are saying that people believe in AGW due to faith rather than scientific facts. Where does that sound familiar? It's also relevant because in both cases people are hypocrites!

[jafadmin]

The irony here is that you thought your first post would be triggering but I seem to have hit a nerve!

No, you did't hit a nerve. What you did was try to hijack a topic. Big difference.

You aren't being smart. You are being annoying. Big difference. Remember this ..

It's totally relevant because in this thread people are saying that people believe in AGW due to faith rather than scientific facts. Where does that sound familiar?

This needs explaining, here? Ok ..

There are two types of beliefs; Rational, and Irrational. What is the difference? ... It's simple, really.

A rational belief is a belief that cannot be disproven.
An irrational belief is a belief that can easily be disproven.
We are discussing irrational beliefs. Vous comprendre?
.

[musher0]

Well then, be shocked!

You don't really want to re-enforce the stereotype that leftist are fact-averse, do you?

.

Coming from an American with no sensitivity to countries outside his own and
no capacity to teach a simple conversion constant, that criticism falls flat on its own.

Edit 10 min. later:
It falls flat also because the US political spectrum goes from extreme-right to middle-of-
center, in two parties. You have no left-wing parties corresponding to international
standards. You have no Labor Party, e.g.

Finally it falls flat because 1) I am not a leftist and 2) I presented facts, but you don't like
them, so you refuse to call them facts -- while the rest of the world does.call them facts.

[musher0]

The US is the world's only remaining superpower. Imagine the UN having control by treaty over the US energy policy.
(...)

Actually, to parallel what you quoted in the early pages of this thread, what you want
now is the US to be the ruler, and the rest of the world to be your subjects.

Boy does the rest of the world have news for you! Who needs a superpower these
days?

And who says the UN wants to "have control by treaty over the US energy policy"?
YOU. Not the UN. Reread the texts, it's all voluntary.

For the record, and FWIW ( given the blinders you now wear ), the UN was a joint US
initiative when it was founded in San Francisco in 1945. Now that it's thinking on its own,
you want to sack it.

Typical (a-certain-kind-of) American reasoning: if it does not serve the US, if it thinks
on its two feet, sack it!

[s243a]

No, you did't hit a nerve. What you did was try to hijack a topic. Big difference.

You aren't being smart. You are being annoying. Big difference. Remember this ..

It's totally relevant because in this thread people are saying that people believe in AGW due to faith rather than scientific facts. Where does that sound familiar?

This needs explaining, here? Ok ..

There are two types of beliefs; Rational, and Irrational. What is the difference? ... It's simple, really.

A rational belief is a belief that cannot be disproven.
An irrational belief is a belief that can easily be disproven.
We are discussing irrational beliefs. Vous comprendre?
.

What makes believing in something that cannot be disproven rational? Isn't falsifiability part of the scientific method?

Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method and hypothesis testing. In a scientific context, falsifiability is sometimes considered synonymous with testability.

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/falsifiability

Believing in something that cannot be disprove is kind of like the, "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[musher0]

Finally, I'm Canadian. Yikes, I don't fall in any of your prefabricated categories!
Another reason your argument falls flat.
OMG. what are you going to do, what are you going to do?

[s243a]

And who says the UN wants to "have control by treaty over the US energy policy"?
YOU. Not the UN. Reread the texts, it's all voluntary.

You're ignoring how the establishment of precedence for how much CO2 each nation is allowed to emit could establish a norm that could be used as a president for future legislation.

Whilst fact-based positive legal theory explains the causes and effects of the law’s application, normative legal theory informs what the law ought to be by navigating the values and reasons that underpin legal actions, the adoption of legislation and judge-made law. Legal theorists use the word ‘normative’ in its general sense that encompasses legal norms, social norms and moral norms. Normative legal theories are highly evaluative and are entwined with moral and political theories. An example that highlights the differences between positive legal theory and normative legal theory is presented through a comparison of their approaches to tort law. Whilst positive theory seeks to explain what causal forces have produced the existing tort principles, normative theory determines what rules of tort liability would be the most justifiable.[5]

Normative legal theory uses judgments to conclude the most appropriate rule to be applied in legal reasoning and is influenced by moral or political theories. The general normative theories of deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics are three general normative theories that significantly inform normative legal theory:[5]
...
5 - Kelsen, Hans (1991-03-07), "Legal Norms and Legal Principles: Esser's Transformation Theory", General Theory of Norms, Oxford University Press, pp. 115–122, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198252177.003.0028, ISBN 9780198252177

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... gal_theory

Remember each nation committed -- albeit without the consent of their people -- to certain targets and those targets could form the basis for a carbon trading system.

[musher0]

Perhaps. I don't see what legal theory has to do with the Paris Treaty of the UN.

More importantly, the US bowed out of the Paris Treaty. See? How binding was it?

And I know you do not want my opinion, but now that you're out, stay out.
The rest of the world will be much freer to solve its problems without you.

[s243a]

More importantly, the US bowed out of the Paris Treaty. See? How binding was it?

And I know you do not want my opinion, but now that you're out, stay out.
The rest of the world will be much freer to solve its problems without you.

I'm Canadian, so maybe that comment was meant for jafadmin? Anyway, jafadmin doesn't speak for America but regarding laws that don't seem to be binding for America, I see recently that laws about assassinating foreign leaders on diplomatic missions don't seem to apply either...or at least not yet but that could change as courts change over time.

[musher0]

Hello compatriot! (We should be more visible, BTW.)

Yeah, the remark was directed at jafadmin.

Sorry, political assassination has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Oh wait. Let me check through my patio door if there's an American drone outside
waiting to get rid of me for what I just said about the US.

If I don't re-post, call the RCMP?

TIA.

[musher0]

Nah. Just snowflakes, no drome.

[RetroTechGuy]

Perhaps. I don't see what legal theory has to do with the Paris Treaty of the UN.

More importantly, the US bowed out of the Paris Treaty. See? How binding was it?

It was not a treaty, as the US Senate did not ratify the document. That's some legal theory for you.