trump unveils supreme court nominee list

[Silvanus]

Do you have anything but cudgels for the man? Do any of you have anything but ranting insults and dismissive rhetoric?

My attitude towards him is a reaction. His anti-scientific nonsense and aggression came first.

Why should I extend him endless benefit-of-the-doubt after he's refused to do even the bare minimum? And he's the one with the power.

The "cherry-picked dataset" was the up to date dataset at the time he made those statements. It's not a satellite data specific event, the rate of warming dropped way down from the late 90s to 2014, the phenomenon wasn't some measuring error. His statements were from late 2014/early 2015; he "cherry-picked" the period right before he said that.

And how relevant is 15 years-or-so for a trend that has lasted centuries? He zoomed into a small, essentially-meaningless time period, and proceeded to act as if it discredited the environmentalism movement in its entirety. That's the very essence of cherry-picking.

 

[tstorm823]

You said that "He's a 'green' political nonsense opponent". Does that include his support of withdrawing from the Paris agreement in your mind?

I mean, again that is what that says. That letter does not say "climate change is a myth, let the world burn." That letter says "if you stay in this agreement, the environmentalists are going to sue you for the rest of time."

And like, the interview with Chris Hayes goes off the rails the moment he doesn't get to explain himself. But even before that, the question is "do you accept that..." Even that phrasing is just an ideological test. It's not "are these things true". It's not "in your opinion, are these things true." It's "I'm asserting these things are true, you can only choose whether or not to accept my truth." The discussion was a nonstarter by the phrasing of the question.

 

[Hawki]

...so is this thread about the supreme court, or climate denial?

Look, throwing tstorm a bone, there are some environmentalists who could be described as "catastrophist" or "deep green" environmentalists, whereas people like Shellenberger for instance are "light green." The anti-nuclear stance from many in the environmental movement has cost us dearly (least as far as emissions go) for instance. However, right-wing parties have traditionally been the parties of climate denial; I'm not claiming the moral highground here, the Liberals and Nationals in Oz have a climate denial problem as well. But the argument's gone from "climate change isn't real" to "the climate's always changed" to "the climate's changing, but humans have nothing to do with it" to "maybe humans have something to do with it" to "maybe it won't be that bad." In the time that's happened, we're now 1.1C above pre-industrial temperatures. That's already causing havoc. Now imagine a world at 3-4 degrees, which is what we're on course for by the end of the century if no action is taken. For God's sake, climate change was identified as a risk in the 1890s, Exxon Mobil has known about this for 50 years, and lied to its own investors. Also account for the fact that CO2 has about a 30 year time lag before its effects are fully known, plus that the amount of particulate matter we emit, if removed, would lead to about .5-1 degree additional warming by itself. Now consider the fact that staying within the supposed "safe zone" requires carbon sequestration technology that would have to be deployed at scale, in addition to reforestation, in addition to a growing population, plus ever-increasing rates of consumption.

I could say more, but it's frankly too depressing. I did env. management at uni - the stuff we're seeing happen right now (e.g. permafrost thawing) was regarded as a hypothetical, far-off scenario at the time. We (or at least I) was operating under the understanding that climate change was a steady thing that we could put the breaks on just as steadily, not fully accounting for tipping points, even if we did acknowledge feedback loops. Maybe it was always a losing fight, but the stalling on climate change hasn't made things any easier, and it's the people who've contributed the least who'll be affected the most.

Or, I dunno, maybe it's a Chinese hoax or something.

To be fair, neither are the Dems. Everyone knew Clinton did some dodgy sexual stuff before he was ever president. I don’t know why a minimum standard for all political offices is ‘not raping or sexually harassing someone’.

That, and Biden.

What happened to "believe all women?"

 

[Bedinsis]

And like, the interview with Chris Hayes goes off the rails the moment he doesn't get to explain himself. But even before that, the question is "do you accept that..." Even that phrasing is just an ideological test. It's not "are these things true". It's not "in your opinion, are these things true." It's "I'm asserting these things are true, you can only choose whether or not to accept my truth." The discussion was a nonstarter by the phrasing of the question.

I wasn't the biggest fan of the MSNBC interview since the reporter seemed to be looking for a soundbyte answer without allowing room for explanation. Since I believe climate change skepticism to be easily debunked(hence why it's most often labeled as denialism nowadays) it would've been of benefit to the public for both him and Mr. Cruz to lay out what the scientific cause for the sides to be, and even if for some reason Mr. Cruz had a valid point then talking about it would've revealed it. But I saw no problem with the framing. If an interviewer would ask "Do you accept that the Earth is flat?" then the interviewee would still be free to say no, and motivate their point of view. Including stating "I disagree with your basic framing".

 

[Worgen]

That, and Biden.

What happened to "believe all women?"

Yeah, and racism, I mean its over, we had a black president. Why are all these people whining now?

 

[Iron]

You said that "He's a 'green' political nonsense opponent". Does that include his support of withdrawing from the Paris agreement in your mind?

*alternative link

Paris Agreement has no bite, it's only declarative. The only novel thing about it is that it has all of the nations active in the UN. It is, in essence, useless, and so is leaving it. Leaving it is also declarative.

 

[Worgen]

Paris Agreement has no bite, it's only declarative. The only novel thing about it is that it has all of the nations active in the UN. It is, in essence, useless, and so is leaving it. Leaving it is also declarative.

If that was the case then why pull us out of it? Cause leaving it just makes us look bad.

 

[Iron]

If that was the case then why pull us out of it? Cause leaving it just makes us look bad.

It's declarative.
Many nations in the agreement either used nonesense goals or cheated on their 'tests'. The declarative notion here is that the US is not beholden to the international community, and will not be taken advantage of by other industrializing nations. China is India are industrializing, increasing its overall pollution while Europe and US have either decreased or remained steady. This in turn gives the impression that this agreement merely exists to hamper economic growth in Europe and the US.

Trump talking points - 1. US strong, independent, does not let the world tell it what to do.
2. US economy will be stronger, better, not limited by foreign powers.
3. US plays fairs while others cheat.
there, explained.

 

[Worgen]

It's declarative.
Many nations in the agreement either used nonesense goals or cheated on their 'tests'. The declarative notion here is that the US is not beholden to the international community, and will not be taken advantage of by other industrializing nations. China is India are industrializing, increasing its overall pollution while Europe and US have either decreased or remained steady. This in turn gives the impression that this agreement merely exists to hamper economic growth in Europe and the US.

Trump talking points - 1. US strong, independent, does not let the world tell it what to do.
2. US economy will be stronger, better, not limited by foreign powers.
3. US plays fairs while others cheat.
there, explained.

So you're saying hes a stupid man. This is something we already know.

 

[Iron]

So you're saying hes a stupid man. This is something we already know.

am I talking to a wall

The agreement has no value besides for PR, a symbolic gesture that the whole world is coming together for fighting climate change... yet it's a lie because most of the countries signed there either don't have a proper goal on reduction or lie with their numbers. It's like how volkswagen lied on its emissions tests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
I don't get why you don't try to see this neutrally.

 

[Worgen]

am I talking to a wall

The agreement has no value besides for PR, a symbolic gesture that the whole world is coming together for fighting climate change... yet it's a lie because most of the countries signed there either don't have a proper goal on reduction or lie with their numbers. It's like how volkswagen lied on its emissions tests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
I don't get why you don't try to see this neutrally.

Neutrality is what people retreat to when they don't know how things work. Do you even remember what happened to Volkswagen when they were caught cheating on emissions tests? They got reamed and had to take all the vehicles that were models that had the failed emission standards recalled, there are still massive parking lots full of cars that are too expensive to fix so they are just sitting there till people can figure out what to do with them. This is the system working, its not as fast as we need but it still caught them and punished them, it would have been better if it didn't get this far but at least it was caught. I mean this wasn't them getting in under a loophole or something, this was them setting up a system that would switch on to a low emissions mode when a test was detected.

 

[Iron]

Neutrality is what people retreat to when they don't know how things work. Do you even remember what happened to Volkswagen when they were caught cheating on emissions tests? They got reamed and had to take all the vehicles that were models that had the failed emission standards recalled, there are still massive parking lots full of cars that are too expensive to fix so they are just sitting there till people can figure out what to do with them. This is the system working, its not as fast as we need but it still caught them and punished them, it would have been better if it didn't get this far but at least it was caught. I mean this wasn't them getting in under a loophole or something, this was them setting up a system that would switch on to a low emissions mode when a test was detected.

I don't remember because I don't care that much. I threw this example in because it was the top of the magazine in my brain when I typed that comment. your knowledge of this incident is very impressive, well done. here's a cookie.
anyway, as I was saying, orange bad man, impeach, russia russia.

 

[Avnger]

I don't remember because I don't care that much. I threw this example in because it was the top of the magazine in my brain when I typed that comment. your knowledge of this incident is very impressive, well done. here's a cookie.
anyway, as I was saying, orange bad man, impeach, russia russia.

Christ... could you at least pretend to be engaging in honest discourse with the rest of us? If you're just going to make an argument, respond "kek idk what a nerd" when proven wrong, and then act as if you're still correct anyway, why are you here posting? Why should anyone ever respond to you?

 

[Iron]

Christ... could you at least pretend to be engaging in honest discourse with the rest of us? If you're just going to make an argument, respond "kek idk what a nerd" when proven wrong, and then act as if you're still correct anyway, why are you here posting? Why should anyone ever respond to you?

lel what the heck is this then

So you're saying hes a stupid man. This is something we already know.

an honest discourse?
responding to me with "kek so you're saying orange bad man".

You fail to realize that this goes both ways and I often retaliate, not instigate.

 

[Buyetyen]

The agreement has no value besides for PR, a symbolic gesture that the whole world is coming together for fighting climate change..

And withdrawing from it in the manner that Trump did has no value besides PR for his base of destructive ninnies, a symbolic gesture of his contempt for science and intellectualism while also demonstrating to the world's stage that the US can never again be relied upon to honor its treaties, because if we can fuck up and elect this stumblefuck buffoon, we can do it again.

I don't remember because I don't care that much.

You shouldn't open your mouth if you have nothing to say. It just wastes your and everyone else's time.

 

[Avnger]

lel what the heck is this then

an honest discourse?
responding to me with "kek so you're saying orange bad man".

You fail to realize that this goes both ways and I often retaliate, not instigate.

Maybe you need his point broken down for you?

1. You gave a list of "Trump talking points."
2. Said talking points display the understanding of international diplomacy that a not-particularly-bright 8 year old might have.
3. Worgen draws the obvious conclusion that if those were Trump's talking points, he must have a similar view to said hypothetical 8 year old.
4. If a 74 year old person is limited to an 8 year old's viewpoint, "stupid" would be an apt, if simplified, descriptor.

 

[Iron]

Maybe you need his point broken down for you?

1. You gave a list of "Trump talking points."
2. Said talking points display the understanding of international diplomacy that a not-particularly-bright 8 year old might have.
3. Worgen draws the obvious conclusion that if those were Trump's talking points, he must have a similar view to said hypothetical 8 year old.
4. If a 74 year old person is limited to an 8 year old's viewpoint, "stupid" would be an apt, if simplified, descriptor.

maybe you don't need to patronize me

You shouldn't open your mouth if you have nothing to say. It just wastes your and everyone else's time.

 

[Worgen]

an honest discourse?
responding to me with "kek so you're saying orange bad man".

You fail to realize that this goes both ways and I often retaliate, not instigate.

Because why would I bother? If at this point if someone thinks what hes done is really open to negotiation as to being good for the nation or world then they probably have their head so far up their butt that any attempt to dissuade them would be a waste of time. Hes openly corrupt, hes done massive amounts of damage to our international reputation, we are closer to war with china then ever, he pretty much just let almost 200k (or past that depending on when you read this) die, and thats not even getting into all the little things that are too numerous to go into but will fuck us over in many ways for years to come.

 

[lil devils x]

Because why would I bother? If at this point if someone thinks what hes done is really open to negotiation as to being good for the nation or world then they probably have their head so far up their butt that any attempt to dissuade them would be a waste of time. Hes openly corrupt, hes done massive amounts of damage to our international reputation, we are closer to war with china then ever, he pretty much just let almost 200k (or past that depending on when you read this) die, and thats not even getting into all the little things that are too numerous to go into but will fuck us over in many ways for years to come.

I don't even think Trump believes anything he's done is good, just look at what he said to Woodward. That isn't his motivation or care though. He just wants people to think he has. His only concern is personal financial benefit, that and he is terrified if he loses, he will be prosecuted for everything he has done and he and some of his children will go to jail. He is trying to ride out the statute of limitations. He could care less if anything he does is either good or bad for anyone else. It isn't about that to him. It is 100% about making sure he is reelected so he can get away with most of the shit he has done. He may not be able to get away with it all, but it greatly increases his odds. His staff said he was " obsessed" with being re elected for a reason. He has a very good reason. The second he is out of office he loses control over the ability to prosecute him. He can't fire people and block investigations anymore.

 

[Houseman]

Saying that Trump has done nothing good and everything bad is the same as saying that Obama has done everything bad and nothing good.

It's clearly indicative of ulterior motives