alternative facts

[Wrath of Dagon]

If they didn't get rid of filibuster, Gorsuch wouldn't have made it. Now they need to get rid of filibuster all together, or the Dems will kill them.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

You gotta love the liberal mental meltdowns.

 

 

Do you feel that lashing out with insults helps your argument? It would seem to do the opposite, simply setting up an us versus them mentality. This seems to be par for the course in both liberal and conservative camps right now. Shouldn't the goal be to convince others, instead of just furthering the divide?

[Gfted1]

^How do you debate with a disingenuos post such as he replied to? Its a pissing contest, you see.

[Guard Dog]

If they didn't get rid of filibuster, Gorsuch wouldn't have made it. Now they need to get rid of filibuster all together, or the Dems will kill them.

The thing is in the future, perhaps as soon as 2020, we may have cause to rue their use of the "nuclear option". Folks who enjoy seeing their "team" exercise power and stick to their enemies need to remember one day that power will be in the hands of someone else. The left wingers of this country were loving the way Obama spent eight years usurping power from the Congress, from the States, from thin air. Now all that power and more importantly the precedent to do even more is in the hands of Donald Trump.Politics is cyclical. Right now the Republicans hold all the cards. Withing the next 8 years that might all reverse. In fact it's even likely it will. That is one of the biggest arguments against allowing the government to expand it's power. The Republicans should be cutting down the size and scope so the next Democrat admin and Congress can't do as much damage. Instead they are out Democrating the Democrats. Rush Limbaugh even asked the Vice President yesterday "What is the point of even voting Republican?" He's right.

 

Had I been Trump I'd have sacrificed Goresuch and in his place nominated someone even more unacceptable to the left. Like Janice Rogers Brown as an example. And let them know if they filibuster her the next one will be even worse for them. At some point public pressure will force them to drop the filibuster and the 60 vote cloture rule would still exist. That is thinking strategically. 

[Hurlshort]

^How do you debate with a disingenuos post such as he replied to? Its a pissing contest, you see.

 

Sure, Pidesco was clearly being glib when he made his original statement. That's why it was probably not worth reacting to. But Sharp_One jumps into attack mode very quickly whenever someone has an alternative opinion on an issue. I know we all have our moments when we go for the petty dig instead of the genuine discourse, but I'd like to think we can strive to be better.

[Gromnir]

Seems odd to tout Gorsuch, given the way Congress is set. I guess every review needs that fluff task

if a single person were to be deserving credit for gorsuch being on the Court, it would be mitch mcconnell.  trump's contribution were picking a name from a list and then failing to build consensus for a relative moderate textualist with no genuine questions 'bout his competence.  failure of trump to build consensus resulted in the nuclear option, which both parties will be regretting at some point in the future.  both democrats and republicans lamented the nuclear option. yeah, the democrats actual went "nuclear" during the obama administration, removing filibuster for all appointees save for the Court, so republicans no doubt saw Gorsuch as a kinda eye-for-an-eye kinda scenario, but why give trump credit for failing in a similar fashion as obama?

 

in the absence o' a republican or libertarian President, we woulda' likely seen a more activist judge on the Court.  we observed more than once during the election year that the only reason we could see voting for trump were to prevent a more activist Court.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

If they didn't get rid of filibuster, Gorsuch wouldn't have made it. Now they need to get rid of filibuster all together, or the Dems will kill them.

The thing is in the future, perhaps as soon as 2020, we may have cause to rue their use of the "nuclear option". Folks who enjoy seeing their "team" exercise power and stick to their enemies need to remember one day that power will be in the hands of someone else. The left wingers of this country were loving the way Obama spent eight years usurping power from the Congress, from the States, from thin air. Now all that power and more importantly the precedent to do even more is in the hands of Donald Trump.Politics is cyclical. Right now the Republicans hold all the cards. Withing the next 8 years that might all reverse. In fact it's even likely it will. That is one of the biggest arguments against allowing the government to expand it's power.

 

The Democrats don't buy that argument though, so it doesn't help if Republicans do. As far as filibuster, there's no way Democrats would keep the filibuster if it didn't suit them in the future. Harry Reid already showed the way. Republicans holding on to filibuster is just wishful thinking and unilateral disarmament. Besides, as I said before, filibuster made some sense when the two parties got together occasionally for the good of the country, but these days only leads to complete paralysis while the house is on fire.

The Republicans should be cutting down the size and scope so the next Democrat admin and Congress can't do as much damage. Instead they are out Democrating the Democrats. Rush Limbaugh even asked the Vice President yesterday "What is the point of even voting Republican?" He's right.

As I said a little while back, the Republicans are divided thus they were forced to negotiate with the Dems, and negotiating with Dems means Dems get everything they want, as they know any government shut down would be blamed on the Repubes.

Had I been Trump I'd have sacrificed Goresuch and in his place nominated someone even more unacceptable to the left. Like Janice Rogers Brown as an example. And let them know if they filibuster her the next one will be even worse for them. At some point public pressure will force them to drop the filibuster and the 60 vote cloture rule would still exist. That is thinking strategically.

And you'd get nothing. Public pressure doesn't work because most people don't care, and Dems don't give a rat's ass what Republican voters think. Republicans paid no price for opposing Garland, and Dems wouldn't pay a price either, especially if Trump nominated someone they could easily portray as "far right" and extreme. Edited May 3, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Valsuelm]

The following happens far more often than most think. In fact, at some if not most media outlets, such things are very much the norm...

 

 

 

I have a few friends in the industry as the result of going to a university reputed to have one of the best if not the best communications schools in the nation. Two of those friends are actually Emmy awards winners at this point. The **** they'd tell you would blow many of your minds, and turn many of your world views inside out and then on it's head .

 

The world is not as advertised.

 

 

Worth a watch if you've never seen it:

Edited June 6, 2017 by Valsuelm

[Gromnir]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/factcheck-shows-trumps-climate-speech-was-full-of-misleading-statements/

 

“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of 1 degree — think of that, this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.”

 

White House officials said this figure came from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Researchers from the Climate Interactive project, which collaborates with MIT, quickly refuted Trump's point.

 

In fact, the MIT research to which the president referred showed that the Paris Agreement could lower the expected temperature increase by 0.6 to 1.1 C.

 

is easier to pick out the few trump accuracies from his climate speech than to identify all the alternative facts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 6, 2017 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

Has that number doubled or tripled since last weeks conversation? That would not surprise me in the least, next week it will be a double digit reduction!

[Gromnir]

am hesitant to ask.

 

*shrug*

 

which numbers from last week are you comparing?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

am hesitant to ask.

 

*shrug*

 

which numbers from last week are you comparing?

 

HA! Good Fun!

World pledges to save "mother Earth".

 

See, everything's cool.

 

 

 

The World Meteorological Organization estimated that U.S. withdrawal from the emissions-cutting accord could add 0.3 degrees Celsius to global temperatures by the end of the century in a worst-case scenario.

 

0.3 degrees in the next 87 years! We think! Oh noes!

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Paris agreement was a complete scam, and wouldn't have resulted in anything except damaging the US economy if we were stupid enough to follow through: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/05/the-madness-of-the-parisagreement-on-climate/

 

The EU emissions have gone up btw.

[Gromnir]

 

am hesitant to ask.

 

*shrug*

 

which numbers from last week are you comparing?

 

HA! Good Fun!

World pledges to save "mother Earth".

 

See, everything's cool.

 

 

 

The World Meteorological Organization estimated that U.S. withdrawal from the emissions-cutting accord could add 0.3 degrees Celsius to global temperatures by the end of the century in a worst-case scenario.

 

0.3 degrees in the next 87 years! We think! Oh noes!

 

 

 

...

 

you can't possible be reading the numbers as representing identical outcomes.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

No. Thats why I asked: "Has that number doubled or tripled since last weeks conversation?"

[Gromnir]

No. Thats why I asked: "Has that number doubled or tripled since last weeks conversation?"

what was .3 a measure of?

 

what is .6 to 1.1 a measure of?

 

not need Gromnir to explain.  you already commented 'bout .3 so you should know what the .3 were referencing, yes?  the answer to  what "0.6 to 1.1 C" represents is clear stated in the relatively brief quote we included from the scientific american article. our post.

 

is not same stuff being measured.  why would you even think such were possible?  'cause is numbers and is related to climate?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

Ah, so now the increase will be .9 to 1.4C. That was exhausting.

[Gromnir]

Ah, so now the increase will be .9 to 1.4C. That was exhausting.

 

...

 

 

am genuine wondering if our leg is being pulled.

 

.6 to 1.1C were an estimate o' reduction o' the expected global increase as 'posed to the expected global increase.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps added gif... 'cause.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

Right, but now with the US pulling out the reduction is reduced and we need to add the .3 back in.

[Gromnir]

Right, but now with the US pulling out the reduction is reduced and we need to add the .3 back in.

 

gonna keep doing this 'til am certain.

 

you need to subtract, not add.

 

you subtract from the estimated reduction, 'cause you do not know what is the estimated increase. 'cause gifted hasn't bothered to check, all you know is:

 

A) amount of global warming due to US if they exit the Paris Agreement.

 

B) the amount global warming will be lessened by the Paris Agreement.

 

from A and B you do not know the projected amount of global warming anticipated with or w/o the Paris Agreement.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

I suppose its my own fault for engaging, fool me 5472943049297 times I guess...

 

...with total compliance from all nations...

...could lower the expected temperature increase by 0.6 to 1.1 C.

The World Meteorological Organization estimated that U.S. withdrawal from the emissions-cutting accord could add 0.3 degrees Celsius to global temperatures by the end of the century in a worst-case scenario.

So since the US is no longer in the accord, add 0.3.

 

Add 0.3 to the mythical expected temperature increase of 0.6 to 1.1 and you get the result of a expected temperature increase of 0.9 to 1.4C.

 

You can just forget I asked you a question. Ill wait ands see if someone else circles back to answer.

[Gromnir]

I suppose its my own fault for engaging, fool me 5472943049297 times I guess...

 

...with total compliance from all nations...

...could lower the expected temperature increase by 0.6 to 1.1 C.

The World Meteorological Organization estimated that U.S. withdrawal from the emissions-cutting accord could add 0.3 degrees Celsius to global temperatures by the end of the century in a worst-case scenario.

So since the US is no longer in the accord, add 0.3.

 

So add that 0.3 to the mythical expected temperature increase of 0.6 to 1.1 and you get the result of a expected temperature increase of 0.9 to 1.4C.

 

You can just forget I asked you a question. Ill wait ands see if someone else circles back to answer.

 

where do you see .6 to 1.1 as the expected temp increase under the paris agreement?

 

"In fact, the MIT research to which the president referred showed that the Paris Agreement could lower the expected temperature increase by 0.6 to 1.1 C."

 

 

the overall global increase with Paris goals met is indeed mythical given the info you have available.  you know potential reduction with or w/o US, but you don't know "the expected temperature increase." subtract. is not add. 

 

...

 

*shrug*

 

leave as-is.

 

you are reading a projected decrease of the expected increase as the increase itself.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

I suppose its my own fault for engaging, fool me 5472943049297 times I guess...

The two figures are measuring different things.

 

0.3 degrees = difference from US pulling out only

0.6-1.1 degree = difference if everyone pulled out/ there was no agreement. This includes the US contribution, it doesn't exclude it. This is where you are making the mistake.

 

Trump is wrong because he has used the first figure and stated it as representing the second data set. If he'd stated that 0.2 degrees was the difference for the US pulling out he'd be correct (enough), but he said it was the figure for if the agreement didn't exist at all, which is incorrect.

 

The new expected difference is 0.4 to 0.8 reduction per (0.6-0.2) to (1.1-0.3).

 

(All simple case, statistically it's a bit more complicated than that)

Edited June 6, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

Apparently the higher number includes all planned remediation strategies, not just the Paris Agreement. Also depends whose numbers you believe: https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/09/lomborg-impact-of-current-climate-proposals/

[Gromnir]

https://www.climateinteractive.org/insights/response-to-white-house-talking-points-on-paris-agreement/

 

perhaps use of actual link helps best.

 

business as usual = 4.2C increase by 2100

Paris Agreement = 3.3C increase by 2100 (mit, for purposes of graph, settled 'pon .9 'stead of range from .6 to 1.1... otherwise would see 3.1 to 3.6C)

 

take US out of agreement and the numbers would skew upwards by .3C, yes? 3.4 to 3.9C.

 

HA! Good Fun!