Laurie David: Contributing to global warming by being a giant bag of gas - Page 2

Originally Posted by trumptman

See Adda, here is the problem with your little premise.

I can suppose you are entirely right. Those who are entirely full of shit, like Mark Foley, who like to fuck, gamble, cheat and rob are entirely in the wrong.

The problem though is anyone who really follows the teachings of Christianity, even if those teachings are the ravings of nutjobs who smell worse than overripe bullshit believe and have faith that an unknowable, unprovable God is going to grant them a reprieve from all their wrongs and give them a good afterlife.

From my perspective, even if they are deluded, self-interested assholes this makes sense. They can play today, not even have to pay tomorrow and via grace get a magic get out of hell free card that acts as fire insurance to an afterlife that no one can even prove.

Those actions are entirely consistent for self-interested, self-righteous assholes.

Now the problem with your reasoning related to these environmental self-righteous assholes is that instead of lying about the afterlife and God, something we can't prove, their actions relate to the planet and the present. Two items that are definitely provable. Likewise if a Mark Foley wants to declare that homosexuals are going to hell while letting some guy rub him down and give him butt sex, he can take it up with God in the afterlife. If Laurie David wants to be a hypocritical bitch, she has to take it up with the factors that effects which happens to be the planet, and me.

Also the actions of these self-righteous assholes are not consistent and do not make sense. There is no magic get off the planet, or save the planet for free cards that work in some unknown, unprovable afterlife. By their reasoning, they die, we die, the planet dies and their actions, which have not changed, contribute not to some unknown and unprovable afterlife, but to the known and very proven present planet.

Nick

Originally Posted by trumptman

When bad people engage in bad actions. They either have to be lying about them being bad, or we have to call them what they are, bad people. Factually proven bad people.

He then called on the United States "not to impede" in the fight against global warming. "On the contrary, they must lead this fight because humanity's fate is at stake here."

Originally Posted by trumptman

North, get a refund on the lobotomy. It didn't work.

I don't think you could have missed the point more if you tried.

Nick

Originally Posted by trumptman

Apparently you cant.

The reason you can't follow is because, unlike you, I can let actions speak for themselves instead of making it all about me.

The factual basis for their claims are not called into question based off what I like. They are called into question based off how they utilize the information. If it is a fact that use of fossil fuels harm the planet. Then my enlightened actions should reflect a desire to discontinue their use in all capacities. A compromise, not that you can compromise with facts, but a compromise might be to absolutely minimize their use, pool their use in ways that allow the most benefit for the most people while minimizing harm, etc while hoping that technology and time can solve the problem and reverse present and future harm while not sacrificing human existence.

When you go jumping on your private jet while still living in MULTIPLE homes that are several hundred to several thousand percent larger than necessary all while claiming good intentions, your actions call into question your belief into the validity of those facts because they endorse and reflect the most harmful course of action one can take knowing those facts.

The choices are lunatic or liar. Since it does not appear I am allowed to dispute their facts, they must be liars.

The difference here is I can label them a lunatics or liars and no one can know what they claim with regard to the afterlife or existence of supreme being. They can believe it and I can choose to believe or not believe it. If they go against their own teachings they are either liars or insane knowing the ramifications.

You need to stop running your posts through the post-modern gibberish generator.

The champions, those who claim to be closest to those well tested claims, who claim to know them best and thus consider them factual, are acting in the exact opposite manner necessary according to those claims/facts.

A claim that is untestable can at least be ignorant and thus be assigned a good intention. What do you assign to someone who has a tested claim who then acts in defiance of it?

You can claim that God hates anyone who engages in butt sex and that he will send them to hell.

I can claim that God loves it when people have butt sex and he will shower them with vanilla pudding when they die.

As you have said, both of our claims are untestable. We can both act in accordance with our beliefs and although we may not like each other very much, there is really no way to know who is right. Even if I think they are bad or evil people I can't prove it.

The difference with the environmental folks is, as you said, I can prove it. I don't have to deal with good or bad intentions. I can't say, "well I was talking to God and he said something very different to me."

The planet is here. The facts (according to them) are in. People that act in opposition to those facts are not just imperfect, misinformed or ignorant people. They are bad people. I can claim the misinformed or ignorant people aren't bad, just misinformed or ignorant and I can fix them via education about the "facts."

But the people that know the facts... who are informed.. they aren't just well intentioned, or imperfect. We reserve those terms for people who disagree with us but where the outcome really can't be known with regard to actions. They also aren't just hypocritical because we use that for someone who believes something but has actions that are the opposite of their beliefs. Again we can't fully confirm or prove their beliefs These folks are not hypocrites. They are bad people. They are killing the planet. They are undertaking their killing actions at rates unprecedented and in manners unjustifiable in any form or fashion.

When bad people engage in bad actions. They either have to be lying about them being bad, or we have to call them what they are, bad people. Factually proven bad people.

Nick

Originally Posted by trumptman

Apparently you cant.

The reason you can't follow is because, unlike you, I can let actions speak for themselves instead of making it all about me.



The factual basis for their claims are not called into question based off what I like. They are called into question based off how they utilize the information. If it is a fact that use of fossil fuels harm the planet. Then my enlightened actions should reflect a desire to discontinue their use in all capacities. A compromise, not that you can compromise with facts, but a compromise might be to absolutely minimize their use, pool their use in ways that allow the most benefit for the most people while minimizing harm, etc while hoping that technology and time can solve the problem and reverse present and future harm while not sacrificing human existence.

When you go jumping on your private jet while still living in MULTIPLE homes that are several hundred to several thousand percent larger than necessary all while claiming good intentions, your actions call into question your belief into the validity of those facts because they endorse and reflect the most harmful course of action one can take knowing those facts.

The choices are lunatic or liar. Since it does not appear I am allowed to dispute their facts, they must be liars.



The difference here is I can label them a lunatics or liars and no one can know what they claim with regard to the afterlife or existence of supreme being. They can believe it and I can choose to believe or not believe it. If they go against their own teachings they are either liars or insane knowing the ramifications.



You need to stop running your posts through the post-modern gibberish generator.

The champions, those who claim to be closest to those well tested claims, who claim to know them best and thus consider them factual, are acting in the exact opposite manner necessary according to those claims/facts.

A claim that is untestable can at least be ignorant and thus be assigned a good intention. What do you assign to someone who has a tested claim who then acts in defiance of it?

You can claim that God hates anyone who engages in butt sex and that he will send them to hell.

I can claim that God loves it when people have butt sex and he will shower them with vanilla pudding when they die.

As you have said, both of our claims are untestable. We can both act in accordance with our beliefs and although we may not like each other very much, there is really no way to know who is right. Even if I think they are bad or evil people I can't prove it.

The difference with the environmental folks is, as you said, I can prove it. I don't have to deal with good or bad intentions. I can't say, "well I was talking to God and he said something very different to me."

The planet is here. The facts (according to them) are in. People that act in opposition to those facts are not just imperfect, misinformed or ignorant people. They are bad people. I can claim the misinformed or ignorant people aren't bad, just misinformed or ignorant and I can fix them via education about the "facts."

But the people that know the facts... who are informed.. they aren't just well intentioned, or imperfect. We reserve those terms for people who disagree with us but where the outcome really can't be known with regard to actions. They also aren't just hypocritical because we use that for someone who believes something but has actions that are the opposite of their beliefs. Again we can't fully confirm or prove their beliefs These folks are not hypocrites. They are bad people. They are killing the planet. They are undertaking their killing actions at rates unprecedented and in manners unjustifiable in any form or fashion.

When bad people engage in bad actions. They either have to be lying about them being bad, or we have to call them what they are, bad people. Factually proven bad people.

Nick

Originally Posted by BRussell

I think this is something that just doesn't mesh with conservative thinking. They just don't make the leap from individual to collective action.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I have to take issue with your characterization of social dilemma. It isn't that the individual's actions do not matter. It is that when only viewed from their own perspective, instead of the collective perspective, it makes more rational sense for them to act in their self-interest. If enough self-interested people act in a manner that might benefit them, it hurts everyone collectively.

It is a very good example of what we are talking about here. A Laurie David, an Al Gore or a John Kerry might seem to be individually pursuing a rational course. It makes rational sense to all of us individually pursue multiple large houses, a fleet of cars and private chartered jets for travel.

However collectively it represents terrible decision making and terrible actions.

To bring about collective change, you have to call out the individual actions that cause harm. You have to be willing to call and label them as bad. To excuse the actions using individualist rationals plays right into the hands of those who do not seek to change.

You can't call for collective change using individualist rationals for your own personal actions can you?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Hey, screw you buddy, I CHANGED my lightbulbs.

I also only use my private jet when I REALLY have to, and I feel terrible while doing it.

Nick

Originally Posted by Jubelum

This is the same ideology that brought you Eastern Europe and Chernobyl... those great vacation destinations of pristine environmental enjoyment.

Originally Posted by trumptman

My positions are objective because I'm not assigning labels like "right wing" as a supporting fact for an argument. Sadly, you don't realize this is where you are coming from. You call something right wing and think you have presented "facts" to prove your case. Labels are not facts.



Well first of all, you are the one who would be calling such doctors "health gurus" while I would not. Also your analogy is false because you link a personal attribute with one that is a planetary attribute. The doctor who smokes undermines his own health, not the planets. He kills himself, not 6 billion present and all future people.

That said, since not all of us have the ability to go out and conduct the science ourselves, we must rely on those who can. There is such a thing as leadership by example. There is a reason we call certain people experts, or informed and their actions need to reflect that state.

To modify your example, it isn't as if some doctors still smoked, it would be like EVERY doctor still smoking and claiming others can still smoke as well, as long as they buy lung cancer "credits" from those who do not smoke. It wouldn't change the facts about smoking. However we shouldn't call those folks good doctors. We should call them bad because by their own evidence, they are living badly.

Every major figure who advocates for action against Global Warming undergoes no serious or substantive change in their own lifestyles while demanding them of others. All of them are raising "awareness" but doing nothing when their own calls are for drastic action.



What good is knowledge that is not applied?

Also you are trying to turn this into a thread that discounts Global Warming. That is not the point I have tried to put across. My point is that when something is factually proven to be right (global warming) you cannot treat the informed parties who give it lip service with respect or give them credit for good intentions in the face of bad actions. We can do this in other areas because the results cannot be proven. I can't prove you are going to be a bad dad just because you didn't marry mom. I have to give you credit for trying, for half-steps, for good intentions. In the factual realm I don't. I can condemn you. I can call you a bad person.

Gore and his ilk with their "awareness" and huge energy consuming ways should be held up as examples of what is bad and instead they are treated as examples of what is good. They may be working to give knowledge to others, but how can they expect others to apply it if they do not themselves?



That would be one of those nice support "facts" I mentioned earlier.



Leaving a light switch on is fallible. Owning a fleet of homes and private jets is not fallible. You not coming to terms with this because you prefer to think in terms like "beleaguered right wingers" is part of the planet killing problem.



So basically you endorse the thinking you argue against here. You complain that facts cannot be changed by the fallibility of the humans executing them and then proceed to ignore facts due to human fallibility. In fact you endorse this course of action.



We can find many experts who profess all sides of all arguments in all human endeavors. The testable versus untestable "thing" has to deal with the actual results. Is it possible to raise tax rates high enough that they will become confiscatory and thus effect human economic endeavors. Sure. Is this as true at 35-37% as it was at the 70% top rate Reagan cut it down from, probably not so much.

We can debate the merits of most human endeavors because there is no objective yardstick to prove them right or wrong. However killing the planet is objectively wrong. The parties undertaking those actions we can call objectively bad. You shacking up instead of getting married, might be bad in one book, but not another. It might be a failure or success in one book but not in another. Killing the planet, failure in every possible perspective.



You need to learn that perspectives are not facts and thus arguing from perspectives is not arguing with facts. That is what continues to go over your head.



Hahahaha... I like that term. Petty snark. It is the exact sort of term that I was labeling in the post-modern gibberish generator vain. You think you've stated a fact here when all you've done is call me a name and discount the argument based off what you think my bias or perspective happens to be. It is very sad. You defend bad people and bad actions because exactly because they have a "certain category of political persuasion" because their actions alone are indefensible.

That isn't over my head. Perhaps it is over yours. Their political persuasion will not save the planet. Their actions will. Claiming fleets of home and jets are just "human fallibility" is your own misguided bullshit line of reasoning. Objectively, the actions are bad and planet killing. You label them as fallibility instead because these parties have a "certain category of political persuasion" and thus you cannot hold any animus against their factually proven harmful actions.

The rest of the quotes are just more of the same. You do not condemn that which you ought to and that which is factual because the parties have a certain political persuasion. Objectively, factually their actions and lifestyles are harmful. You excuse them. You declare them fallible instead of simply bad. You let them off the hook for private jets much like leaving a light switch on. Opps, I charted a private jet to fly me cross country and burn up as much fuel as most people use trying to survive while driving to work for a year. Opps... oh well.


Nick

Originally Posted by trumptman

So you've got figured out why conservatives won't buy into what Gore and similar parties say. Can you now figure out why liberals will justify how Gore and similar parties live? Shouldn't they be the ones who use collectivist views to deny the rights of those who cause harm with their (in their view) limited individualist perspectives? Instead they are the ones using individualist dogmas to insure lack of change.

Nick

Originally Posted by trumptman

It is amazing that millions of people replacing a light bulb will save the planet, but millions of people not consuming thousands of kilowatts of elective energy or taking millions of flights won't.

Nick

Originally Posted by trumptman

It is amazing that millions of people replacing a light bulb will save the planet, but millions of people not consuming thousands of kilowatts of elective energy or taking millions of flights won't.

Nick

Originally Posted by trumptman

It is amazing that millions of people replacing a light bulb will save the planet, but millions of people not consuming thousands of kilowatts of elective energy or taking millions of flights won't.

Nick

Originally Posted by trumptman

To bring about collective change, you have to call out the individual actions that cause harm. You have to be willing to call and label them as bad. To excuse the actions using individualist rationals plays right into the hands of those who do not seek to change.

Originally Posted by MarcUK

well numbnuts if every incandescent lightbulb was changed for an energy eficient one, that would IIRC in a single stroke flatline the rate of CO2 growth in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by cwinkler

If we all change our lightbulbs and drive the Prius, will this cunt and all the rest of the green assholes like you go away and quit blaming me for destroying the earth? The sky is falling, the sky is falling and we will all die tomorrow if we don't do something.

Well it ain't our fucking fault there are any problems. Our little car has nothing to do with it. Go to any major city in China and see how fucking polluted it is. Go to Brazil and see how fucking polluted it is. Go to Romania and see how fucking polluted.

We have nothing to do with that; it aint our fault and I am sick of these cunts saying its our fault. If the earth wanted to, it can kill us all off and start fresh, fresh without cunts like Laurie David and Mr. Carbon himself, Algore.

Originally Posted by MarcUK

well numbnuts if every incandescent lightbulb was changed for an energy eficient one, that would IIRC in a single stroke flatline the rate of CO2 growth in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Frank777

Doesn't it make sense to wait the extra 18-24 months for the necessary mercury-free and even more power efficient LED technology to replace our lightbulbs?

Originally Posted by trumptman

if you shack up with your girlfriend, you are guaranteed to get an STD.

Originally Posted by trumptman

We hope that when you read this, you won't question why living in a hummer sized house on two different coasts is good, but driving an actual hummer is bad. We hope you don't realize that we could have released this book for free as a .pdf and not killed a tree while informing the entire planet. Our private flights to promote this new book will likely leave a few polar bears floating face down and likely will offset millions of people removing their energy vampire chargers from the wall, but damn it, you have to understand, we really care!

Nick

They are evil. Unlike other beliefs and perspectives where there is some philosophy, worldview or other means where disagreements can still fester, in this case they can be proven scientifically to be evil.

Also you water the facts down with your language that suggests mere philosophical disagreement. If the planet cannot absorb the carbon they produce as a result of their lifestyle, it isn't just "insufficiently rigorous," it is party to planetary murder.

Insanity is psychology silly. We are talking about a true hard science. Sure it may be at the proto-science stage but the models show that unless we all significantly change, we all die.

Global warming is unique in that as a moral issue it has a scientific provable right and wrong outcomes. This isn't possible with other moral issues. I can't say science has proven that if you shack up with your girlfriend, you are guaranteed to get an STD. I can say that science has proven that if you live in the future as you live now and do not undertake dramatic change, the planet will die.

First of all it isn't a single example. The majority of the leadership of the entire movement acts in the same manner. They simply pay their carbon offsets/indulgences which are of questionable return and then continue to live as they previously had done.

I think you assign some sort of strange intent here for NOT wanting to claim global warming is a lie. However if a person's mouth speaks the truth, but their actions do not follow the truth, what do you call the person?

I'm sure it did just fine before we were here as well and will after we are gone.

It wasn't me alone framing it this way. I'm taking parties like Laurie David and Al Gore and repeating their own assertions. Are you suggesting we might only manslaughter the planet instead of merely murder it?

Again, this is why we don't want to debate global warming in this thread. The claims that you suggest, that we might be talking about inches of say, sea level rising instead of flooded cities can be claimed as a attempt to deflect from the need to change. I'm not trying to suggest there is less of a need for change. I'm simply saying that those who claim a great and dramatic need for change do not take great or dramatic changes upon themselves. They aren't even especially efficient compared to a lay person.

Well since income and wealth can be created from nothing, it is silly to claim it is limited and thus should be redistributed. However we cannot create a planet from nothing, and the ecosystems within do appear to have limits. If you can think of a more fair system than per capita then you are more than welcome to put it forward. I suppose we could all have more carbon if there were fewer people to share it with. As you noted the rich in this case must pay the poor to endure a more carbon deficient lifestyle. That is the reasoning behind a Kyoto type treaty.

We don't have to shoot the messenger, but if they don't seem to understand their own message, then shouldn't we question the messenger?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Label, label, label, scoff, dismiss, scoff, dismiss, label.

The shortened version of your reply.

Nick

Originally Posted by trumptman

Goodness knows we wouldn't want to address the point someone is making. It is so much better to shout down and insult them instead.

They are evil. Unlike other beliefs and perspectives where there is some philosophy, worldview or other means where disagreements can still fester, in this case they can be proven scientifically to be evil.

Also you water the facts down with your language that suggests mere philosophical disagreement. If the planet cannot absorb the carbon they produce as a result of their lifestyle, it isn't just "insufficiently rigorous," it is party to planetary murder.

Insanity is psychology silly. We are talking about a true hard science. Sure it may be at the proto-science stage but the models show that unless we all significantly change, we all die.

Global warming is unique in that as a moral issue it has a scientific provable right and wrong outcomes. This isn't possible with other moral issues. I can't say science has proven that if you shack up with your girlfriend, you are guaranteed to get an STD. I can say that science has proven that if you live in the future as you live now and do not undertake dramatic change, the planet will die.

First of all it isn't a single example. The majority of the leadership of the entire movement acts in the same manner. They simply pay their carbon offsets/indulgences which are of questionable return and then continue to live as they previously had done.

I think you assign some sort of strange intent here for NOT wanting to claim global warming is a lie. However if a person's mouth speaks the truth, but their actions do not follow the truth, what do you call the person?

It isn't an imitation. If I take you at your word about a subject. Then note that you don't seem to follow your own conclusions, I can question your word without questioning the subject.

You are simply so used to personal attacks that you can't imagine a subject being outside of a person.

You think by discrediting the person, you've discredited the point.

You didn't have to work so hard to prove my just mentioned point.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I'm going to borrow from myself. I posted this on my blog and I think it is a better explanation of what I am trying to explain here. It is helped along by Mr. Al Gore himself who is concerned about reason dying.



Gore should follow his own advice. I've pointed out the hypocrisy of himself and others within the Global Warming Movement. Others dismiss these notations as an attempt to kill the messenger, a bad bit of ad-hom logical fallacy posing as reasoning. However the reality is shown by Gore himself. People do not have the ability to interact on equal terms. We all do not have the ability to go to Antarctica and measure the ice sheet. They do not have the ability to run massive global environmental computer models. Thus, they turn to leaders and experts, those who do get to interact with this information. As Gore noted this one way train of information carries with it, a predisposition toward cynicism by those on the receiving end because it is possible to manipulate and attempt to disguise an impulse for power by those who have the information.

It is because of this natural predisposition, that leaders within such a movement must lead by example. That means no homes that are 10-20 times larger than the typical American home and multiples of those homes on both coasts, in vacation spots, etc. Do not cry for communal solutions while chartering private jets and scooting around in large motorcades often made up of large SUVs. They must not just be messengers, they must be leaders that demonstrate through actions so as to not allow the natural cynicism to crop up.

They aren't and so it does.

Nick

Originally Posted by trumptman

Gore should follow his own advice.