This assumes that the people who watch these videos are predominantly already in agreement with them.
The other day I fell into the trap of watching a few flat earther videos on youtube. I asked myself "who would watch this tripe?". After thinking about it the truth came to me : I was watching. Flat Earther videos aren't for Flat Earthers, but to stir the waters of people like me who find the notion teeth grindingly irritating. We watch the videos to arm ourselves for a debunking. And they get ad revenue. They win. Probably 80% of people watching those videos do so because their scepticism drives them to, or because they just like seeing a trainwreck of logic.
In fact at some point I saw an ad at the start of a flat earther conspiracy theory that was unequivocally aimed at anti-flat earthers.
And nothing gets citizens onside for your cause like shooting folk in the street. People just love those mass killings of other Americans who are just doing their job
So what in fact would happen would be the Government does something that annoys a subsection of the gun owning community enough that they take up arms, and start shooting other Americans (LEO, National Guard). Then the Government says : "see, these terrorists are a threat and they've killed the heroes" and is perfectly justified (in the eyes of the vast majority of the populace) in sending a predator drone to cleanse the terrorists from the face of the earth.
Pro tip: whenever ANY tyrannical régime is enforced, it is done so with the aid of weapons/guns.
If I were planning some tyranny, I'd definitely go for an arrangement like the US has - give the proles some toys that they think insure them against tyranny (and be sure to indoctrinate them) when in actuality, these toys do nothing. Nothing is more compliant to tyranny than a populace that believes that tyranny is impossible.
Bottom line: responsable gun owners want the ability to defend against tyranny themselves rather than rely on others who may be influenced by that very tyranny.
Greeaat. So, all you need to do is to ensure that the majority of gun owners are on the right side, rather than fighting on the side of tyranny. Just because the exact scenario you describe: an armed minority rising up and overthrowing an elected government and then ruling by force is the origin story of the most of the worlds despotic regimes doesn't mean you're on the wrong side, even though that is what you intend to do.
No, they posted a citation contradicting mine. It doesn't prove it's wrong. It simply says there are two conflicting reports, both from well-respected entities. So which is right? Are they both wrong? Do we actually know what is going on?
So at first you claimed with absolute certainty that the ice sheet was growing, even though you knew there was contradictory evidence: and when called on it, you feign confusion. Are you lying?
See, the problem is you only accept data that you BELIEVE is correct, and ignore all other.
Well, to be specific, I'm skeptical about YOUR claims, because it appears that I've caught you in a lie.
A real scientist, a true skeptic (which is the foundation of science) would look at conflicting data and say "more research needed, we cannot draw conclusions". FAITH would demand you adhere to your position. That is religion...
So: you think there is a degree of uncertainty in the actual situation, i.e. the ice sheet loss could be far worse than the subject article claims. Consequently, you support an immediate, and drastic cut in greenhouse gas emissions - because without observations to prove that the situation is manageable, we have no choice but to mitigate against the worse case.
Feel free to provide actual meaningful observations that prove that these alternative facts are real and not something you read in the chicken gizzards.
Not too worry, I've noticed that this is something that many denialists struggle with: that actual observed reality trumps assertions, and not the other way around.
The faux consensus is based on false data. This is a well known fact.
Provide the actual data and the studies to allow us to observe that data ourselves.
In any scientific field, except the faux study of climate, careers would have been destroyed and the rest fled (see cold fusion for an example) but because AGW is a political movement, not science, we keep funding this crap, making bad Hollywood movies, and pretending it's real science when it's clearly not.
Provide evidence of the political motivations of Arrhenius, Fourier et. al., evidence of their collusion and describe in detail how they benefited politically. Svante Arrhenius would now be 150 years old. How is he still alive? Where is he? Is he a vampire?
When you can point to some real science not based on corrupted data and not from people who have previously corrupted or supported corrupted data, let us know. I've been watching this sham go on for decades now. Have yet to see real science take place. Have seen a whole lot of politics, though.
Your alternative theory (that the whole thing is a conspiracy of time travelling communist vampires) is not actually very convincing.
No, actually. What you're seeing is an objection to seeing the Autopay box ticked next to any "scientific consensus" that arises. The assumption that such "conclusions" must automatically be reflected in social/economic policies is obnoxious. That's a matter for the political sphere and people's ability and willingness to pay the freight, nothing else.
What alternative to the consensus theory has been proposed? That fairies did it?
Pointing out there is a consensus (when there is) is hardly a crime. There's a consensus. Get over it. Why did a consensus on the issue arise? Because the scientists who supported the theory produced evidence, and then further evidence, and not one person who supports the myriad of alternate (and conflicting) views can produce a shred of evidence in support of the alternatives.
If you want scientists to support your alternative view, stop whining and produce evidence.
Hate to break it to you, but it actually proves we don't have a thorough-enough understanding of planetary systems to be able to make reliable predictions 100 years or more in the future.
So the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions could be even worse than predicted?
Why are we delaying action again? I've forgotten.
Given that there is so much we are still learning and have yet to learn, it's patently absurd to insist we can reliably & accurately predict global average temperatures 100 years or more in the future.
So those guys who confidently predict that no harm can come from increasing greenhouse gas emissions should be treated with considerable scepticism - yes? Because I think those guys are somewhat less methodical and less trustworthy than an old crone reading the chicken gizzards
Your argument seems to be that because we can't predict the impacts of our emissions, we should therefore take immediate and substantive action and shut down all our emitting technologies.
Clearly, this is yet more evidence that the whole thing is just a massive Chinese time travelling zombie conspiracy! They've teamed with the Knights Templar and the Masons to litter the sea floor with cheap, Chinese hair dryers, which are blowing on the ice and melting it! And the fairies, loyal to the Maoist regime, are taking our good western made CO2 from the atmosphere and replacing it with cheap Chinese made CO2! Wake up sheeple!
Why would it? It's not as if atheism is any more scientific than any other religion.
"Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby".
Atheism is not a religion in the same way collecting newspaper editorials that complain about people collecting things is not a hobby.
, our civilization, and no good way to assess risk. We don't know enough to estimate probability of extinction-level events.
Which means that if extinction level events are of concern to you, your first to to find a way to assess that risk objectively. Setting humanity on a path that will cost trillions of dollars because of a global equivalent of a monster under the bed doesn't sound like good risk mitigation.
However, we do know that ice age nearly wiped humanity. We have seen massive epidemics. We also know that Earth went through multiple mass extinction events.
And throughout all those events, the Earth remained more survivable than Mars is.
Short-term thinking is not the right tool when you are dealing with humanity's history. Costs of creating self-sustaining base on Mars are dwarfed by the opportunity our civilization would spread through the galaxies and last billion of years.
'Our' civilisation? If we got to the point that Mars was self sustaining, then that civilisation would be theirs, not ours. If we sent a multi-generational ship on a 10000 year flight to a nearby star, then by the time they are halfway there, their civilisation would be alien and inhospitable to us.
Was the tariff put in place on a level playing field, or one in which a nation was subsidizing their industry in order to dominate it?
The field is never level. China is better at manufacturing panels than the US, in part at least, because they were quicker to realise that Climate change wasn't a time travelling zombie conspiracy. And in part because because they are better at manufacturing in general. You can bemoan the reasons why, or you can try to be competitive, or you can find industries where you are better than the Chinese, and encourage those.
As for subsidies, that's kinda the point. Had the US subsidised the manufacturing of panels 15 years ago when the market was little, then perhaps they would have enough IP and a solid base that allowed them to compete. But no, they chose to consider the opportunity a risk, and continued to subsidise the burning of coal. Panels bad/burning coal good and so on. So the result is exactly what we would expect to happen.
Why doesn’t all powerful and Omniscient Market take care of that? Surely, if that were truly an issue, then US buyers would be buying from some other source (like Japan or Korea) rather than China?
As it is, it’s not clear what difference this will make. Sure, buyers in the US May purchase less Chinese panels. Or they might just buy them because even with the tariff, they are still cheaper than US made options, and spend less on other goods. Or they might buy Japanese, or Vietnamese, or Taiwanese, or European, or Indian made solar panels. And their behaviour certainly won’t be a guide to the other 97% of people (i.e the 97% of the market that is not the US). How will the US actually compete on the open market unless their goods actually become competitive?
Also I suppose the BMWs have the advantage in cases where, for example, you need some speed, or you need to go around a corner or weave through traffic. Say, if you have to go somewhere and time is of the essence because a crime has been committed, or you see someone who is not following the road rules and they speed off and you judge it best to try and catch them. I guess these would be situations that might happen to members of the LAPD - perhaps even more often than needing to make loud fart like noises and look like a moron.
Slashdot Mirror
The other day I fell into the trap of watching a few flat earther videos on youtube. I asked myself "who would watch this tripe?". After thinking about it the truth came to me : I was watching. Flat Earther videos aren't for Flat Earthers, but to stir the waters of people like me who find the notion teeth grindingly irritating. We watch the videos to arm ourselves for a debunking. And they get ad revenue. They win. Probably 80% of people watching those videos do so because their scepticism drives them to, or because they just like seeing a trainwreck of logic.
In fact at some point I saw an ad at the start of a flat earther conspiracy theory that was unequivocally aimed at anti-flat earthers.
So what in fact would happen would be the Government does something that annoys a subsection of the gun owning community enough that they take up arms, and start shooting other Americans (LEO, National Guard). Then the Government says : "see, these terrorists are a threat and they've killed the heroes" and is perfectly justified (in the eyes of the vast majority of the populace) in sending a predator drone to cleanse the terrorists from the face of the earth.
Sounds like a plan!
Pro tip: whenever ANY tyrannical régime is enforced, it is done so with the aid of weapons/guns.
If I were planning some tyranny, I'd definitely go for an arrangement like the US has - give the proles some toys that they think insure them against tyranny (and be sure to indoctrinate them) when in actuality, these toys do nothing. Nothing is more compliant to tyranny than a populace that believes that tyranny is impossible.
Bottom line: responsable gun owners want the ability to defend against tyranny themselves rather than rely on others who may be influenced by that very tyranny.
Greeaat. So, all you need to do is to ensure that the majority of gun owners are on the right side, rather than fighting on the side of tyranny. Just because the exact scenario you describe: an armed minority rising up and overthrowing an elected government and then ruling by force is the origin story of the most of the worlds despotic regimes doesn't mean you're on the wrong side, even though that is what you intend to do.
Does it?
Now Now. You aren't going to convince me to join your movement by insulting me.
Or it could be a nothing burger.
OR we could wake up tomorrow with the sky on fire.
So there's potentially a 50% chance that it's worse than the worst observation?
No, they posted a citation contradicting mine. It doesn't prove it's wrong. It simply says there are two conflicting reports, both from well-respected entities. So which is right? Are they both wrong? Do we actually know what is going on?
So at first you claimed with absolute certainty that the ice sheet was growing, even though you knew there was contradictory evidence: and when called on it, you feign confusion. Are you lying?
See, the problem is you only accept data that you BELIEVE is correct, and ignore all other.
Well, to be specific, I'm skeptical about YOUR claims, because it appears that I've caught you in a lie.
A real scientist, a true skeptic (which is the foundation of science) would look at conflicting data and say "more research needed, we cannot draw conclusions". FAITH would demand you adhere to your position. That is religion...
So: you think there is a degree of uncertainty in the actual situation, i.e. the ice sheet loss could be far worse than the subject article claims. Consequently, you support an immediate, and drastic cut in greenhouse gas emissions - because without observations to prove that the situation is manageable, we have no choice but to mitigate against the worse case.
That's what you are saying.
I posted a NASA paper which states that ice is accumulating overall in Antarctica.
Aaand someone posted a citation proving you were wrong. Do you think we can't read?
And that West Antarctica has localized loss, and also has a rather marked increase in geothermal activity under the ice.
The actual science says that the plume has been for several geographical eras, so hardly "marked increase".
Did you assume we can't google?
Not too worry, I've noticed that this is something that many denialists struggle with: that actual observed reality trumps assertions, and not the other way around.
So in other words we don't know, because we now have several studies that refute each other. Funny how that works.
You're right - the situation could be far worse than reported.
So you agree with the basic premise: So the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions could be even worse than predicted?
The faux consensus is based on false data. This is a well known fact.
Provide the actual data and the studies to allow us to observe that data ourselves.
In any scientific field, except the faux study of climate, careers would have been destroyed and the rest fled (see cold fusion for an example) but because AGW is a political movement, not science, we keep funding this crap, making bad Hollywood movies, and pretending it's real science when it's clearly not.
Provide evidence of the political motivations of Arrhenius, Fourier et. al., evidence of their collusion and describe in detail how they benefited politically. Svante Arrhenius would now be 150 years old. How is he still alive? Where is he? Is he a vampire?
When you can point to some real science not based on corrupted data and not from people who have previously corrupted or supported corrupted data, let us know. I've been watching this sham go on for decades now. Have yet to see real science take place. Have seen a whole lot of politics, though.
Your alternative theory (that the whole thing is a conspiracy of time travelling communist vampires) is not actually very convincing.
No, actually. What you're seeing is an objection to seeing the Autopay box ticked next to any "scientific consensus" that arises. The assumption that such "conclusions" must automatically be reflected in social/economic policies is obnoxious. That's a matter for the political sphere and people's ability and willingness to pay the freight, nothing else.
What alternative to the consensus theory has been proposed? That fairies did it?
Pointing out there is a consensus (when there is) is hardly a crime. There's a consensus. Get over it. Why did a consensus on the issue arise? Because the scientists who supported the theory produced evidence, and then further evidence, and not one person who supports the myriad of alternate (and conflicting) views can produce a shred of evidence in support of the alternatives.
If you want scientists to support your alternative view, stop whining and produce evidence.
Hate to break it to you, but it actually proves we don't have a thorough-enough understanding of planetary systems to be able to make reliable predictions 100 years or more in the future.
So the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions could be even worse than predicted?
Why are we delaying action again? I've forgotten.
Given that there is so much we are still learning and have yet to learn, it's patently absurd to insist we can reliably & accurately predict global average temperatures 100 years or more in the future.
So those guys who confidently predict that no harm can come from increasing greenhouse gas emissions should be treated with considerable scepticism - yes? Because I think those guys are somewhat less methodical and less trustworthy than an old crone reading the chicken gizzards
Your argument seems to be that because we can't predict the impacts of our emissions, we should therefore take immediate and substantive action and shut down all our emitting technologies.
Is that your argument?
Clearly, this is yet more evidence that the whole thing is just a massive Chinese time travelling zombie conspiracy! They've teamed with the Knights Templar and the Masons to litter the sea floor with cheap, Chinese hair dryers, which are blowing on the ice and melting it! And the fairies, loyal to the Maoist regime, are taking our good western made CO2 from the atmosphere and replacing it with cheap Chinese made CO2! Wake up sheeple!
Why would it? It's not as if atheism is any more scientific than any other religion. "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby".
Atheism is not a religion in the same way collecting newspaper editorials that complain about people collecting things is not a hobby.
We have an infinitely valuable asset
Infinitely?
, our civilization, and no good way to assess risk. We don't know enough to estimate probability of extinction-level events.
Which means that if extinction level events are of concern to you, your first to to find a way to assess that risk objectively. Setting humanity on a path that will cost trillions of dollars because of a global equivalent of a monster under the bed doesn't sound like good risk mitigation.
However, we do know that ice age nearly wiped humanity. We have seen massive epidemics. We also know that Earth went through multiple mass extinction events.
And throughout all those events, the Earth remained more survivable than Mars is.
Short-term thinking is not the right tool when you are dealing with humanity's history. Costs of creating self-sustaining base on Mars are dwarfed by the opportunity our civilization would spread through the galaxies and last billion of years.
'Our' civilisation? If we got to the point that Mars was self sustaining, then that civilisation would be theirs, not ours. If we sent a multi-generational ship on a 10000 year flight to a nearby star, then by the time they are halfway there, their civilisation would be alien and inhospitable to us.
A Mars society is going to be science based otherwise they won't last very long. Will this cause atheism to be dominate on Mars?
Why would it? It's not as if atheism is any more scientific than any other religion.
- The Nail
Which one is he trust fund kid in this case? The US coal industry?
Depends on the tariff.
How?
Was the tariff put in place on a level playing field, or one in which a nation was subsidizing their industry in order to dominate it?
The field is never level. China is better at manufacturing panels than the US, in part at least, because they were quicker to realise that Climate change wasn't a time travelling zombie conspiracy. And in part because because they are better at manufacturing in general. You can bemoan the reasons why, or you can try to be competitive, or you can find industries where you are better than the Chinese, and encourage those.
As for subsidies, that's kinda the point. Had the US subsidised the manufacturing of panels 15 years ago when the market was little, then perhaps they would have enough IP and a solid base that allowed them to compete. But no, they chose to consider the opportunity a risk, and continued to subsidise the burning of coal. Panels bad/burning coal good and so on. So the result is exactly what we would expect to happen.
Is that what tarriffs usually do? Or do they encourage local businesses to become less competive?
As it is, it’s not clear what difference this will make. Sure, buyers in the US May purchase less Chinese panels. Or they might just buy them because even with the tariff, they are still cheaper than US made options, and spend less on other goods. Or they might buy Japanese, or Vietnamese, or Taiwanese, or European, or Indian made solar panels. And their behaviour certainly won’t be a guide to the other 97% of people (i.e the 97% of the market that is not the US). How will the US actually compete on the open market unless their goods actually become competitive?
Also I suppose the BMWs have the advantage in cases where, for example, you need some speed, or you need to go around a corner or weave through traffic. Say, if you have to go somewhere and time is of the essence because a crime has been committed, or you see someone who is not following the road rules and they speed off and you judge it best to try and catch them. I guess these would be situations that might happen to members of the LAPD - perhaps even more often than needing to make loud fart like noises and look like a moron.
[ Citation Needed ]