2020 election

[Montegriffo]

You can't reason with these people, there's no facts or science that will trump the fact that climate denial has become part of the US GOP "brand". The Pentagon is planning for global warming and sea level rise because they're realists not because they're shills for Gore, but these politicians believe denying facts will make them go away because the carbon industry is paying them to, and people here parrot their lines.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your ... e-threats/

Oh, I'm already aware that you can't reason with them. It helps me to put my thoughts to paper (figuratively) though and it occasionally encourages others like yourself to bring other salient facts to the table.
You never know some less entrenched people may even consider changing their minds about the hoax narrative being spread by vested interests.

Even if they conceded the hoax thing, your argument would still suck. Even if you think their argument sucks more than yours does, that doesn't make your argument good.

Please try to be more specific or it leaves me little room to do anything but return insults.

[StCapps]

Be specific about what proposals of mine are garbage.

All the ones that ban anything you don't like, that's just to start. Throw out that bullshit and try again.

You think I don't like gas-guzzling cars or the convenience and cost advantages of taking a plane to my house in France?
I like both, I even like the taste of meat. I'm not going to indulge myself though because their consequences go against what I think we should be doing to protect the environment.

Well good for you, trying to force other people to do so with bans or higher taxes is where the problem comes in, and your solutions go to shit.

[StCapps]

Oh, I'm already aware that you can't reason with them. It helps me to put my thoughts to paper (figuratively) though and it occasionally encourages others like yourself to bring other salient facts to the table.
You never know some less entrenched people may even consider changing their minds about the hoax narrative being spread by vested interests.

Even if they conceded the hoax thing, your argument would still suck. Even if you think their argument sucks more than yours does, that doesn't make your argument good.

Please try to be more specific or it leaves me little room to do anything but return insults.

How is "stop trying to ban shit and raise taxes" not specific enough for you?

Get better solutions. Do you have any that don't involve the government restricting the choices of the people and/or penalizing behavior you don't like?

[Montegriffo]

All the ones that ban anything you don't like, that's just to start. Throw out that bullshit and try again.

You think I don't like gas-guzzling cars or the convenience and cost advantages of taking a plane to my house in France?
I like both, I even like the taste of meat. I'm not going to indulge myself though because their consequences go against what I think we should be doing to protect the environment.

Well good for you, trying to force other people to do so with bans or higher taxes is where the problem comes in, and your solutions go to shit.

What you call bans I call restrictions and what you call taxes I call incentives.
What you say is force I say is persuasion.

[StCapps]

You think I don't like gas-guzzling cars or the convenience and cost advantages of taking a plane to my house in France?
I like both, I even like the taste of meat. I'm not going to indulge myself though because their consequences go against what I think we should be doing to protect the environment.

Well good for you, trying to force other people to do so with bans or higher taxes is where the problem comes in, and your solutions go to shit.

What you call bans I call restrictions and what you call taxes I call incentives.
What you say is force I say is persuasion.

Calling a pile of shit a rose doesn't make it smell any sweeter dude. You are playing semantics and using Orwellian doublespeak to cover for terrible solutions that involve big government power grabs.

[PartyOf5]

It's already too late to stop climate change. The effects are all around us. Flooding from freak rains becoming more common. Glaciers disappearing. Increased wildfires. Barrier reef dying off. Storm intensity increasing. Record temperatures year on year.
We could stick our heads in the sand and hope it doesn't affect us personally or we could look for ways to slow it and mitigate the consequences.
Most of the world gets this. The US just associates it with the big red scare, the fossil fuel lobby funds dubious science to pour scorn on it and coerces its bought and paid for President into ranting about a Chinese hoax.

You complain about people not reading your posts yet a number of pages back I responded with specific things I am doing to reduce my carbon emissions and generally help keep the planet clean. You never acknowledged it. Instead you troll post my comment about Al Gore being a liar and now go on ranting about the same thing again. This is why I have a hard time taking you seriously. You don't want any real discussion, you just want to troll post.

[PartyOf5]

What you call bans I call restrictions and what you call taxes I call incentives.
What you say is force I say is persuasion.

Said every dictator ever.

If this was a serious response then I am done with you. You are just intentionally clueless, an epic troll, or evil. Any or those makes you hopeless to me.

[Montegriffo]

It's already too late to stop climate change. The effects are all around us. Flooding from freak rains becoming more common. Glaciers disappearing. Increased wildfires. Barrier reef dying off. Storm intensity increasing. Record temperatures year on year.
We could stick our heads in the sand and hope it doesn't affect us personally or we could look for ways to slow it and mitigate the consequences.
Most of the world gets this. The US just associates it with the big red scare, the fossil fuel lobby funds dubious science to pour scorn on it and coerces its bought and paid for President into ranting about a Chinese hoax.

You complain about people not reading your posts yet a number of pages back I responded with specific things I am doing to reduce my carbon emissions and generally help keep the planet clean. You never acknowledged it. Instead you troll post my comment about Al Gore being a liar and now go on ranting about the same thing again. This is why I have a hard time taking you seriously. You don't want any real discussion, you just want to troll post.

My reluctance to engage with you is based on your desire for gotchas rather than informed debate.
I've found in life that the best thing to do with a yapping dog is to ignore it and only occasionally kick its arse.

[brewster]

You think I don't like gas-guzzling cars or the convenience and cost advantages of taking a plane to my house in France?
I like both, I even like the taste of meat. I'm not going to indulge myself though because their consequences go against what I think we should be doing to protect the environment.

Well good for you, trying to force other people to do so with bans or higher taxes is where the problem comes in, and your solutions go to shit.

What you call bans I call restrictions and what you call taxes I call incentives.
What you say is force I say is persuasion.

This is an old battle, "the tragedy of the commons". If you can't convince someone that dumping their shit in the river isn't a good idea, and you can't fine them, and you can't raise taxes to build a treatment plant, then they'll keep dumping their shit in the river till enough shit is coming downriver at them to convince them it's a bad idea, and often then they're only convinced that the people upriver should stop, not them.

What amazes me is that when you show evidence that alternative energy is actually getting cheaper than carbon, they deny it and call it fake because they're so attached to the position that climate friendly is more expensive.

[StCapps]

Well good for you, trying to force other people to do so with bans or higher taxes is where the problem comes in, and your solutions go to shit.

What you call bans I call restrictions and what you call taxes I call incentives.
What you say is force I say is persuasion.

This is an old battle, "the tragedy of the commons". If you can't convince someone that dumping their shit in the river isn't a good idea, and you can't fine them, and you can't raise taxes to build a treatment plant, then they'll keep dumping their shit in the river till enough shit is coming downriver at them to convince them it's a bad idea, and often then they're only convinced that the people upriver should stop, not them.

What amazes me is that when you show evidence that alternative energy is actually getting cheaper than carbon, they deny it and call it fake because they're so attached to the position that climate friendly is more expensive.

Except it's easy to come up with regulations to prevent people from dumping their shit in a river, limiting carbon emissions worldwide, not so much. Limiting pollution is actually doable and effective, the regulations and taxes you are proposing don't address the issue at all, and are mere virtue signaling.