1. So...whatever reason he gives is irrelevant as far as I am concerned because using the UN's own climate prediction model this accord won't do a god damn thing. It will cost $100 trillion dollars to implement and reduce the temperature potentially by 3/10 of a degree by 2100. It will achieve less than 1% of it's targeted temperatures. Yeah, this is totally about saving the planet. This totally unbinding, unenforceable mandate is gonna save the world.

    The accord is about kicking the can down the road and getting some goodies in the here and now. Much like unfunded liabilities, "Let the future pay for it...I'll be out of office and dead by the time they have to deal with it." It's one of the most expensive treaties in the history of the world and what do people get for it? Nothing. And let's just say that the US did everything right and did everything it said it would. It would postpone the global warming/climate change by 8 months. Even James Hansen the former NASA scientist and a father of global warming who is by no means a "denier" said the accord was complete bullshit and that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest to be burned they will be burned.

    The thing is we get better and better at using fossil fuels more efficiently and more cleanly. Plus we keep finding massive oil reserves. There was a massive one found in Texas (largest ever in the US I think) and another in Alaska.

    But you know about that $100 billion a year green climate fund that US taxpayers are supposed to fund? It's just a giant money transfer to third world countries. Foreign aid is basically transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. Ever wonder why that with all the money that the US (and other countries) throws at foreign aid nothing changes? Things seem to get worse. One reason is that it has the same basic problems of mass wealth redistribution that throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it. People in third world countries have a ton of kids. They get more money and the only thing seems to go up is the amount of kids they have thus creating more mouths to feed and thus requiring more aid.Their leaders are very aware of this and that's a gravy train they want to keep coming. However, partly due to the European migrant crisis and all that, foreign aid has taken a bit of a hit in terms of public relations (because its effects are currently spilling over into Europe) but hey...let's re-brand it under the guise of "climate change". If you're on the list of countries set up to receive some of that 100 billion then climate change and the US staying in the accord is the most important thing in the world to you. It's no different from Trump trying to mask a ...$300 billion arms sales deal with Saudis under some guise of the founding of some terrorist fighting coalition...meanwhile Saudi Arabia is known for funding terrorist. He couldn't just come out and say, "We're selling weapons to the Saudis." he had to mask it under some Middle East trip.

    The alarmism is designed to provoke anxiety. "THE SKY IS FALLING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! SO PAY US AND WE'LL RELIEVE IT FOR YOU WITH OUR MAGIC WORDS!" not totally unlike the clergy back in the day telling you that you sinned and that they were the only ones who could speak to God in order to relieve you of your sins. So you needed to give them money, they say a bunch of words, tell you do 1000 hail Marys and send you on your way having reduced your anxiety but not actually having done anything. The goal here being more state control over you and your life. And by goal I'm looking further into the future, in terms of where they want to go with this accord being a jump off point. Not that they are going to achieve ultimate control with this accord.Look at how the European countries are reacting to this pull out. They really just want to bind countries to some eventual world government bullshit where people oceans away can decide what's good for you living in Oklahoma or New York or Canada. They're used to it in a way with the EU.

    Now what could be done to improve the environment and reduce things like emissions? Well you could:

    1. Keep manufacturing in 1st world countries where we're just better at doing it in environmentally safe ways. Not just because of technology but because culturally we tend to care about it a lot more. Polluting rivers and killing animals and people due to bad practices tends to be looked down on. As opposed to say in China where they are much less likely to give a shit. Creating an incentive to keep manufacturing in 1st world countries would require a significant amount of deregulation and taxation reducing (and no the quality control and cultural distaste for destroying the environment won't just fly out the window if regulations are reduced). It is a whole lot easier to keep an eye on them when they are right in your own country.

    2. Drill locally. It would reduce the need to send oil on gigantic freighters that leak, fall apart and require a significant amount of energy to use. Reduces the amounts of ships going all over the world to deliver this stuff. You also reduce the money you're sending to Middle Eastern dictators that aren't exactly known for their human rights let alone environmental.

    3. Reduce government spending. Just like anything else, every dollar you spend is going to consume a resource somewhere. Welp, when your government is spending money it doesn't have like candy and racking up massive debts it can't pay back it is consuming a significant amount of resources today that means less for the future. Remember, governments don't create anything. They aren't like private organizations that are putting money towards new energy techniques or renewable energies that are creating new things and providing value that can benefit the future. Governments simply consume. They "create" by confiscating wealth.

    Things within countries can be done to improve the environment but they typically require doing things that reduce the gravy train to government.

    I'm all for research and development for cleaner energy but it isn't going to come from government. It isn't going to come from state control over people's lives. It most definitely isn't going to come from this big push for what seems to be inching closer and closer to some ridiculous "world government" model. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity which is the only way to achieve what alarmist want because currently renewable energy doesn't stand enough on it's own two feet. This isn't to say that it won't in the future but right now it requires significant government help to work. Yes, fossil fuel companies receive subsidies too (which I am against) but fossil fuels are also tied into EVERYTHING we use and do.

    Like I keep saying, get out of the way and let the creators create. Let the innovators innovate. Maybe if more people focused on doing these things instead of lobbying the government for how they can push their own agenda we'd have way more reliable renewable energy.

    For fuck's sake people, just handle your business and figure out how to get your shit done without trying to control everyone's lives. Make your case, approach private investors and tell them what you're doing, give them your research and make your fucking case for why this is important and why you need funding. Stop trying to use the hammer of the government. Yeah, that means it may take a while to get your goal and you'll likely get rejected a bunch too but keep on trucking.

    Bill Gates is trying that with the Breakthrough Coalition.

    But you guys know me and my views. You're never going to get me to surrender on my desire for less government action.
    Vicious, UNTZ, San Goku and 1 other person like this.
  2. San Goku and Kickz like this.
  3. at least Theresa May took a very, very tough stance against the internet...probably toughest stance in Europe
  4. Blame the internet is bullshit. Yes, when you can't generate conditions that won't make your own citizens turn into terrorists, regulate their speech. Oh, and it makes it even easier for terrorists.

    Her stance on encryption is only viable if you don't understand how encryption works. Encryption works currently because it's based on large, random numbers and the inability of computers to break the math behind them. As soon as you de-randomize those numbers or make them smaller so that they can be broken, guess what, you're not the only one with that information.

    Also, there's this:

    Yeah, blocking porn is helpful.
    killacross likes this.
  5. Citation needed. What I can find on the accords doesn't even come close to that. I'm tired of having to find facts to refute random statements made by random people, so please show me some math on this one. I see nothing that comes close to $100 trillion, and the temperature impact is well above 3/10 of a degree.

    You should also investigate the cost of NOT lowering temperatures and comparing the two Katrina and Sandy cost almost $200 billion alone. How much does it cost to prevent damage from even more powerful hurricanes? Yes, funding new innovation can be expensive and blow up in your face - but government funding has provided a large amount of our current technology.

    Again, context. He calls it a fraud because they don't outline specific measures, and that's true. He also notes they target 2 degrees C instead of 1.5, which is makes it more of a feel good measure than a strong push.

    The thing about cleaner methods of using fossil fuels means it has to be maintained to keep them clean. They aren't. The US is riddled with examples of contamination and incident because corners were cut or equipment wasn't properly used/maintained. It's using the same line James Hansen said - as long as it's cheaper to do X, people will do it. It will always be cheaper to be less safe.

    Even if we find more oil reserves, they don't last forever - they're limited resources. We burn it significantly faster than it's created.

    Yes, foreign aid on developing countries has dubious effects - especially when applied nebulously as in the Paris Accords. I'll make the bet that the people upset with us pulling out of the Paris Accords aren't doing it because we're no longer giving money to random countries. The money is earmarked for climate change and mitigation, so it's at least traceable.

    Well, when we're sinking countries oceans away with our emissions, I suppose those countries wanting us to take responsibility for our actions is probably justified.

    Yeah sure, who's going to pay that incentive? Manufacturing goes to other countries because it's cheaper than dirt to hire a kid for a day than it is to pay a US teen minimum wage for an hour. The economic impact of the Paris accords would be chump change compared to what it would take to bring all of this home.

    We do. We're the #1 producer of petroleum and natural gas, and only Saudi Arabia produces more oil.

    And take it from where? Unless you say "the military" there's pretty much nothing left to gut. Some dollars spent actually increase our GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier

    Yes, it is going to come from government - from the science programs people keep trying to cut. https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff/database/

    The Apollo program alone gave us:
    among others.

    Bill Gates is doing what the government used to do, and he can do it because he's the richest man in the world (or close to it). New innovation is often created to solve high-technology problems (DoD, NASA, etc), and is usually prohibitively expensive at first. Solar and wind energy are to the point where they are cost-saving to [some] people in the long term, and save costs by reducing the energy burden on our dilapidated grids (not to mention are much more secure because you can generate it yourself).

    China is investing a metric crap-ton in renewable energy. They will pay more up front for it, but once they've got it scalable everyone will be going to them to purchase it. It's the exact role the US has played in technology for 100 years. We pour an incredible amount of money into the military for incremental gains because we want to retain this role there. It's unsustainable. The US is already a net-exporter of oil/gas. We can sit and be complacent and be replaced like Russia and the Middle East, or we can leverage what we have and know to generate self-reliance on cleaner, sustainable energy sources. If we do it first, we get to sell it off later. If we do it later, we buy it from other countries.

    The real question is, where do you want to be on the economic ladder? A consumer or a generator? It's a lot cheaper to be a consumer, but if we want to maintain our "We're the US we're beholden to no one" attitude then we need to stop resisting change.

    Yes, we need less government action - but we need less government action in certain places and more in others. Oil and gas subsidies that you mentioned is one I agree with. I also wish the federal and local governments would stop siding with internet monopolies and let new companies compete, stop worrying about who is marrying who, and generally stop pretending they are the smart ones. NASA has been crippled by our government, education has been crippled by our government. If we want to keep our heads in the sands and maintain how everything is today through government action or inaction, we can do that. That just means we'll be eclipsed by governments looking forward.

    If we want to make the business comparison - what business rests on its laurels without looking to the future? Not one that lasts very long.
    dreed likes this.
  6. Didn't the last PM have a program that said essentially.. You can come to the UK.. But you have two years to learn English and five to become fully assimilated.. Or we will deport your ass!

    ... People went ballistic
  7. @Killa. good post. Thank you for tackling that. I just point two things which really irked me.
    You are absolutely wrong. American highway system which created economic boom, Japanese public transport which makes the country work, the modern physics in form of giving Stephen Hawking ability to work, the Frigging space program.

    All created by governments, wealth and prosperity of nation created by government spending.

    Most research comes from governments. This is just so wrong and flies against every single data there is, DM.

    Intel, SpaceX, Bayer*, etc. based most of their work on government research. Research done with public money whether through grants, commissioned research or incentives and then available to be used by private companies, which make tweaks and improvements here and there to make better product.
    Universities are big example, where government money allows to make great breakthroughs without worry about monetary return, which then allows normal people like us to have better and more comfortable life.

    *And to give credit to private business. Majority of drug development is done by private companies as ROI is so high on them if they succeed. Especially if governments starts sponsoring distribution of drug.

    Please DM. don't close your eyes and make stuff up while chanting "government is bad". How the hell can you live in Japan with that attitude?

    Apologies for being rude but those two things piss me off. The attitude which creates push to limit spending on science and development. It is bad for everyone.
    San Goku likes this.
  8. Tell me, how do you as an individual make money? Let me guess, you work for a company where you voluntarily give them your labor/services in exchange for compensation. Should they stop living up to their end you will just up and leave. Should you stop living up to your end they can terminate your employment. Should either one of you grossly violate your contract, legal action may need to be required to right the situation. You weren't forced into working for them, right? I mean because that would be indentured servitude or slavery at its worst.

    Governments don't have money they acquire money by:

    1. Taxes (which they can acquire through force which they have a monopoly on)
    2. Printing money (which they have a monopoly on and the action typically devalues currency since it isn't backed by anything)
    3. Borrowing the money into existence

    So, no. I'm not wrong. Governments by their nature do not create wealth. People generate wealth. You're mentioning everything the government does with the money but no mention of how it got the money in the first place. I never said governments have never done anything good with the money but that doesn't change how they acquired it. Is it okay for me to steal your money if I promise to use it for good things? You became so enraged by what I said that you missed my point entirely. Which was that governments acquire the money they have by taking it. That's simply the nature of how governments work.

    You're also assuming none of this would have come about (highways and railroads)had government not done it which we all know isn't true. According to OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) most research in scientific and technical fields is 60% done by industry and then 20% by universities and 10% by government. Also at least with private research, if the money isn't being used to research what you want it to research you can take your money out. You don't have to worry about them using $283,500 of your money on bird watching (this actually happened) unless you are giving them that money for that reason. If people want something, someone is going to find a way to provide it. I'm not saying that government has no place in any of this. I just want it's place to be severely limited into protecting fundamental rights. Do I know exactly what that world looks like? Of course not. But I'd rather move towards liberty as opposed to tyranny.

    FYI, Most of Japan's transportation systems are run by private companies. Specifically the JR which has been private for 30 years after the Japan National Railway became debt-ridden mess and they were losing to the more efficiently run private companies. So it was dissolved and broken up into the private JR companies that exist today. The train station that runs near where I live is run by a private company and that same company runs all of the buses in the city. The subway system is public but it only services within the city and even then not all parts of the city. Not saying it's perfect of course, no system is. Also Japan's efficient transportation system culture has nothing to do with government and everything to do with the culture of Japan, specifically it's culture of punctuality.

    Also, Japan has a pretty small welfare state because culturally living off the government is looked down upon.

    But, hey. A guy in Australia has more to say about the Japanese system and its way of life than me with my almost 10 years of living in the country.

    We've gotten into this squabble before, dreed. You don't have to agree with my stance, but I'm not wrong. You can try to justify it however you want, I don't care. That doesn't change the fact that the government "acquires wealth" by taking it. Whether or not you mind that is your prerogative. But I'm "absolutely wrong". So there is 100% chance that I'm wrong. Damn. I gotta re-think everything now.

    Anyway, I need to get out of here...time for the gym.
    superbob and San Goku like this.
  9. Well, your numbers (according to the OECD) are off.

    Of course governments create wealth. You just said as much above:
    You know, like government workers. Your view of taxes is also incredibly one-sided. If you go to a hospital with a life-threatening illness without insurance, you will get charged a massive amount. Is it OK for the hospital to steal your money? You're dead if you don't pay. All the government does is garnish your wages, they don't murder you.

    What about security traders? They buy at one price, sell at another. All they did was drive up the cost for someone else, but they're creating wealth.

    What IS different is your definition of what services the government should be providing for you, and what roles/responsibilities the government has in an individual's life. You want no government, but use the government's services and the government's protection. Maybe you should just think of taxes as paying rent for living in a country instead. If you don't like what you're getting in one country, move to another where the taxes get you something different.

    By the chart I'm looking at, the OECD claims that the government provides 24% of all research - not including universities. What the chart doesn't (rightfully) and you aren't (not rightfully, in this case) taking into account is the type of research being done. Intel researches how to make smaller CPUs. NVIDIA faster graphics cards. This isn't research into truly new technologies, those are money sinks. How many people want teleportation? Where do you think any current research is coming from? Not even Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are paying for that. The government is, though.

    You'll always have people that try to ride the system. $283,500 seems like a lot for bird watching, if you don't value what bird watching offers. In this particular case it was watching 10 pairs of a threatened species, along with another species that interacts with the nests of the threatened species. The only reason this made the list of "wasteful spending" is because it was DoD spending instead of what agency James Lankford thought should be paying. It was a one-time grant.

    As an aside, bird watching is what gave us airplanes and government education is what accelerates innovation.
    superbob likes this.
  10. Longer post in the future but in regards to saying I want no government I will now quote myself


    Full disclosure. I would love to see a voluntarist society. However that is something that wouldn't happen in my lifetime, my kids lifetime or even my grandkids lifetime. Because that is something that requires more than just government reform. It requires peaceful parenting, it requires being able to have open and honest conversations about things that people never want to talk about. In the meantime I will settle for advocating for less and less government intervention.

    Also my taxation criticisms stem mostly from things like income tax, property tax (in all their forms) and taxes for education.

    I am not as bothered by sales taxes or consumption taxes. At least you are paying taxes on what you buy or consume. I wouldn't mind tariffs as much if we weren't paying any income tax to begin with.

    EDIT: Oh second thought, nah. I gotta stay out of this thread. I would rather just talk about Dragonball Super with you guys and not get pulled into these debates anymore. I guess I lose the debate.
  11. To me it's all about establishing the factual record (which is why I couldn't sit through the whole podcast on net neutrality - he established none). Opinions obviously still have a place, though I usually try to make when I'm giving my opinion apparent with some sort of disclaimer (see my posts on healthcare). I can't speak for others, but I at least am not trying to shout you into submission in order to gain a win. There's nothing to win or lose, and I hope no one's trying to win votes or internet points as this is really the wrong forum for that.
  12. Nonsense.

    Minority opinions are no less valid than the so called "Conventional wisdom" they stand in diametric opposition of.
    The death of a debate occurs when discourse breaks down, not when viewpoints assiduously clash with no foreseeable end in sight.

    One of my favorite quotes of all time(this will shock none you) goes like this:
    "It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it"-Joseph Joubert.
    I'd rather be the lone stalwart of an ideal surrounded by a sea of dissent and ridicule than a follower of the wind.

    Keep it up mate, It's been a thoroughly stimulating read.
    dreed and San Goku like this.
  13. So nothing on Trump or his admin

    A million percent correct
    dreed likes this.
  14. You have learned well my apprentice.. greed never fails to motivate.
  15. But... Comey said several times Trump himself wasn't under investigation. Why are they just getting the memo now? Fox talking heads may be good for ratings, but jesus are they terrible at facts.

    The headlines below it are a riot too.

    "Why did Comey treat Trump and Clinton differently?" Hillary's camp has been wondering that for months.

    "Democrats and the mainstream media have changed their tune on Comey." No, they still hate Comey. They just can't believe the shit Trump's getting away with in comparison. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-comeys-extraordinary-testimony-about-trump/)

    "Hannity: Divisive rhetoric and vile hatred of left are only going to get worse." Lulz.
  16. San Goku likes this.
  17. ^^ I wish I had a super attorney, heck I would call him/her ssja. It's only a matter of time before the hammer comes down on Comey. There was so many facepalms during his testimony.
  18. @San - I think it'll be a rubber mallet if anything. The end of the article points out that he didn't actually do anything wrong, just raised a few eyebrows.

Share This Page