The Official President Trump Thread - Second Term Edition

look, my complaint was more about the "modicum of morality" than about climate change per se. People of good faith can disagree on an issue and have a discussion/conversation/debate about that issue, but the implication of your "modicum of morality" statement is that anyone who disagrees with the "every fraction of a degree" claim is immoral/amoral/lacks morality, and that's just silly.

On the complexity issue (and why I'm not going much further on that one), and to pick just one fairly even-handed non-partisan source--take a look at the wiki entry on the Stern Review, still one of the best economic/policy studies of climate change policy that has been done. Scientists AND economists of good faith disagree with the claims and findings of the Stern Review. That disagreement doesn't mean the people who disagree lack "a modicum of morality."

And on the complexity issue, take a look at the section of general criticisms and what follows. One well-known reviewer uses the phrase "monumentally complex":

In an article in the Daily Telegraph (2006), Ruth Lea, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, questions the scientific consensus on climate change on which the Stern Review is based. She says that "authorities on climate science say that the climate system is far too complex for modest reductions in one of the thousands of factors involved in climate change (i.e., carbon emissions) to have a predictable effect in magnitude, or even direction." Lea questions the long-term economic projections made in the Review, commenting that economic forecasts for just two or three years ahead are usually wrong. Lea goes on to describe the problem of drawing conclusions from combining scientific and economic models as "monumentally complex", and doubts whether the international co-operation on climate change, as argued for in the Review, is really possible. In conclusion, Lea says that the real motive behind the Review is to justify increased tax on fuels.[23]
​

That's pretty much all I was suggesting. In doing so, that doesn't mean I lack morality, am immoral, or that I am amoral. I simply disagree with your statement and with the generalization that people who don't care about "every fraction of a degree" somehow lack morality.

 

not silly. My experience is that folks on the left who disagree really do tend (generally speaking) to see their opponents as evil; and my experience is that people who are more conservative and/or who on the right tend generally tend to see their opponents as just dumb.

Your mileage may vary. That doesn't make the statement "silly"

 

First, I wasn't responding to you. Second, Congress has the power the tax and distribute that as they see fit as is stated in the Constitution. I know you were on the short bus in school, hell you should be one of the most upset by the fact this admin is cutting federal funds for special needs students in districts around the country.

 

I see the right as stupid and evil if that makes it any better. Or....they are so stupid that it just comes across as evil. Its very dynamic.

 

well, like I told rimrocker, your lived experience mileage may vary

 

There is a nonzero change that someone, who says "I help plenty, by my own choice", donate zero to near zero to charities. This may not be you.

 

Rocket River

 

Correction: It SHOULD be a blood bath, but lets remember that they are running against the Democrats, a party that doesn't even know what they stand for right now.