2 ms·

I doubt you believe 2% is going to save billions of lives because of a tipping point in 2049. That's another bad faith argument, but go ahead and ground all th

by xscott 2y ago

I doubt you believe 2% is going to save billions of lives because of a tipping point in 2049. That's another bad faith argument, but go ahead and ground all the aircraft. No skin off my back. The reason for pointing out insignificant things is so that people aren't distracted from the significant things. "It's complicated." So go ahead and keep everyone worrying about Taylor Swift's jet. Create a carbon tax for billionaires. Offset the emissions, or whatever. But you aren't looking at things that could actually make a difference.

Timon3 2y ago
It's not a bad faith argument to bring up a scenario deliberately constructed for showing complexities your simplifying model deliberately ignores. Obviously I don't believe that this scenario will literally happen, and I can't imagine you're interacting in good faith if you still don't understand that.
- xscott 2y ago
  It's bad faith unless you really believe that's _plausible_, not some extremely stretched version of _possible_. > Obviously I don't believe that this scenario will literally happen So you don't think that's really plausible, and I don't think it was a good faith argument. I'm going to say it again, because I don't think you got it: The reason for criticizing when people focus on insignificant things is because it's a distraction from focusing on things that could actually make a difference.
  - Timon3 2y ago
    I absolutely believe that it's plausible for a comparable scenario to occur. It might not be 2049 and 2050, but 2075 and 2080? Or 2100 and 2110? Unless you believe that humanity will 100% die off or 100% fix climate change tomorrow, the chance of a 2% reduction in CO2 output having no measurable effect on our future is close to 0%, yet your modelling puts it at close to 100%. I'm going to say it again, because I don't think you got it: you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation and simplifying things beyond reason. The correct response to an inability to model something isn't to just leave it out. You specifically pointed out that we should make these decisions based on math, but your math is incomplete enough to be useless.
    - xscott 2y ago
      We should wrap this up. Saying 2075 or 2110 is the same ridiculous claim as 2049, but I'll pretend you believe it'll save a billion lives to be done with it. Btw, since you're only really interested in winning debates, you probably shouldn't open the window for other people to define the terms. When you asked me for a definition of "significant", it puts you in a bad spot no matter whether you do or don't respond to it. Of course you didn't respond with a number of years, because that would support my point. I gave a really concrete scenario, and you refused to answer, and it was obvious to both of us why you didn't answer. Best of luck in your future internet battles. Everyone needs a hobby.
      - Timon3 2y ago
        Yeah, we should. You're still not able to accept that your simplistic framing is useless and still insisting that any arguments are only valid if they simplify just as much, since your position falls apart otherwise. Ending the conversation with ad-hominems definitely shows you're not just a bad-faith troll, sure.

by xscott 2y ago

Timon3 2y ago

It's not a bad faith argument to bring up a scenario deliberately constructed for showing complexities your simplifying model deliberately ignores. Obviously I don't believe that this scenario will literally happen, and I can't imagine you're interacting in good faith if you still don't understand that.

xscott 2y ago
It's bad faith unless you really believe that's _plausible_, not some extremely stretched version of _possible_. > Obviously I don't believe that this scenario will literally happen So you don't think that's really plausible, and I don't think it was a good faith argument. I'm going to say it again, because I don't think you got it: The reason for criticizing when people focus on insignificant things is because it's a distraction from focusing on things that could actually make a difference.
- Timon3 2y ago
  I absolutely believe that it's plausible for a comparable scenario to occur. It might not be 2049 and 2050, but 2075 and 2080? Or 2100 and 2110? Unless you believe that humanity will 100% die off or 100% fix climate change tomorrow, the chance of a 2% reduction in CO2 output having no measurable effect on our future is close to 0%, yet your modelling puts it at close to 100%. I'm going to say it again, because I don't think you got it: you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation and simplifying things beyond reason. The correct response to an inability to model something isn't to just leave it out. You specifically pointed out that we should make these decisions based on math, but your math is incomplete enough to be useless.
  - xscott 2y ago
    We should wrap this up. Saying 2075 or 2110 is the same ridiculous claim as 2049, but I'll pretend you believe it'll save a billion lives to be done with it. Btw, since you're only really interested in winning debates, you probably shouldn't open the window for other people to define the terms. When you asked me for a definition of "significant", it puts you in a bad spot no matter whether you do or don't respond to it. Of course you didn't respond with a number of years, because that would support my point. I gave a really concrete scenario, and you refused to answer, and it was obvious to both of us why you didn't answer. Best of luck in your future internet battles. Everyone needs a hobby.
    - Timon3 2y ago
      Yeah, we should. You're still not able to accept that your simplistic framing is useless and still insisting that any arguments are only valid if they simplify just as much, since your position falls apart otherwise. Ending the conversation with ad-hominems definitely shows you're not just a bad-faith troll, sure.