The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Birds Away]

You're*

So we're now quibbling over who gets to be outraged over which information is leaked? How do you feel about Edward Snowden? I think if government is secretly ****ing Americans, I'm just not going to be terribly upset about that information becoming public. As for the climate change ****, I'd like that to become way more transparent than it is. Leaking scientists' trumphobia doesn't really serve that purpose. I'm gonna say the information leaked here doesn't fall under the category of whistleblowing. So I'd go with procecuting the leakers of this information.

Unless the data is classified this is just a bunch of "deep state" folks who refuse to acknowledge their democratically elected superiors. This is no different then if the military decided not to take orders from their civilian masters. Of course, sadly, we can't line these idiots up against a wall and shoot them for treason.

 

[Dddrees]

You're*

So we're now quibbling over who gets to be outraged over which information is leaked? How do you feel about Edward Snowden? I think if government is secretly ****ing Americans, I'm just not going to be terribly upset about that information becoming public. As for the climate change ****, I'd like that to become way more transparent than it is. Leaking scientists' trumphobia doesn't really serve that purpose. I'm gonna say the information leaked here doesn't fall under the category of whistleblowing. So I'd go with procecuting the leakers of this information.

On one hand I can see leaks being dangerous such as those transcripts of the phone conversations between two world leaders. I guess you then could also say the same when Trump was talking to the Russians and claiming that his firing of Comey relieved pressure on the whole Russian situation. Somehow I don't find this latest leak to fall in that category. It might be Trumphobia as you call it, but it's a scientific report and it shouldn't be a top secret no leak proof document however.

i would agree that leaks can be damaging and I think a good number of the leaks we're experiencing under the Trump Administration is a serious problem. But frankly I always viewed the possibility of a Trump Presidency as being dangerous for a number of reasons. I would never be able to tell you prior what would happen but I always expected it to be extremely problematic. I kind of view this as just one of the results.

Trump fanatics will probably claim it's a result of the deep state. LOL

Hard to claim that when some of these leaks are obviously coming from within his own Administration from people he has actually picked.


So this is most assuredly is going to be argued for a long time now. What's a leak and against the law? What's whistleblowing? What actually is acceptable and what is not?


In the meantime you have a President with a Hugley Credibility Problem. He's a habitual liar but at least with these leaks we can be reassured that we know how screwed up he really is. Maybe the good thing Trump can do is bring to light how damaging it can be and What we can live with. Maybe he can fix it for the next President.

 

[OakRiver]

Cross posting from the global warming thread

'Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord - BBC News

"Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy.
However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted.
Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.
These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4's Counting Carbon programme."

 

[jamil]

Climate denier. Well your definitely on the side of science. LOL

you're*

Anyway, that mob-shaming schtick don't work here. First, no one is denying "climate". You probably meant "climate change denier" which is the usual mob-shaming tool the climate alarmists use to shame people into not thinking critically.

 

[jamil]

Wait, what? What's the crime?

What for leaking a science report? No crime. "Prosecuting" = firing in this context.

 

[Birds Away]

you're*

Anyway, that mob-shaming schtick don't work here. First, no one is denying "climate". You probably meant "climate change denier" which is the usual mob-shaming tool the climate alarmists use to shame people into not thinking critically.

Which further supports massive wealth redistribution.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What for leaking a science report? No crime. "Prosecuting" = firing in this context.

Oh, ok. You had me worried there for a moment.

 

[jamil]

Unless the data is classified this is just a bunch of "deep state" folks who refuse to acknowledge their democratically elected superiors. This is no different then if the military decided not to take orders from their civilian masters. Of course, sadly, we can't line these idiots up against a wall and shoot them for treason.

I don't want to put them in jail for leaking geek-speak, much less to shoot them. But it's very appropriate to identify and fire them.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Unless the data is classified this is just a bunch of "deep state" folks who refuse to acknowledge their democratically elected superiors. This is no different then if the military decided not to take orders from their civilian masters. Of course, sadly, we can't line these idiots up against a wall and shoot them for treason.

Sadly? You think we should be executing people over leaking unclassified science reports? You guys sometimes need to tone down the hyperbole, because somethings I have to wonder if you're actually serious.

 

[OakRiver]

On one hand I can see leaks being dangerous such as those transcripts of the phone conversations between two world leaders. I guess you then could also say the same when Trump was talking to the Russians and claiming that his firing of Comey relieved pressure on the whole Russian situation. Somehow I don't find this latest leak to fall in that category. It might be Trumphobia as you call it, but it's a scientific report and it shouldn't be a top secret no leak proof document however.

[video=youtube;0mgQaFlo_p8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p8[/video]

So this is most assuredly is going to be argued for a long time now. What's a leak and against the law? What's whistleblowing?

Leaks and the Media | Newseum Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

 

[Birds Away]

I don't want to put them in jail for leaking geek-speak, much less to shoot them. But it's very appropriate to identify and fire them.

I don't want to shoot them either. My purple was inferred. But, in a more stable political environment they would be open to public ridicule along with the loss of their employment.

 

[Birds Away]

Sadly? You think we should be executing people over leaking unclassified science reports? You guys sometimes need to tone down the hyperbole, because somethings I have to wonder if you're actually serious.

I would have thought the purple was obvious. But with certain people taking everything to "11" I guess I can understand.

 

[Dddrees]

[video=youtube;0mgQaFlo_p8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p8[/video]




Leaks and the Media | Newseum Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

So somehow Obamas' actions exonerate Trump. You guys really should learn how to make better arguements to support your case. Wait, why don't you just try and be honest with yourself? What a novel idea. Try this, when Trump is wrong he is wrong. Oh, and by the way when Obama was wrong Obama was wrong. Now don't you feel better that you can recognize when something is wrong it is wrong?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Climate denier. Well your definitely on the side of science. LOL

My take is a little different than most INGOers. I'm more of a Climate (Change) Apathist. I believe that the global climate is changing, and I also believe that man's activities may be playing a significant role in that change.

I also believe that the biggest folly in the entire "debate" is to think that people could somehow change the mind-set and activities that we've had programmed into our brains for the past couple of hundred thousand years. God himself could descend from the heavens and personally tell us what the problems are and how we could change them, and we'd still be almost-but-not-quite entirely unable to change. If you don't see that, then you're a Social Science Denier.

People gonna argue, globe gonna get warmer.

 

[jamil]

I don't want to shoot them either. My purple was inferred. But, in a more stable political environment they would be open to public ridicule along with the loss of their employment.

I inferred that you implied purple.

 

[PaulF]

Which further supports massive wealth redistribution.

This is what bothers me about the climate change debate, right here.

There is overwhelming data that supports global climate change. That much should be obvious, since our climate has been historically quite dynamic. The climate changes. There is also a wealth of data that supports the hypothesis that human activity is having a measurable effect on the global climate, notably by adding gasses to the atmosphere that change cumulative effect of heat.

So, there is a literal plethora of good, peer-reviewed data analysis that supports the hypothesis that the Earth is currently warming, and that human activity is increasing the rate of that warming.

The science supports human-aggravated warming of the climate, it does not lay the fault at the feet of capitalism, and it certainly doesn't advocate socialism as the most effective remedy...

...it is politicians and "entrepreneurs" trying to force a false equivalency for their own financial and political gains. Climate politics is not the same as climate science.

Climate scientists don't want global socialism, they want people to take their actaual results seriously in the hope some of it may be useful in crafting a practical, actionable solution to a global problem.

 

[Dddrees]

This is what bothers me about the climate change debate, right here.

There is overwhelming data that supports global climate change. That much should be obvious, since our climate has been historically quite dynamic. The climate changes. There is also a wealth of data that supports the hypothesis that human activity is having a measurable effect on the global climate, notably by adding gasses to the atmosphere that change cumulative effect of heat.

So, there is a literal plethora of good, peer-reviewed data analysis that supports the hypothesis that the Earth is currently warming, and that human activity is increasing the rate of that warming.

The science supports human-aggravated warming of the climate, it does not lay the fault at the feet of capitalism, and it certainly doesn't advocate socialism as the most effective remedy...

...it is politicians and "entrepreneurs" trying to force a false equivalency for their own financial and political gains. Climate politics is not the same as climate science.

Climate scientists don't want global socialism, they want people to take their actaual results seriously in the hope some of it may be useful in crafting a practical, actionable solution to a global problem.

See there you go again using common sense. You should be ashamed of yourself. LOL

 

[Birds Away]

I inferred that you implied purple.

You're correct, I sometimes get those screwed up.

 

[PaulF]

My take is a little different than most INGOers. I'm more of a Climate (Change) Apathist. I believe that the global climate is changing, and I also believe that man's activities may be playing a significant role in that change.

I also believe that the biggest folly in the entire "debate" is to think that people could somehow change the mind-set and activities that we've had programmed into our brains for the past couple of hundred thousand years. God himself could descend from the heavens and personally tell us what the problems are and how we could change them, and we'd still be almost-but-not-quite entirely unable to change. If you don't see that, then you're a Social Science Denier.

People gonna argue, globe gonna get warmer.

Yeah, pretty much this.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

So, there is a literal plethora of good, peer-reviewed data analysis that supports the hypothesis that the Earth is currently warming, and that human activity is increasing the rate of that warming.

Where is the good, peer-reviewed data that leads you to believe that entire cultures of people might be willing to lower their standard of living, even a little bit, or to conserve a resource that is desired and available in plenty, for the explicit benefit of other cultures or for people not yet born?


Ooooops, sorry, typed this while you were quoting my other one.