this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
1624 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39099 readers
2283 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zefiax@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.

Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning. I don't know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said. Additionally we have average temperature and environmental conditions going back millions of years through ice core and geologic records.

There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.

80% and 20% are numbers. My point is your "example" is made up and hence meaningless. It's as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.

What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.

What you've done is not understand how conditional logic works as your IF/THEN conditional statement is not based on reality and is speaking purely hypothetically. I agree that in your made up reality that doesn't exist, this made up condition would not be reasonable.

About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.

Apparently the whole concept of reading may be too complex for you as you clearly seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you've read. Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don't pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org -4 points 1 year ago

Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning.

Of course. So what?

I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said.

Not a rebuttal, just a response.

My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless.

I could have used p and (1-p) with p between 0.1 and 0.9. Still wouldn't be meaningless.

It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.

It would be wrong and the example where most of the work is done through "brown" means wouldn't be. For my example I don't need anything more specific.

Internet pseudointellectualism is so cute.

What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works

I'm sure I know how things to which I refer work sufficiently for this kind of conversation, to some extent I just like allowing the opponent to present all the fallacies they'd like while seeming rhetorically all right. It indicates whether they are arguing in good faith.

If somebody is arguing in good faith, they'll make an effort to extract something they agree with from the opponent, and make assumptions in favor of that opponent in unclear cases, otherwise the usual.

is not based on reality

So in reality most of the production backing your money as its accepted equivalent is being done by green means?

Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.

The burden of proof that this cost is bigger than the indirect cost I'm talking about is on you. Since I've said only that it may or may not justify particular green means, and you were arguing with that. Apparently that anything green is always better? I don't know what you were trying to say.