Trump Paris Meta-Decision

[Final-Fan]

robzo100 said:

1. When does guessing ever become reasonable in journalism? 2. fine. 3. A "floor" on something causal and non-binding is a legitimate oxymoron, two opposing concepts in clear daylight. 100-billion a year by 2020 when the country with the biggest GDP will only give 3-billion between the 4 years of 2016-2020? Where is the reasonable "ramping up?" I don't see it. Countries should not be expected to make such a drastic jump - we agree. So where is the reasonable ramp?

4. Your argument is fair that he has gained the reputation he is seeking. I don't think it's bad point. But it doesn't inherently refute the importance of reputation. Reputation, character, etc., they have to be maintained and consistent. This is human nature, consistency is the glue that holds together our perceptions of one another, and even inanimate phenomenon as well(societal/psychological patterns). Holding steady, but then eventually backing down can signal others in power that there is in fact a strategy for getting through one's defenses. Yes, it's true, this is part fo what makes people hate Trump, but for others it is still a great strength that other international players don't have.

5. You say I dropped the argument. His last counter as it related to the tradgedy of the commons(TC) was noted. I explained that the acknowledgement of such social phenomenon(Sociology is actually one of the newest scientific disciplines) is part of what empowers the human race to move forward. The same can be said of other new mental/physical inventions, like the internet which also give individuals power that they did not have before. The TC, as a representation of the shortcomings of individual vs. collective behavior, does just that. It is taught in colleges mainly, but as we progress and become more intelligent it makes its way into the audiences of younger minds more easily as it is passed down through public(schools) and private means, the internet(books too) being one again; a video of the phenomenon on youtube, or an explanation on wikipedia, etc. It's resources like these that allow us to hold individuals more accountable for their actions - the question is whether each subsequent generation is willing to take on the new torch of responsibility they are handed down, or if they rather keep it enshrined in collective institutions. There's no arguing that the means for individual empowerment advances with each subsequent generation.

6. What's to talk about? We had this debate. I heard no scientific rebuttals against my points that abided by scientific standards  as opposed to casual blasphemy. Scientific standards are absolutely imperative when it's being used as your main defense of funding for Climate Change. If we disagree on that last point then yes "science not being what people have been led to believe(and the nature of science itself)" is a fair emphasis. I acknowledge Climate Change, but it's solutions are not as sound, and it's causes are not as clear as people have been led to believe. I even left it off with the notion that saving humanity through a financial focus on planetary migration could actually make more sense than reversing or slowing down climate change. Per dollar the agreement may actually be very ineffective - a statement that I can make because the science is simply not expansive enough(planetary climate is an expansive/expanding subject) to refute otherwise. People in favor of the Agreement recognize the hurdles of the proposed solutions not doing enough or being overly hopeful, surely you've seen this.

I've acknowledge all of your points while conceding on #2. I haven't dropped anything, but stood firmly on my arguments and rebuttals. You may have misinterpretted my ettiquete in calling a good debate a truce or valid point fair as concesions, but it is only my way of trying to say a fruitful debate was achieved.

1.  It wasn't a "guess" as in "guess the number I am thinking of between 1 and 10."  It was a "guess" as in "guess whether Microsoft's annual revenue is closer to one million or one billion dollars."  Anyone who is even mildly educated on the subject should be able to correctly make such a "guess".  And while it would be nice to take away the guesswork completely, at what point do you draw the line at providing more and more and more information as opposed to assuming a certain about of pre-existing knowledge in your readership?  It's a judgement call.  Even if they made an error there I think it's an overstatement to say it's evidence of terrible journalism. 

3.  It is absolutely not an oxymoron.  Do you complain about "suggested donations" at charity events?  The "floor" is the point below which the countries will have failed to live up to their agreement; however, this failure will incur no penalty.  I don't see why that's a logically unsound proposition.  Perhaps you might say it's an invitation to failure, but that's entirely different from what you're arguing. 

As for the ramping up, just because the U.S. made a 3-billion dollar commitment to be paid over a certain period or by a certain date doesn't preclude them from later adding additional commitments in overlapping time periods.  It's certainly unlikely under Trump, of course.  My guess is that although countries have been given plenty of space to ramp up, many will procrastinate until close to the end of the period and then be shamed into greatly increasing payments, but probably failing the goal.  The timeframe allotted is reasonable, but that doesn't guarantee countries are using it wisely.  Nevertheless, it's not impossible by any means for them to still put in the target amount in the named year. 

4.  Even if I were to grant that it is reasonable in theory to be looking for places to "make a stand" purely to further the goal of cultivating such an image, this cannot be done in a vacuum.  I do not feel as though your proposition takes into account evaluating whether the gain to his reputation is worth the loss of international agreements that would have benefited the U.S. through its participation if not for the decision to back out in order to achieve that gain to his reputation.  Especially if in order to be consistent he would have to keep doing it.  How would that not incredibly destructive to our nation's standing in the world?  What could Trump possibly gain from his reputation alone that would outweigh such costs? 

5.  I believe palou already said, and I agree, that all the things you said do not adequately address the problem of each individual facing a disincentive to do what is better for everyone, or an incentive to do what is worse for everyone.  I agree that society is going in the right direction in terms of inculcating environmental friendliness into the culture; however, I very strongly disagree that it has succeeded to such a great extent that individual action alone will suffice to meet the challenges we face as a global society regarding those issues without action at the state level.  We are merely to the point where individuals will support the group effort collectively, instead of saying "there's no possible way we could hunt passenger pigeons to extinction; it's hard for me to imagine, so it must be impossible". 

When I said you "dropped the argument" I did not mean that you conceded, but that in my opinion you just restated your position without addressing his argument and left it there without following up, and without explicitly (that I saw) "calling a truce" or agreeing to disagree.  Perhaps that was your intention, and on rereading the relevant posts it does seem like that is what you were doing without explicitly saying so. 

6.  We most certainly have not had this debate.  I will admit that you have made a few more specific statements on this than I have during the course of this thread, such as saying that although we know carbon emissions are bad we don't know how much effect they are having, but while I have issued some contrary opinions and broad statements of some of my own positions I have specifically not gone full-out in calling up counterarguments and evidence on specific topics like that for the very reason that this will inevitably sprawl into a huge debate on many sub-topics of the science of climate change (and apparently science in general) and I wanted to concentrate on this other stuff first.  I believe I have said things to that effect before but I hope I have now made my position entirely clear, which I may not have made sufficient efforts to do before. 

Thank you for bearing with me.