Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Madiel]

Can we at the very least agree that science is one thing and politics / policies another, and that they are not necessarily related?

No. They are related because one key measure of whether a policy is any good is the extent to which it was developed with science (or heck, just facts) in mind.

[Madiel]

All right. Please show me facts & figures & data showing that the latest di Caprio movie is carbon-neutral, or at least more carbon neutral than 1,000 John Does driiving his car to job and back home over the same period as it was needed to make the said movie.

You are in your argumentative mode, aren't you? You asked whether anyone had calculated the environmental impact of making a movie. I said yes. That doesn't mean I know where to get the facts and figures, in the same way that me saying a man has walked on the moon doesn't mean that I can supply you with a ticket.

[Rinaldo]

I am all for cars, planes, ships and other fossil-fuels burning transportation vehicles. What I am against is hypocrisy, both Right and Left.

Flying jets while advocating sustainable future is not hypocrisy. There's a Czech saying that goes something like 'You don't have to become a saint to talk about morals'..

[Florestan]

You are in your argumentative mode, aren't you?

Have you ever known me in any other mode? 

You asked whether anyone had calculated the environmental impact of making a movie. I said yes.

Okay, forget about di Caprio. Please show me one such calculation.

[Florestan]

Flying jets while advocating sustainable future is not hypocrisy. There's a Czech saying that goes something like 'You don't have to become a saint to talk about morals'..

Talk the talk is easy, but how about walk the walk?

[Brian]

You are in your argumentative mode, aren't you? You asked whether anyone had calculated the environmental impact of making a movie. I said yes. That doesn't mean I know where to get the facts and figures, in the same way that me saying a man has walked on the moon doesn't mean that I can supply you with a ticket.

This is a classic troll tactic. "Please do lots of work that I could do myself using Google, but I want to make you do it, so that you will stop arguing because you realize you're wasting too much time."

[Madiel]

Please show me one such calculation.

Can't. I have access to numerous reports of such calculations being done (as do you, using Google). That doesn't mean I have access to the methodology that was used.

You still seem not to have grasped what it was I actually answered. There are a great many things that we all accept have occurred without having personally witnessed it or understanding the mechanism to the extent that we could replicate the effect.

I can, if you wish, point you to the methodologies used to calculate the energy output of various industrial processes as set out in Australian law, but frankly the calculations are so mind-numbingly boring I wouldn't wish such a fate on you. I don't know whether movie production in this country is legally required to account for its energy expenditure. I expect not.

[Florestan]

Can't.

I wasn´t quite holding my breath, to be honest.

I have access to numerous reports of such calculations being done (as do you, using Google). That doesn't mean I have access to the methodology that was used.

You´re moving the goalpost. I didn´t ask for the methodology. I asked for one such calculation. If Google is so generous, then it shouldn´t be difficult for you to send me one link.

You still seem not to have grasped what it was I actually answered. There are a great many things that we all accept have occurred without having personally witnessed it or understanding the mechanism to the extent that we could replicate the effect.

That a continent named North America exists I do not doubt for a second, although I have never set my own own feet there. That an animal named unicorn exists I very much doubt, despite having read a lot of reports about its habits.

I can, if you wish, point you to the methodologies used to calculate the energy output of various industrial processes as set out in Australian law, but frankly the calculations are so mind-numbingly boring I wouldn't wish such a fate on you.

I am a mechanical engineer by trade. I have done more mind-numbingly boring calculations during my training years than you can imagine. I will survive. Try me.

[Madiel]

Florestan, media reports don't usually contain calculations, any more than media reports of scientific studies contain a copy of the paper they're reporting on or media reports of a celebrity death include a facsimile of the medical examiner's report.

Brian's absolutely right. You're demanding I do the work of finding YOU a calculation. Go and use Google. If you claim it wouldn't be hard for me to supply you with one link, it wouldn't be hard for you to go and supply YOURSELF with a link. Heck, you can even do the search in more languages than I can.

The notion that you would doubt the existence of any such calculation, despite numerous film studios / filmmakers reporting that they have done such a calculation, seems quite preposterous.  People do calculations of this sort quite frequently, including cases where they are legally required to do so.  Why should it be impossible for movies if it's not only possible but mandatory for other fields of activity. Do you think movie greenhouse gases are different, unique chemicals?

As for the methodologies used to do the exact same kind of calculation in a non-movie setting: knock yourself out with the following examples. I'm off to bed because it's 2 am.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015C00525

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016C00537

[Florestan]

Florestan, media reports don't usually contain calculations, any more than media reports of scientific studies contain a copy of the paper they're reporting on or media reports of a celebrity death include a facsimile of the medical examiner's report.

Agreed 100%. Media reports are more often than not hearsay.

You're demanding I do the work of finding YOU a calculation. Go and use Google. If you claim it wouldn't be hard for me to supply you with one link, it wouldn't be hard for you to go and supply YOURSELF with a link.

[...]

The notion that you would doubt the existence of any such calculation, despite numerous film studios / filmmakers reporting that they have done such a calculation, seems quite preposterous.

You are a lawyer, right? Right! Then please tell me, on whom does the onus of proving a claim fall? On the one who says that the claim is true? Precisely, according to the Roman Law handbook (if I´m mistaken, please correct me). So, it is not for me to find any such calculation, but for you to provide one.

[Florestan]

This is a classic troll tactic. "Please do lots of work that I could do myself using Google, but I want to make you do it, so that you will stop arguing because you realize you're wasting too much time."

See my reply to orfeo.

[Brian]

You are a lawyer, right? Right! Then please tell me, on whom does the onus of proving a claim fall? On the one who says that the claim is true? Precisely, according to the Roman Law handbook (if I´m mistaken, please correct me).

This depends on the case and claim. For example, in a libel suit in the United States, the burden falls on the person who says the claim is false. In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, the person making the statement must verify that it is true.

So, it is not for me to find any such calculation, but for you to provide one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[Florestan]

This depends on the case and claim. For example, in a libel suit in the United States, the burden falls on the person who says the claim is false.

Do you mean that if someone accuses me of being a rapist, it is my burden to prove I am not, rather than his burden to prove I am? I just can´t believe it, sorry.

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, the person making the statement must verify that it is true.

This is in keeping with both the Roman Law and the common sense.

[Brian]

Do you mean that if someone accuses me of being a rapist, it is my burden to prove I am not, rather than his burden to prove I am? I just can´t believe it, sorry.

lol no. That's not a libel case. If you want to learn how American libel suits work, you are more than welcome to do the research yourself.

This is in keeping with both the Roman Law and the common sense.

1. That system is notoriously harsh for the accused. UK politicians have proposed adopting the US system instead.
2. Who cares about Roman Law?

[Florestan]

lol no. That's not a libel case.

If I´d claim "Btian is a necrophle", would it be a libel case? If yes, who would have to prove it?

If you want to learn how American libel suits work, you are more than welcome to do the research yourself.

1. That system is notoriously harsh for the accused. UK politicians have proposed adopting the US system instead.

Makes me doubly happy for not living in the US or the UK.

Who cares about Roman Law?

Any barbarian on the way to civilization.

[Todd]

If I´d claim "Btian is a necrophle", would it be a libel case? If yes, who would have to prove it?

Generally speaking, Btian, using a preponderance of evidence standard. 

[Ken B]

Flying jets while advocating sustainable future is not hypocrisy. There's a Czech saying that goes something like 'You don't have to become a saint to talk about morals'..

Of course it's hypocrisy. He can "talk about morals", ie advocate for his preferred policies, without such flights. Flying isn't advocating.

Was it hypocrisy for Jimmy Swaggart to preach against adultery whilst committing it?

[Gurn Blanston]

Of course it's hypocrisy. He can "talk about morals", ie advocate for his preferred policies, without such flights. Flying isn't advocating.

Was it hypocrisy for Jimmy Swaggart to preach against adultery whilst committing it?

Yes, of course it was. The difference is that adultery is an avoidable condition. Global warming is, at this point in time, inevitable. Despite Swaggart's hypocrisy, adultery is no less amoral. Despite the hand-wringing over global warming, it is no less unavoidable. So, does Trump = Swaggart? No, Swaggart is more entertaining, but just by an eyelash.

[Todd]

No, Swaggart is more entertaining, but just by an eyelash.

This is as contentious a claim about Trump as I have ever seen.

[Ken B]

Yes, of course it was. The difference is that adultery is an avoidable condition. Global warming is, at this point in time, inevitable. Despite Swaggart's hypocrisy, adultery is no less amoral. Despite the hand-wringing over global warming, it is no less unavoidable. So, does Trump = Swaggart? No, Swaggart is more entertaining, but just by an eyelash.

di Caprio flying a private jet is avoidable.

Added https://au.entertainment.yahoo.com/celebrity/news/a/31680753/leo-dicaprio-took-a-private-jet-to-accept-green-award/