- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Scott Pruitt is absolutely right about Climate Change.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 1:21 pm to TigersFan64
Posted on 3/14/17 at 1:21 pm to TigersFan64
quote:
cokebottleag = yet other science denying shill for the fossil fuels industry
You'd have looked smarter if you just hadn't commented in this thread at all.
0
Posted on 3/14/17 at 1:23 pm to McLemore
quote:
Everything should be subject to a C/B/A
Except the wall on the Mexican border.
amirite?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 1:24 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Except the wall on the Mexican border.
amirite?
Nope, that too.
There have been a litany of arguments comparing the amount of money blown on illegal immigrants and their care, and the amount of money a wall would cost.
There is never an argument like that for the programs desired by the AGW side, at least not on this site.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 1:37 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
There have been a litany of arguments comparing the amount of money blown on illegal immigrants and their care, and the amount of money a wall would cost.
But not a single one of them factoring in their contribution to the GDP.
The CBA would have to be done for actually having the immigrants in the country. You would look at the costs and the benefits, and if the cost is more than the wall, you build the wall. If not, you don't build the wall. You would also have to factor in how effective the wall would be at keeping them out, so assuming not 100% efficiency, the costs of having them in the country would have to exceed any cost for the wall.
Have you seen any analysis along these lines? I haven't, and I've been begging for it on this board.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 2:09 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The CBA would have to be done for actually having the immigrants in the country.
Immigrants /= illegal immigrants.
quote:
But not a single one of them factoring in their contribution to the GDP.
But the GDP is not what pays for the wall, the federal budget is the question here. Dollars spent on welfare, schools, infrastructure, jails, etc etc etc due to illegal immigration vs the estimate for the wall.
quote:
Have you seen any analysis along these lines? I haven't, and I've been begging for it on this board.
Yes, it's been posted many times.
Here's the latest.
LINK
Posted on 3/14/17 at 2:10 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
There is agreement among researchers that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education.
There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2
The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.
If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion costs of the wall.
Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.3 While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.
If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall's cost.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 2:17 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
Immigrants /= illegal immigrants.
frick you, I said "the" immigrants, as in the immigrants in question, not all immigrants.
quote:
But the GDP is not what pays for the wall
You can't do a cost benefit analysis without looking at the benefits.
quote:
Dollars spent on welfare, schools, infrastructure, jails, etc etc etc due to illegal immigration vs the estimate for the wall.
This is just what people who want the wall look at - it's all costs, no benefits.
quote:
Yes, it's been posted many times.
Here's the latest.
LINK
"border wall only needs to stop about 10 percent of illegal crossing in order to pay for itself"
That's not a true cost benefit analysis, they are only looking at the costs, and of course that would result in the wall being justified, that's exactly what they trying to do.
What benefits do undocumented workers provide for our country?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 2:21 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Come on WT. You and I both know that is BS. The solution is a reasonable work visa process. No welfare. No food stamps. No impact whatsoever on path to citizenship. Instead though, a modernized/adequate WVP would entail fair wages, fair treatment and full migrant-worker-protection under the law.
if the cost is more than the wall, you build the wall. If not, you don't build the wall
Currently business can pay substandard wages to illegals. Meanwhile, dem operatives encourage them to register to vote. Neither side gives one-hot-damn about migrant safety in transit, or protections once here.
Both are inhumane.
Both are despicable.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 3/14/17 at 2:54 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You and I both know that is BS
If you mean building the wall is BS because it could easily be shown through a bone fide CBA that a work visa program would be more effective at maximizing benefit to society of these workers?
I would conditionally agree with that. My point is that a true CBA would show that the wall would be a waste of resources, and that other alternatives would be more efficient at solving the problem of undocumented workers in the country.
Unfortunately this debate is done strictly on emotion - on both sides - so we can't get actual, rational, numbers.
quote:
business can pay substandard wages
That's absurd. I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're NOT a libertarian.
quote:
Meanwhile, dem operatives encourage them to register to vote
Posted on 3/14/17 at 2:58 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
If you took a basic statistics class you'd know that wasn't true.
Typical bullshite line people use when they have no argument to make. I've taken plenty of stats classes, but I'm not going to make an argument from authority because I'm right and I don't have to result to logical fallacies.
The results in the figure nearly all agree to within statistics with really only one outlier. That's a remarkably consistent result for most scientific fields.
quote:
No, they don't. They estimate that human activity may be a cause of some % of temperature changes observed at ground level thermometers, after adjustment based off subjective factors. Their estimations of what % is made man differ greatly. But you'd know that if you had done any research.
The studies referenced considered together make a convincing case that there is scientific agreement that doubling atmospheric CO2 will result in around a 2º C temperature increase which is plenty enough to explain the majority of the warming we've observed. You'd know if you'd done any research. And by research, I mean from real academic sources, not partisan political opinion pieces.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 3:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
What benefits do undocumented workers provide for our country?
Can you explain the spectrum of the cost/benefit that you would accept as valid? What are the greatest potential benefits, and what are greatest potential harms? If you start there, the middle can be discussed.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 3:12 pm to skiptumahloo
quote:
The studies referenced considered together make a convincing case that there is scientific agreement that doubling atmospheric CO2 will result in around a 2º C temperature increase which is plenty enough to explain the majority of the warming we've observed. You'd know if you'd done any research. And by research, I mean from real academic sources, not partisan political opinion pieces.
And you completely ignored my references to scientific studies of the mis-estimations of those very studies.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 3:40 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Just got wind a contractor we used, ripped off an Hispanic crew that did a great job on our beach place. Really pissed me off.
business can pay substandard wages
That's absurd. I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're NOT a libertarian.
Our laws leave those workers vulnerable as hell. It's ridiculous. I was going to tear the contractor up. But the workers begged me not to, presumably for fear of retribution. So we supplemented them each personally out-of-pocket, and called it a day.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 3:49 pm to tarzana
quote:
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are steadily increasing (particularly since 1980 with rampant industrialization) and the world is warming, and it's manmade.
Yes, and add to that the fact that ten of the hottest years globally on record have come since year 2000, and from ice core samples taken from the polar ice caps, scientists have verified that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest they've been in hundreds of thousands of years. Also:
"The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc)."
LINK
Posted on 3/14/17 at 7:50 pm to TigersFan64
You have to be joking with this.
Hottest on record going back how far in the millions of years of earth's history?
Hottest on record going back how far in the millions of years of earth's history?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 8:09 pm to kingbob
There are WAAAY too many climate deniers posting here
Posted on 3/14/17 at 8:35 pm to Draconian Sanctions
The data is wrong
Posted on 3/14/17 at 8:53 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
And you completely ignored my references to scientific studies of the mis-estimations of those very studies.
I am discussing the graph that author of the article you posted hinged his entire point on.
If you want to discuss other studies, feel free to share them, but your passing mention of hypothetical other scientific studies that you claim prove the author's point is hardly evidence of anything. And regardless, it's irrelevant to my point about the specific article you linked.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:02 pm to skiptumahloo
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:02 pm to cokebottleag
The problem is equating human influence solely with carbon dioxide. It's a subset of a subset.
In other words, the human influence is a subset of the overall rise, and human related CO2 is a subset of the human influence. So whatever percentage human influences the warming, CO2 will be some percentage of that.
In other words, the human influence is a subset of the overall rise, and human related CO2 is a subset of the human influence. So whatever percentage human influences the warming, CO2 will be some percentage of that.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News