Apealing to proximity is just as fallacious, mhaze.

//“Majorities have been right before… closer to the action…”//

Proximity doesn’t automatically confer insight - just ask the many locals who cheered the Iraq War. Democracy is about weighing evidence, not crowning whoever’s standing closest to a flagpole as the oracle of truth.

//“Seems I don’t need to [talk about CO2 greening]… you got it right.”//

And here I was expecting you to cry: "I didn't say that!" Seems I gave you too much credit.

Yes, plants can grow faster with more CO2 - but that’s not a net benefit when the same emissions drive heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, and ecosystem collapse. If that’s your “victory of logic,” it’s a pretty pyrrhic one.

//“You make assertions without proof… demand I disprove… Not playing.”//

Except, I don't make assertions.

Brookings, the New York Fed, Council on Foreign Relations, and the EPA itself have documented deregulation shifting costs onto disaster relief and public health. You’ve been pointed to this before. Waving it off as “rubbish” isn’t a counterargument, it’s a retreat.

//“10% is less than 15%… trust me on this.”//

And yet, 0% is even less than 10%.

If this is your measure of a “victory,” it’s one carved out of a problem Trump created. A firefighter who starts the blaze doesn’t become a hero for putting out half the fire.

//“I’ve explained how tariffs strengthen the US several times… you’re never going to be convinced.”//

You’ve asserted it, yes - but whenever the data’s examined (trade deficits rising, farmers bailed out, manufacturers offshoring), the story falls apart. That’s not me refusing to be convinced; that’s your evidence refusing to cooperate.

If every challenge to your claims is met with “trust me,” “not playing,” or “you’ve got TDS,” it’s no wonder nothing you call “done” ever survives scrutiny.

Try again.

"Proximity doesn’t automatically confer insight "

Nor does distance. The people who will benefit from the tariffs support them. That, in the fulness of time they might be wrong is something to be decided in 2035. But to have people who benefit from the lack of tariffs say they won't work and we shouldn't try to rectify the economic problems caused by asymmetric trade policies is a recipe for decline. The 2018 tariff policies showed jobs returning to the rust belt states.

But if you want to vaguely wave your arms and say that's not true because I don't want it to be true, then so be it.

CO2. You're the one who raised the massive greening of the plant. I just agreed. Now you are flailing about saying the greening isn't good or something.

"Brookings, the New York Fed, Council on Foreign Relations, and the EPA itself have documented deregulation shifting costs onto disaster relief and public health."
Again, mere assertion. Dropping names without context isn't evidence.

"And yet, 0% is even less than 10%."

Still valiantly trying to reframe the point. I simply said that the UK did better in the trade negotiation than the EU and you've been desperately trying to find a way to reframe that. Fail.

"but whenever the data’s examined (trade deficits rising, farmers bailed out, manufacturers offshoring), the story falls apart. "

Its cute that you think you've examined those things let alone that you've refuted them.

Why remind me of that, mhaze?

//Nor does distance [automatically confer insight]…//

You're the only one who suggested that it did by dismissing outside critique as irrelevant. You're getting yourself tied up into all sorts of knots here, aren't you.

//...people who benefit from tariffs support them… jobs returning to the rust belt.//

Yes, some jobs returned briefly in 2018. But the overall trade deficit climbed to record highs under Trump, and manufacturing output flatlined by 2020. Even conservative think tanks admit the net effect was cost-shuffling, not a true industrial revival. That’s not a vague arm wave, it’s data you keep dodging.

//CO2… you raised the massive greening… I just agreed.//

And you keep missing the point.

CO2 can boost plant growth, yes, but those same emissions drive heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, and ecosystem collapse that wipe out those short-term gains. Treating “plants grow faster” as some trump card while ignoring the damage is the kind of half-truth that got us here.

//Dropping names without context isn’t evidence.//

I was referencing detailed analyses you’ve brushed off repeatedly. Do you need a refresher?

Brookings quantified tariff-driven price hikes. The New York Fed traced cost pass-through to consumers. The EPA itself documented how deregulation shifts disaster relief and healthcare costs onto taxpayers. Ignoring the evidence doesn’t erase it.

//Still valiantly trying to reframe the point.//

No, you’re the only one doing the reframing - going from ‘victory for Brexit’ to merely 'better than the EU’s deal.' This is mere projection.

//UK did better than EU… fail.//

“Better” only in relative pain. The EU got slapped with a 15% tariff baseline thanks to Trump’s trade war. The UK escaped with 10%, but only because Brexit weakened its bargaining power and forced a scramble for any deal.

That’s not victory. That’s salvaging scraps.

//Cute that you think you’ve examined… refuted them.//

Translation: you can’t rebut the numbers.

Trade deficits ballooned, farmers needed record bailouts, and offshoring marched on. If tariffs were the revolution you claim, we’d see sustained structural change. We don’t.

"CO2 can boost plant growth, yes, but those same emissions drive heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, and ecosystem collapse that wipe out those short-term gains. "

Still on the greening? I get that you hate the idea that CO2 fertilisation has some positive benefits, but you need to get a grip. You mentioned it. I agreed. That's it. I didn't dispute other effects despite you're constnt assertion otherwise.

"crop failures". You are aware that world-wide grain production continues to be at record levels, I hope. But I get it. Good harvest - nothing to see here. Bad harvest - omg we're all gunna die.

"because Brexit weakened its bargaining power "

Now let's see if I understand your 'logic' here. Brexit weakened British bargaining position and that's why they got a better deal? And you think you make sense.

"Brookings quantified tariff-driven price hikes."
Yeah well Brookings who haven't seen a Republican policy they like since 2000. But, yes, there were some price increases. But the US inflation rate is currently lower than when Trump took over. Looking at the trees rather than the forest is rarely good policy.

I never said you disputed them, mhaze.

//Still on the greening?... I didn’t dispute other effects…//

I said you ignored them. That’s not the same thing. Saying “plants grow faster” while waving away the heatwaves, droughts, and ecological damage is like celebrating a house fire because it keeps you warm.

//Grain production continues to be at record levels…//

Global grain output is rising thanks to technology, genetics, and irrigation - not because CO2 has magically made the climate better. Meanwhile, extreme weather is already reducing yields in key regions. Higher global averages don’t erase regional crop failures or mounting risks.

//Brexit weakened British bargaining position and that's why they got a better deal?//

No, that’s you misunderstanding (or pretending to). A weaker bargaining position forced the UK to take whatever deal it could get, hence a slightly lower tariff than the EU’s. That’s not a “better deal,” it’s a desperate concession spun as strategy.

//Brookings… some price increases… inflation lower now…//

And again, you sidestep the point.

Tariffs caused documented short-term inflation and billions in added costs for consumers. Pointing to today’s CPI doesn’t erase that - it’s like saying a surgery was painless because the scars have faded.

You keep treating partial pain, temporary patches, and desperate compromises as if they’re historic wins. That’s not “seeing the forest,” it’s refusing to see the fire burning in it.

But sure, mhaze, keep calling burnt toast “gourmet.” Whatever helps you believe every stumble is a standing ovation.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. What have you got next?

If Britain was still in the EU they'd now be on a 15% tariff. But they're not. Twist and turn as much as you like, but the fact is that being outside the EU was a benefit for the UK. Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't make it false.

"Global grain output is rising thanks to technology, genetics, and irrigation "....and CO2 fertilisation. There you go, fixed it for you.

Nation Bureau of Economic Research.... "We consistently find a large CO2 fertilization effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO2; equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans, and wheat, respectively. "... "find that CO2 was the dominant driver of yield growth".

But if you don't want it to be true.....

"This is like shooting fish in a barrel. "

It takes a monumental amount of chutzpah to think that just saying it ain't so is the same as winning the argument.