willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Credit can be very dangerous, isn't lending/borrowing the basic reason for the stock market crash of 1929 and the more recent sub-prime disaster?
Is our tax system progressive enough?
- Thread starter elprincipe
- Start date
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Our entire economy is based on credit. Without credit it would collapse. The system is set up so that more money is owed than there is money in circulation. That's the core engine that drives it, as messed up as that sounds.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Our economy won't be based on credit too much longer.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Our entire economy is based on credit. Without credit it would collapse. The system is set up so that more money is owed than there is money in circulation. That's the core engine that drives it, as messed up as that sounds.[/quote]
Isn't it collapsing now? They just doubled the money in circulation to fix the problem.
Isn't it collapsing now? They just doubled the money in circulation to fix the problem.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='willardhaven']Isn't it collapsing now? They just doubled the money in circulation to fix the problem.[/QUOTE]
I would say it is collapsing, and it's orchestrated.
I would say it is collapsing, and it's orchestrated.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Are we on Infowars now?
it blows my mind that there are so many crackpots believing every powerful person must be living a charade while they meet behind closed doors to control the world.. just as many that flatout refuse to accept man is influencing climate change, or we landed on the moon.. it's insane.. why are humans so 
ed in the head..
ed in the head..
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Koggit']it blows my mind that there are so many crackpots believing every powerful person must be living a charade while they meet behind closed doors to control the world..[/QUOTE]
Some people just jump to conclusions, right?
[quote name='Koggit'] just as many that flatout refuse to accept man is influencing climate change,.. it's insane.. why are humans soed in the head..[/QUOTE]
And here's a prime example! Climate Change is still being debated in the scientific community while more and more skeptics are coming forward to counteract the media hype and public hysteria. Over 700 highly respected scientists all over the world assert climate changes are caused by natural forces and denounce the recent theory of man-made global warming.
Some people just jump to conclusions, right?
[quote name='Koggit'] just as many that flatout refuse to accept man is influencing climate change,.. it's insane.. why are humans so
ed in the head..[/QUOTE]And here's a prime example! Climate Change is still being debated in the scientific community while more and more skeptics are coming forward to counteract the media hype and public hysteria. Over 700 highly respected scientists all over the world assert climate changes are caused by natural forces and denounce the recent theory of man-made global warming.
[quote name='tivo']Climate Change is still being debated in the scientific community[/QUOTE]
WELCOME TO SCIENCE
I guess you don't believe in evolution, either, since that's still being debated.
I guess you don't believe time is a dimension, or that gravity is caused by the presence of matter, or that the universe is expanding, or that entropy is increasing, or that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, or. . .
Actually, no, you're not welcome here in Science. We don't have time for your kind.
WELCOME TO SCIENCE
I guess you don't believe in evolution, either, since that's still being debated.
I guess you don't believe time is a dimension, or that gravity is caused by the presence of matter, or that the universe is expanding, or that entropy is increasing, or that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, or. . .
Actually, no, you're not welcome here in Science. We don't have time for your kind.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='tivo']^^^
wait, what??
I said it was a debate and implied that we need more scientific research before people just jump to conclusions. You called people who think otherwise as "ed in the head" and now you're lecturing me ??[/quote]
Point that Koggit and Spaz were getting at was this: when it comes to science,ing everything is still up for debate. That's the point. If something is no longer up for debate, then it's probably not science. If you're going to wait for "absolutely everything proven 100%", then you'd better have the lifespan of a ing Highlander, man.
...
Highlanders were immortal, right? I mean, I know that they mostly unkillable and all that, but they were proper immortals, right? I mean, no dying of old age and that shit? Right?
wait, what??
I said it was a debate and implied that we need more scientific research before people just jump to conclusions. You called people who think otherwise as "
ed in the head" and now you're lecturing me ??[/quote]Point that Koggit and Spaz were getting at was this: when it comes to science,
ing everything is still up for debate. That's the point. If something is no longer up for debate, then it's probably not science. If you're going to wait for "absolutely everything proven 100%", then you'd better have the lifespan of a ing Highlander, man....
Highlanders were immortal, right? I mean, I know that they mostly unkillable and all that, but they were proper immortals, right? I mean, no dying of old age and that shit? Right?
uuuuuhghghghghghhghhhhhhhhhhg no no no no
dude
okay
so many points.. where to start..
a) 700 is such a tiny tiny tiny number. there are at least hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, probably millions.
b) it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume a large majority of those 700 scientists (who are not all climatologists) are either employed by or funded by the six Big Oil companies. big oil funds at least 5 different research groups at my school alone, which is 15+ PhDs.
c) when you make dozens of billions of dollars a year in profit it's pretty easy to buy off a shitton of scientists (just as they bought off a shitton of politicians with their lobbyists) -- keep in mind those astronomical profit figures are after they pay their lobbyists / scientists / politicians.
d) NINETY-SEVEN percent of climatologists agree man has had an affect on climate change.
e) speaking of lobbyists and paid-off politicians, much of the info available in the past 8 years has been skewed by bush (10k scientists including dozens of nobel laureates told them to gtfo). the administration often edited scientific data and censored scientific publications.
f) there will always be dissent. you can't just wait for the debate to be 100% settled. it won't be, ever. no scientific debate ever will be.
g) at some point you have to go with the scientific consensus, and you're not gonna do much better than 97%.
dude
okay
so many points.. where to start..
a) 700 is such a tiny tiny tiny number. there are at least hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, probably millions.
b) it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume a large majority of those 700 scientists (who are not all climatologists) are either employed by or funded by the six Big Oil companies. big oil funds at least 5 different research groups at my school alone, which is 15+ PhDs.
c) when you make dozens of billions of dollars a year in profit it's pretty easy to buy off a shitton of scientists (just as they bought off a shitton of politicians with their lobbyists) -- keep in mind those astronomical profit figures are after they pay their lobbyists / scientists / politicians.
d) NINETY-SEVEN percent of climatologists agree man has had an affect on climate change.
e) speaking of lobbyists and paid-off politicians, much of the info available in the past 8 years has been skewed by bush (10k scientists including dozens of nobel laureates told them to gtfo). the administration often edited scientific data and censored scientific publications.
f) there will always be dissent. you can't just wait for the debate to be 100% settled. it won't be, ever. no scientific debate ever will be.
g) at some point you have to go with the scientific consensus, and you're not gonna do much better than 97%.
tivo
CAGiversary!
a) 700 are just those who have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists (which is 13 times more than the amount of scientists who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers) There are many other groups and individuals and more importantly, many more are converting to become skeptics.
b) Possibly, but I've looked at the recent additions to the list and all the names I read have very credible job titles and histories showing expertise in their various fields. And its good that they aren't all climatologists. You need physicists, geologists, chemists, etc. to find the root of the cause - nature - instead of asserting correlation through assumption of trends.
c) Al gore has made at least 100 million dollars alone since '01 due to the hype. Sounds suspicious. And when trillions of dollars are potentially on the table for the numerous suggested proposals, I'd be taking second looks.
d)Reid Bryson, the father of climatology, calls man-made global warming absurd.
e) those believing in man-made global warming are extremely hostile to doubters and nonbelievers (as you exemplify) causing climate science to become more of political science. Political motives, research funding, investments, internet trolling and media attention all corrupt the science.
f) duh.
g) We should stop all research and accept the current position? Current positions never fail? Man's arrogance - he thinks he knows everything and believes he's affecting everything. A real scientist would want to continue research, watch changes, and monitor any efforts. But no. We heard enough from our sample group of climatologists. bull, you're no scientist, you're a politician, or at best, an administrator.
And not to burst your bubble, but even if the US does everything in its power to lower man-made ghg, the rest of the world isn't doing shaqfu, so what's your plan to save the planet from them? But then again, what percent of total ghg does man contribute to(?), how are you going to save the planet from itself?!?
b) Possibly, but I've looked at the recent additions to the list and all the names I read have very credible job titles and histories showing expertise in their various fields. And its good that they aren't all climatologists. You need physicists, geologists, chemists, etc. to find the root of the cause - nature - instead of asserting correlation through assumption of trends.
c) Al gore has made at least 100 million dollars alone since '01 due to the hype. Sounds suspicious. And when trillions of dollars are potentially on the table for the numerous suggested proposals, I'd be taking second looks.
d)Reid Bryson, the father of climatology, calls man-made global warming absurd.
e) those believing in man-made global warming are extremely hostile to doubters and nonbelievers (as you exemplify) causing climate science to become more of political science. Political motives, research funding, investments, internet trolling and media attention all corrupt the science.
f) duh.
g) We should stop all research and accept the current position? Current positions never fail? Man's arrogance - he thinks he knows everything and believes he's affecting everything. A real scientist would want to continue research, watch changes, and monitor any efforts. But no. We heard enough from our sample group of climatologists. bull, you're no scientist, you're a politician, or at best, an administrator.
And not to burst your bubble, but even if the US does everything in its power to lower man-made ghg, the rest of the world isn't doing shaqfu, so what's your plan to save the planet from them? But then again, what percent of total ghg does man contribute to(?), how are you going to save the planet from itself?!?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']"We should stop all research and accept the current position? Current positions never fail?"
just proved yourself not worth responding to, i won't waste any more of my time on you[/QUOTE]
Of course not. You clearly worship at the altar of global warming (sorry, "climate change" for your propagandists) and brook no dissent. Regardless of whether there are valid arguments still playing out and further evidence being amassed about a subject we know relatively little about (climatology is a VERY young science), for you the issue is "settled" and anyone who dares claim otherwise is a "blasphemer."
just proved yourself not worth responding to, i won't waste any more of my time on you[/QUOTE]
Of course not. You clearly worship at the altar of global warming (sorry, "climate change" for your propagandists) and brook no dissent. Regardless of whether there are valid arguments still playing out and further evidence being amassed about a subject we know relatively little about (climatology is a VERY young science), for you the issue is "settled" and anyone who dares claim otherwise is a "blasphemer."
more words in my mouth, AWESOME. see, i'm not gonna waste my time trying to have a scientific discussion when it's clearly being turned into a political 'debate'. i do not mix science and politics (well, except for when politicians pass legislation that affects science).. i'm not gonna argue with people who do, it's a complete waste of time.
if tivo wanted to discuss science he wouldn't be putting words in my mouth, treating it like a game to win. that's how people treat political arguments, they want to win. i will not waste my time on that.
if tivo wanted to discuss science he wouldn't be putting words in my mouth, treating it like a game to win. that's how people treat political arguments, they want to win. i will not waste my time on that.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Koggit, the main problem people have with the whole climate change debacle is not proving that man doesn't affect the environment (of course he does, all of earths creatures do to varying extents), it's that to what degree he does is very debatable, all the while the climate changers are expecting/trying to push forward some of the largest game-changing, world economy-effecting, hidden taxes the world has ever seen - based on what amounts to never be more than a pretty good guesses and very agenda-funded scientific consensus pointing at eyebrow raising fear mongering.
agenda? and what might that be?
what exactly do you feel is the ulterior motive of 97% of the world's climatologists in their AGW conclusions? i know you don't trust anyone or any thing, but really, if you think the AGW consensus is manufactured then what do you believe is the goal?
what exactly do you feel is the ulterior motive of 97% of the world's climatologists in their AGW conclusions? i know you don't trust anyone or any thing, but really, if you think the AGW consensus is manufactured then what do you believe is the goal?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
First of all, even if your suspicious 97% number is accurate, of scientists that "believe man affects climate change". That doesn't mean that 97% believe we are headed on a road to climate hell if we don't make drastic changes. That means 97% believe man has some degree of effect on climate - which ultimately means each of their conclusions could be all over the spectrum. Just because a scientist believes man has some degree of effect on climate, doesn't mean he also believes we must pull out all the stops to reverse it at any cost.
I've read several articles by scientists that basically can be distilled down to the argument that even if man has some small effect on climate, it's not big enough to get all worked up about. If the sun decided to burp in a couple of years, all the green technology green social programs won't mean shit. The sun itself has uncountable degrees of magnitude more effect on our climate than we can or do - so some rightly argue that maybe a moderate focus on adaptation survival contingencies are a wiser use of resources than an attempt at drastically altering entire global economies as quickly as possible out of fear.
What is the agenda, you ask? Oh I don't know really. What's anyone's agenda that is asking for massive amounts of tax payer money? What's anyone's agenda that uses fear to redirect phenomenal amounts of the worlds resources into new industries? You're a smart guy, you tell me - but don't tell me you really believe it's all just an altruistic effort to save us from certain doom ultimately caused by dirty air.
I've read several articles by scientists that basically can be distilled down to the argument that even if man has some small effect on climate, it's not big enough to get all worked up about. If the sun decided to burp in a couple of years, all the green technology green social programs won't mean shit. The sun itself has uncountable degrees of magnitude more effect on our climate than we can or do - so some rightly argue that maybe a moderate focus on adaptation survival contingencies are a wiser use of resources than an attempt at drastically altering entire global economies as quickly as possible out of fear.
What is the agenda, you ask? Oh I don't know really. What's anyone's agenda that is asking for massive amounts of tax payer money? What's anyone's agenda that uses fear to redirect phenomenal amounts of the worlds resources into new industries? You're a smart guy, you tell me - but don't tell me you really believe it's all just an altruistic effort to save us from certain doom ultimately caused by dirty air.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']agenda? and what might that be?
what exactly do you feel is the ulterior motive of 97% of the world's climatologists in their AGW conclusions? i know you don't trust anyone or any thing, but really, if you think the AGW consensus is manufactured then what do you believe is the goal?[/quote]
While it may not be the goal, a $3000 per year per family carbon tax would send the First World's lower class into a Third World's lifestyle.
http://www.wgnsradio.com/the-carbon-tax-and-how-it-could-affect-local-residents-by-3000/6882/
what exactly do you feel is the ulterior motive of 97% of the world's climatologists in their AGW conclusions? i know you don't trust anyone or any thing, but really, if you think the AGW consensus is manufactured then what do you believe is the goal?[/quote]
While it may not be the goal, a $3000 per year per family carbon tax would send the First World's lower class into a Third World's lifestyle.
http://www.wgnsradio.com/the-carbon-tax-and-how-it-could-affect-local-residents-by-3000/6882/
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Dammit. I want to contribute to these threads, but by the time I actually have the time to make my Big, Long Cock Post, ten more of y'all have popped in with all this stuff.
*sigh*
Whatever. Great big cock incoming, anyway.
*sigh*
Whatever. Great big cock incoming, anyway.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
First, the more... minor parts.[quote name='elprincipe']Of course not. You clearly worship at the altar of global warming (sorry, "climate change" for your propagandists) and brook no dissent. Regardless of whether there are valid arguments still playing out and further evidence being amassed about a subject we know relatively little about (climatology is a VERY young science), for you the issue is "settled" and anyone who dares claim otherwise is a "blasphemer."[/quote]
First off, calling it "climate change" makes you a propagandist? What the? How is using a more accurate, more nuanced term make you a propagandist? You are being far too melancholic, ellpee.
Second... look. Man. You know I love you. So it pains me to say this, but... all that stupid, childish bullshit. Alright? that ing () ing hypocritical bullshit. You can't go bitching that we're being insulting and then turn around and start flinging feces, alright? Cult! Propagandist! Fundamentalist! "Worship at the altar"!
off.
Running around with a sign painted on your back about "The deadliest lie and most dangerous cult" and all that shit doesn't exactly scream, "HAVE A REASONED DISCUSSION WITH ME!" It is a perfect mothering example of what you're chastising Koggit for. So... no. No. Don't be part of the problem, Global Warming dammit!
Now, as for the main of my post...
[quote name='tivo']700 are just those who have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists (which is 13 times more than the amount of scientists who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers) There are many other groups and individuals and more importantly, many more are converting to become skeptics.[/quote]Assuming that this is the same list that I'm thinking about, then you aren't the first person to post this, and this will not be the first time that I respond to it. Unfortunately, the search system on this site is total bullshit, and I'm trying to watch the Pittsburgh game here, so I can't bring up that old post. It was pretty good, though, by my standards. So here is the pathetic, bastard child of that old post.
Aside from Bryson, the most noteworthy-to-me name on that list of 700 is Dr. Fred Singer, Phillip Morris' bff (as well as an immovable denier of the contribution of CFCs to ozone depletion - something quite common in the list of names, too). There's also Sallie Baliunas, whose 2003 paper on climate change was met with disgust from the very people whose works she quote-mined. Now, where you're getting your money from does not necessarily invalidate your work, but it casts a Russia-sized cloud over your objectivity, don'cha think? You yourself say later on in the post that it "corrupts the science".
Also on that list? Luc Debontridder, who said, "As a scientist, I'd be absolutely crazy if I'd be saying CO² isn't the main cause of global warming." He also called his inclusion on the list "A complete misrepresentation." There's also Joanne Simpson, who said, "What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical." That quote often appears without the bolded part, for obvious reasons. Then there's Roekner. Then there's Eichler. Then there's...
This is a list of paid liars, unfortunately quote-mined individuals, economists, and weathermen.
So, yeah. the list, man. The only group of 700 that we don't hear enough of these days are the Thespians.
Totally got shafted by popular culture, man.
[quote name='tivo']Reid Bryson, the father of climatology, calls man-made global warming absurd.[/quote]Quantum Mechanics is bullshit. Black people are stupid. I don't want to sound too dismissive here, but this ain't the smoking gun (a phrase that I absolutely hate, but I've been working on thising post for too long).
[quote name='tivo']those believing in man-made global warming are extremely hostile to doubters and nonbelievers (as you exemplify) causing climate science to become more of political science. Political motives, research funding, investments, internet trolling and media attention all corrupt the science.[/quote]See: what I said above. It's like a negative feedback loop, only completelyed, self-feeding, and ever increasing.
...
So not really like a negative feedback loop at all. I just like saying "negative feedback loop".
[quote name='tivo']We should stop all research and accept the current position? Current positions never fail? Man's arrogance - he thinks he knows everything and believes he's affecting everything. A real scientist would want to continue research, watch changes, and monitor any efforts. But no. We heard enough from our sample group of climatologists. bull, you're no scientist, you're a politician, or at best, an administrator.[/quote]Please point me to where Koggit said that acting and researching are incompatible actions.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I've read several articles by scientists that basically can be distilled down to the argument that even if man has some small effect on climate, it's not big enough to get all worked up about. If the sun decided to burp in a couple of years, all the green technology green social programs won't mean shit. The sun itself has uncountable degrees of magnitude more effect on our climate than we can or do - so some rightly argue that maybe a moderate focus on adaptation survival contingencies are a wiser use of resources than an attempt at drastically altering entire global economies as quickly as possible out of fear.[/quote]So... because there are things that we can't control, we shouldn't attempt to control anything? I mean... I, for example, have no power over whether or not a black hole opens up tomorrow and swallows the planet. Soin' what? Might as well start smoking. Maybe I'll stop going to the doctor. And you know what? Having to walk to the kitchen tent just to grab a bite to eat is annoying. Next time, I'm gonna grab some chicken from there during supper and just bring it back to my own tent so that I can have a late-night snack. I mean, all of those things are significantly less lethal than the uncontrollable black hole, right?
(Full disclosure: I have no idea how lethal a black hole is. But it sures up Jewel Man or Gem Man or Diamond Man or whatever his name is.)
Finally, at the risk of appearing hypocritical given what I said to elprincipe...[quote name='thrustbucket']What's anyone's agenda that uses fear...[/quote]Of all of the people currently engaged in this conversation, I can think of noone more qualified to answer questions pertaining to fearmongering than you. Deadly lie! Dangerous cult! Conspiracy!
...
If it turns out I was thinking of level1 or something on here, then I am really gonna feel like a dick.
...
In conclusion,
First off, calling it "climate change" makes you a propagandist? What the
? How is using a more accurate, more nuanced term make you a propagandist? You are being far too melancholic, ellpee.Second... look. Man. You know I love you. So it pains me to say this, but...
all that stupid, childish bullshit. Alright? that ing () ing hypocritical bullshit. You can't go bitching that we're being insulting and then turn around and start flinging feces, alright? Cult! Propagandist! Fundamentalist! "Worship at the altar"! off.Running around with a sign painted on your back about "The deadliest lie and most dangerous cult" and all that shit doesn't exactly scream, "HAVE A REASONED DISCUSSION WITH ME!" It is a perfect mother
ing example of what you're chastising Koggit for. So... no. No. Don't be part of the problem, Global Warming dammit!Now, as for the main of my post...
[quote name='tivo']700 are just those who have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists (which is 13 times more than the amount of scientists who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers) There are many other groups and individuals and more importantly, many more are converting to become skeptics.[/quote]Assuming that this is the same list that I'm thinking about, then you aren't the first person to post this, and this will not be the first time that I respond to it. Unfortunately, the search system on this site is total bullshit, and I'm trying to watch the Pittsburgh game here, so I can't bring up that old post. It was pretty good, though, by my standards. So here is the pathetic, bastard child of that old post.
Aside from Bryson, the most noteworthy-to-me name on that list of 700 is Dr. Fred Singer, Phillip Morris' bff (as well as an immovable denier of the contribution of CFCs to ozone depletion - something quite common in the list of names, too). There's also Sallie Baliunas, whose 2003 paper on climate change was met with disgust from the very people whose works she quote-mined. Now, where you're getting your money from does not necessarily invalidate your work, but it casts a Russia-sized cloud over your objectivity, don'cha think? You yourself say later on in the post that it "corrupts the science".
Also on that list? Luc Debontridder, who said, "As a scientist, I'd be absolutely crazy if I'd be saying CO² isn't the main cause of global warming." He also called his inclusion on the list "A complete misrepresentation." There's also Joanne Simpson, who said, "What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical." That quote often appears without the bolded part, for obvious reasons. Then there's Roekner. Then there's Eichler. Then there's...
This is a list of paid liars, unfortunately quote-mined individuals, economists, and weathermen.
So, yeah.
the list, man. The only group of 700 that we don't hear enough of these days are the Thespians.Totally got shafted by popular culture, man.
[quote name='tivo']Reid Bryson, the father of climatology, calls man-made global warming absurd.[/quote]Quantum Mechanics is bullshit. Black people are stupid. I don't want to sound too dismissive here, but this ain't the smoking gun (a phrase that I absolutely hate, but I've been working on this
ing post for too long).[quote name='tivo']those believing in man-made global warming are extremely hostile to doubters and nonbelievers (as you exemplify) causing climate science to become more of political science. Political motives, research funding, investments, internet trolling and media attention all corrupt the science.[/quote]See: what I said above. It's like a negative feedback loop, only completely
ed, self-feeding, and ever increasing....
So not really like a negative feedback loop at all. I just like saying "negative feedback loop".
[quote name='tivo']We should stop all research and accept the current position? Current positions never fail? Man's arrogance - he thinks he knows everything and believes he's affecting everything. A real scientist would want to continue research, watch changes, and monitor any efforts. But no. We heard enough from our sample group of climatologists. bull, you're no scientist, you're a politician, or at best, an administrator.[/quote]Please point me to where Koggit said that acting and researching are incompatible actions.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I've read several articles by scientists that basically can be distilled down to the argument that even if man has some small effect on climate, it's not big enough to get all worked up about. If the sun decided to burp in a couple of years, all the green technology green social programs won't mean shit. The sun itself has uncountable degrees of magnitude more effect on our climate than we can or do - so some rightly argue that maybe a moderate focus on adaptation survival contingencies are a wiser use of resources than an attempt at drastically altering entire global economies as quickly as possible out of fear.[/quote]So... because there are things that we can't control, we shouldn't attempt to control anything? I mean... I, for example, have no power over whether or not a black hole opens up tomorrow and swallows the planet. So
in' what? Might as well start smoking. Maybe I'll stop going to the doctor. And you know what? Having to walk to the kitchen tent just to grab a bite to eat is annoying. Next time, I'm gonna grab some chicken from there during supper and just bring it back to my own tent so that I can have a late-night snack. I mean, all of those things are significantly less lethal than the uncontrollable black hole, right?(Full disclosure: I have no idea how lethal a black hole is. But it sure
s up Jewel Man or Gem Man or Diamond Man or whatever his name is.)Finally, at the risk of appearing hypocritical given what I said to elprincipe...[quote name='thrustbucket']What's anyone's agenda that uses fear...[/quote]Of all of the people currently engaged in this conversation, I can think of noone more qualified to answer questions pertaining to fearmongering than you. Deadly lie! Dangerous cult! Conspiracy!
...
If it turns out I was thinking of level1 or something on here, then I am really gonna feel like a dick.
...
In conclusion,
8======D
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']While it may not be the goal, a $3000 per year per family carbon tax would send the First World's lower class into a Third World's lifestyle.
http://www.wgnsradio.com/the-carbon-tax-and-how-it-could-affect-local-residents-by-3000/6882/[/QUOTE]
I don't wanna get into what would be required to prevent further damage or how those requirements should be achieved, but your post reminds me of when I turned on the radio this morning. A guy (actually it sounded like a computer-generated voice) was talking about the difference between the Hall of Human Origins and some creationist exhibit in Virginia or someplace.. his main argument was over Lucy, but the conclusion was something along the lines of "Both exhibits are based in religion. But one displays hopelessness, while the other exhibits love, peace and joy." Evolution is unsatisfying, therefore we should embrace creationism.
Inconvenience is not grounds for dismissal. Convenience plays no role in interpreting scientific data. If you wanna weigh cost vs risk after accepting it then that's one thing, but in debating the credibility of AWG, the cost of recovery has no place.
http://www.wgnsradio.com/the-carbon-tax-and-how-it-could-affect-local-residents-by-3000/6882/[/QUOTE]
I don't wanna get into what would be required to prevent further damage or how those requirements should be achieved, but your post reminds me of when I turned on the radio this morning. A guy (actually it sounded like a computer-generated voice) was talking about the difference between the Hall of Human Origins and some creationist exhibit in Virginia or someplace.. his main argument was over Lucy, but the conclusion was something along the lines of "Both exhibits are based in religion. But one displays hopelessness, while the other exhibits love, peace and joy." Evolution is unsatisfying, therefore we should embrace creationism.
Inconvenience is not grounds for dismissal. Convenience plays no role in interpreting scientific data. If you wanna weigh cost vs risk after accepting it then that's one thing, but in debating the credibility of AWG, the cost of recovery has no place.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']certain doom ultimately caused by dirty air.[/QUOTE]
Carbon dioxide is not "dirty air." You're breathing it out right now and plants are using it for food.
Charts like this one are a good reason to believe that we need more study in this area:
Carbon dioxide is not "dirty air." You're breathing it out right now and plants are using it for food.
Charts like this one are a good reason to believe that we need more study in this area:
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']First, the more... minor parts.
First off, calling it "climate change" makes you a propagandist? What the? How is using a more accurate, more nuanced term make you a propagandist? You are being far too melancholic, ellpee.
Second... look. Man. You know I love you. So it pains me to say this, but... all that stupid, childish bullshit. Alright? that ing () ing hypocritical bullshit. You can't go bitching that we're being insulting and then turn around and start flinging feces, alright? Cult! Propagandist! Fundamentalist! "Worship at the altar"!
off.
Running around with a sign painted on your back about "The deadliest lie and most dangerous cult" and all that shit doesn't exactly scream, "HAVE A REASONED DISCUSSION WITH ME!" It is a perfect mothering example of what you're chastising Koggit for. So... no. No. Don't be part of the problem, Global Warming dammit![/QUOTE]
Wow, who put a cock up your ass before (while ?) you wrote this? You're a funny guy, we get it!
I only use the terminology I use in this area because people with a certain belief system treat it almost as if it were a religion, not even accepting any fact that might call into question their acceptance of the theory of AGW. These folks are better spoken of as cultists than scientists.
I know it sounds high-and-mighty, but I do try to keep an open mind on this issue. I've read plenty of things on both sides of the argument and considered the evidence. Right now I don't think you can say for sure either way. Looking at this issue more on a geologic time scale, it's very difficult to take 120 years of spotty-at-best records and make a determination that 0.6 degrees of temperature increase is going to mean the end of the human race. OTOH, there are legitimate concerns the other way as well.
All of this is, surprisingly, immaterial to the debate in Congress over cap-and-trade. Even if the U.S. were to adopt the system being proposed, given the increases in emissions by China (the biggest CO2 emitter) and India and other developing countries, it would have a negligible impact at best. The plain fact is that the U.S. can't just unilaterally cut emissions and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus, cap-and-trade is a horrible idea that will actually make things worse when industries hurt by it just move to countries that have no restrictions (or look the other way while having supposed restrictions, such as many European countries who like to lecture us on the subject).
First off, calling it "climate change" makes you a propagandist? What the
? How is using a more accurate, more nuanced term make you a propagandist? You are being far too melancholic, ellpee.Second... look. Man. You know I love you. So it pains me to say this, but...
all that stupid, childish bullshit. Alright? that ing () ing hypocritical bullshit. You can't go bitching that we're being insulting and then turn around and start flinging feces, alright? Cult! Propagandist! Fundamentalist! "Worship at the altar"! off.Running around with a sign painted on your back about "The deadliest lie and most dangerous cult" and all that shit doesn't exactly scream, "HAVE A REASONED DISCUSSION WITH ME!" It is a perfect mother
ing example of what you're chastising Koggit for. So... no. No. Don't be part of the problem, Global Warming dammit![/QUOTE]Wow, who put a cock up your ass before (while ?) you wrote this? You're a funny guy, we get it!
I only use the terminology I use in this area because people with a certain belief system treat it almost as if it were a religion, not even accepting any fact that might call into question their acceptance of the theory of AGW. These folks are better spoken of as cultists than scientists.
I know it sounds high-and-mighty, but I do try to keep an open mind on this issue. I've read plenty of things on both sides of the argument and considered the evidence. Right now I don't think you can say for sure either way. Looking at this issue more on a geologic time scale, it's very difficult to take 120 years of spotty-at-best records and make a determination that 0.6 degrees of temperature increase is going to mean the end of the human race. OTOH, there are legitimate concerns the other way as well.
All of this is, surprisingly, immaterial to the debate in Congress over cap-and-trade. Even if the U.S. were to adopt the system being proposed, given the increases in emissions by China (the biggest CO2 emitter) and India and other developing countries, it would have a negligible impact at best. The plain fact is that the U.S. can't just unilaterally cut emissions and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus, cap-and-trade is a horrible idea that will actually make things worse when industries hurt by it just move to countries that have no restrictions (or look the other way while having supposed restrictions, such as many European countries who like to lecture us on the subject).
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Wow, who put a cock up your ass before (while ?) you wrote this? You're a funny guy, we get it![/quote]Oh, please. You and I both know that 'boo is a bottom.
[quote name='elprincipe']I only use the terminology I use in this area because people with a certain belief system treat it almost as if it were a religion, not even accepting any fact that might call into question their acceptance of the theory of AGW. These folks are better spoken of as cultists than scientists.[/quote]The specific bit of yours that I was objecting to was a response to Koggit's response to tivo. Do I think that calling basically Koggit a punch-drinking cultist for saying, "Bugger off, I ain't gonna argue with someone that puts words in my mouth." was uncalled for? Well... yeah, I do. Shocker!
[quote name='elprincipe']All of this is, surprisingly, immaterial to the debate in Congress over cap-and-trade. Even if the U.S. were to adopt the system being proposed, given the increases in emissions by China (the biggest CO2 emitter) and India and other developing countries, it would have a negligible impact at best. The plain fact is that the U.S. can't just unilaterally cut emissions and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus, cap-and-trade is a horrible idea that will actually make things worse when industries hurt by it just move to countries that have no restrictions (or look the other way while having supposed restrictions, such as many European countries who like to lecture us on the subject).[/quote]
Know what would solve that?
[quote name='elprincipe']I only use the terminology I use in this area because people with a certain belief system treat it almost as if it were a religion, not even accepting any fact that might call into question their acceptance of the theory of AGW. These folks are better spoken of as cultists than scientists.[/quote]The specific bit of yours that I was objecting to was a response to Koggit's response to tivo. Do I think that calling basically Koggit a punch-drinking cultist for saying, "Bugger off, I ain't gonna argue with someone that puts words in my mouth." was uncalled for? Well... yeah, I do. Shocker!
[quote name='elprincipe']All of this is, surprisingly, immaterial to the debate in Congress over cap-and-trade. Even if the U.S. were to adopt the system being proposed, given the increases in emissions by China (the biggest CO2 emitter) and India and other developing countries, it would have a negligible impact at best. The plain fact is that the U.S. can't just unilaterally cut emissions and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus, cap-and-trade is a horrible idea that will actually make things worse when industries hurt by it just move to countries that have no restrictions (or look the other way while having supposed restrictions, such as many European countries who like to lecture us on the subject).[/quote]
Know what would solve that?
One World Government.
Were you expecting another penis?
Last edited by a moderator:
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']Inconvenience is not grounds for dismissal. Convenience plays no role in interpreting scientific data. If you wanna weigh cost vs risk after accepting it then that's one thing, but in debating the credibility of AWG, the cost of recovery has no place.[/quote]
Fair enough. I accept global climate change as real. Considering humanity has attempted to control the environment since the invention of fire, it is irrelevant as to whether it is caused by the Sun or the smokestack.
To avoid the icecaps melting or some other consequence, how much should the average family pay?
Assuming the average family pays and the government mismanages the money, what recourse should the average family have?
Fair enough. I accept global climate change as real. Considering humanity has attempted to control the environment since the invention of fire, it is irrelevant as to whether it is caused by the Sun or the smokestack.
To avoid the icecaps melting or some other consequence, how much should the average family pay?
Assuming the average family pays and the government mismanages the money, what recourse should the average family have?
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Fair enough. I accept global climate change as real. Considering humanity has attempted to control the environment since the invention of fire, it is irrelevant as to whether it is caused by the Sun or the smokestack.
To avoid the icecaps melting or some other consequence, how much should the average family pay?[/quote]Origin is not irrelevant given your question. If someone is dying, then you can not simply tell the doctor, "Okay, fix him." Whether the guy's having a heart attack or has a a knife in his back has a major impact on what steps are taken to correct the situation.
To avoid the icecaps melting or some other consequence, how much should the average family pay?[/quote]Origin is not irrelevant given your question. If someone is dying, then you can not simply tell the doctor, "Okay, fix him." Whether the guy's having a heart attack or has a a knife in his back has a major impact on what steps are taken to correct the situation.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Why does it matter if India and China won't live up to their end of the bargain in the end? Shouldn't we be striving to show the world that cutting emissions is a good thing?
I think I subscribe to the Green Movement mostly because I'd like to see less big black smoke clouds bellowing out of factories and semi trucks. I don't think growing up in the city should be a prescription for asthma, emphysema, and other respiratory disorders. We should be striving towards cleaning our air just for the sake of our health even if it's not proven to help stop global warming.
As for taxes, the whole system ised and needs to be re-written. I like the progressive system but there's too much abuse.
I think I subscribe to the Green Movement mostly because I'd like to see less big black smoke clouds bellowing out of factories and semi trucks. I don't think growing up in the city should be a prescription for asthma, emphysema, and other respiratory disorders. We should be striving towards cleaning our air just for the sake of our health even if it's not proven to help stop global warming.
As for taxes, the whole system is
ed and needs to be re-written. I like the progressive system but there's too much abuse.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']Origin is not irrelevant given your question. If someone is dying, then you can not simply tell the doctor, "Okay, fix him." Whether the guy's having a heart attack or has a a knife in his back has a major impact on what steps are taken to correct the situation.[/quote]
I disagree and don't use double negatives. They confuse me.
The consensus is that our world is headed in a certain direction due to climate change. Solutions need to be how to reverse the direction or increase the amount of time we collectively have until we reach a "bad" point.
I don't think reversing or slowing climate change in one way is going to undo another way of reversing or slowing climate change. Of course, it might overdo it.
I disagree and don't use double negatives. They confuse me.
The consensus is that our world is headed in a certain direction due to climate change. Solutions need to be how to reverse the direction or increase the amount of time we collectively have until we reach a "bad" point.
I don't think reversing or slowing climate change in one way is going to undo another way of reversing or slowing climate change. Of course, it might overdo it.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I disagree and don't use double negatives. They confuse me.
The consensus is that our world is headed in a certain direction due to climate change. Solutions need to be how to reverse the direction or increase the amount of time we collectively have until we reach a "bad" point.
I don't think reversing or slowing climate change in one way is going to undo another way of reversing or slowing climate change. Of course, it might overdo it.[/quote]
Hrmph. My understanding of what you said is this (and correct me if I am wrong): whether it's the sun or us or something else entirely, you want to know how much it will cost to counteract it.
I say: you can not ask for cost while ignoring origin. If all our carbon dioxide and methane and whatnot are not really having any impact and it's all the sun - the sun, by the way - then the means we take to counteract this would be drastically different, and thus, the costs would not not not not be different.
You say: something, something. To be honest, I'm not sure what the hell your last post was about. Something about a moose that bit your sister or something.
The consensus is that our world is headed in a certain direction due to climate change. Solutions need to be how to reverse the direction or increase the amount of time we collectively have until we reach a "bad" point.
I don't think reversing or slowing climate change in one way is going to undo another way of reversing or slowing climate change. Of course, it might overdo it.[/quote]
Hrmph. My understanding of what you said is this (and correct me if I am wrong): whether it's the sun or us or something else entirely, you want to know how much it will cost to counteract it.
I say: you can not ask for cost while ignoring origin. If all our carbon dioxide and methane and whatnot are not really having any impact and it's all the sun -
the sun, by the way - then the means we take to counteract this would be drastically different, and thus, the costs would not not not not be different.You say: something, something. To be honest, I'm not sure what the hell your last post was about. Something about a moose that bit your sister or something.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']Hrmph. My understanding of what you said is this (and correct me if I am wrong): whether it's the sun or us or something else entirely, you want to know how much it will cost to counteract it.
I say: you can not ask for cost while ignoring origin. If all our carbon dioxide and methane and whatnot are not really having any impact and it's all the sun - the sun, by the way - then the means we take to counteract this would be drastically different, and thus, the costs would not not not not be different.
You say: something, something. To be honest, I'm not sure what the hell your last post was about. Something about a moose that bit your sister or something.[/quote]
You can ignore cost while ignoring origin.
If global climate change was caused entirely by the Sun, are we simply going to accept icecaps melting, the oceans claiming the another 10% of the surface, the spread of more insect and their diseases and whatever else accompanies global warming?
I doubt it. We don't accept freezing to death in the winter simply because it got 80 degrees F colder.
I would rather focus on solutions.
Let's say scientists say global climate will cost $X to counteract in the United States.
The correct responses then are:
A.) Here's $X.
B.) Off. I need something else more.
C.) Give me more options.
I understand the methods to remove methane or carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are different from diverting solar energy from reaching the planet. However, there would be the same positive effect of reversing or slowing climate change until there are no more sources of greenhouse gases on the planet or no more solar energy reaches the planet.
I say: you can not ask for cost while ignoring origin. If all our carbon dioxide and methane and whatnot are not really having any impact and it's all the sun -
the sun, by the way - then the means we take to counteract this would be drastically different, and thus, the costs would not not not not be different.You say: something, something. To be honest, I'm not sure what the hell your last post was about. Something about a moose that bit your sister or something.[/quote]
You can ignore cost while ignoring origin.
If global climate change was caused entirely by the Sun, are we simply going to accept icecaps melting, the oceans claiming the another 10% of the surface, the spread of more insect and their diseases and whatever else accompanies global warming?
I doubt it. We don't accept freezing to death in the winter simply because it got 80 degrees F colder.
I would rather focus on solutions.
Let's say scientists say global climate will cost $X to counteract in the United States.
The correct responses then are:
A.) Here's $X.
B.)
Off. I need something else more.C.) Give me more options.
I understand the methods to remove methane or carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are different from diverting solar energy from reaching the planet. However, there would be the same positive effect of reversing or slowing climate change until there are no more sources of greenhouse gases on the planet or no more solar energy reaches the planet.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Fair enough. I accept global climate change as real. Considering humanity has attempted to control the environment since the invention of fire, it is irrelevant as to whether it is caused by the Sun or the smokestack.
To avoid the icecaps melting or some other consequence, how much should the average family pay?
Assuming the average family pays and the government mismanages the money, what recourse should the average family have?[/QUOTE]
you: it would suck to fix climate change.
me: no, stfu, the argument is over AGW.
you: okay i accept global warming. but no matter how it's caused, how do you propose to fix it?
NO.
do you even know what AGW is? i will repeat: the argument is over AGW. you cannot say 'fine, it doesn't matter whether anthropogenic or not'.. whether anthropogenic or not is the crux of this discussion.
and yes, it makes a difference. it makes an enormous difference. saying that shit just proves how ignorant you are. natural climate change is (has been for billions of years) slow enough not to be a problem. if it's part of the natural cycle it'll increase a few degrees over millions of years. MILLIONS. and that's during the most rapid shifts, it's more often hundreds of millions of years. it's a complete non-issue. humans will be extinct before we have to worry about geologic temperature changes. so non-issue.
by contrast, if GHGs are to blame, as most scientists believe, then the change will be rapid and unstable. there are many ways in which we can minimize future damage and reverse some of the effect of what we've already done (artificial plankton blooms, iron deposits, energy alternatives, etc). hell, we could look into genetically engineering livestock to produce less methane. there are a ridiculous amount of possibilities, an incredible number of avenues to consider. and, yes, those projects have to be paid for, but in the grand scheme of things the cost is minimal (taxation has little effect on GDP when invested domestically -- federal R&D investments, no matter the project, strengthen America's global economic standing, and some of the legislation & projects would be free [or damn near]).
god dammit, you've made me do it.. you've spread out the argument over so many unrelated points that you've weaseled out of confronting the original argument: AWG. stop pretending it's political.
To avoid the icecaps melting or some other consequence, how much should the average family pay?
Assuming the average family pays and the government mismanages the money, what recourse should the average family have?[/QUOTE]
you: it would suck to fix climate change.
me: no, stfu, the argument is over AGW.
you: okay i accept global warming. but no matter how it's caused, how do you propose to fix it?
NO.
do you even know what AGW is? i will repeat: the argument is over AGW. you cannot say 'fine, it doesn't matter whether anthropogenic or not'.. whether anthropogenic or not is the crux of this discussion.
and yes, it makes a difference. it makes an enormous difference. saying that shit just proves how ignorant you are. natural climate change is (has been for billions of years) slow enough not to be a problem. if it's part of the natural cycle it'll increase a few degrees over millions of years. MILLIONS. and that's during the most rapid shifts, it's more often hundreds of millions of years. it's a complete non-issue. humans will be extinct before we have to worry about geologic temperature changes. so non-issue.
by contrast, if GHGs are to blame, as most scientists believe, then the change will be rapid and unstable. there are many ways in which we can minimize future damage and reverse some of the effect of what we've already done (artificial plankton blooms, iron deposits, energy alternatives, etc). hell, we could look into genetically engineering livestock to produce less methane. there are a ridiculous amount of possibilities, an incredible number of avenues to consider. and, yes, those projects have to be paid for, but in the grand scheme of things the cost is minimal (taxation has little effect on GDP when invested domestically -- federal R&D investments, no matter the project, strengthen America's global economic standing, and some of the legislation & projects would be free [or damn near]).
god dammit, you've made me do it.. you've spread out the argument over so many unrelated points that you've weaseled out of confronting the original argument: AWG. stop pretending it's political.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']if it's part of the natural cycle it'll increase a few degrees over millions of years. MILLIONS. and that's during the most rapid shifts, it's more often hundreds of millions of years. it's a complete non-issue. humans will be extinct before we have to worry about geologic temperature changes. so non-issue.[/quote]
Not true at all. Temperatures have changed drastically in just a few years. See this page for quick reference:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
It shouldn't be political, but sadly it has become so. It should be based purely on science, but people on all sides of the argument have indulged in ignoring/marginalizing evidence to make me very suspicious of motives.
Not true at all. Temperatures have changed drastically in just a few years. See this page for quick reference:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
It shouldn't be political, but sadly it has become so. It should be based purely on science, but people on all sides of the argument have indulged in ignoring/marginalizing evidence to make me very suspicious of motives.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I understand the methods to remove methane or carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are different from diverting solar energy from reaching the planet. However, there would be the same positive effect of reversing or slowing climate change until there are no more sources of greenhouse gases on the planet or no more solar energy reaches the planet.[/quote]
So... even though you recognize that the methods would be totally different, you insist that the costs would be the same? I'm really having trouble following what you're saying, here. I mean... you asked Koggit to give you a specific amount of money required, but I have no godly idea what that money is required for. What does "There would be the same positive effect" have to do with cost of implementation?
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']ah the vs forum. where every thread ultimately comes down to gay marriage and/or global warming.[/quote]
Gay marriage is the number three contributor of methane gas in Canada.
So... even though you recognize that the methods would be totally different, you insist that the costs would be the same? I'm really having trouble following what you're saying, here. I mean... you asked Koggit to give you a specific amount of money required, but I have no godly idea what that money is required for. What does "There would be the same positive effect" have to do with cost of implementation?
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']ah the vs forum. where every thread ultimately comes down to gay marriage and/or global warming.[/quote]
Gay marriage is the number three contributor of methane gas in Canada.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']So... even though you recognize that the methods would be totally different, you insist that the costs would be the same? I'm really having trouble following what you're saying, here. I mean... you asked Koggit to give you a specific amount of money required, but I have no godly idea what that money is required for. What does "There would be the same positive effect" have to do with cost of implementation?
[/quote]
I'll try another analogy. Let's assume we're on a flat two dimensional board. Fall off the edge and bad things happen. Are you lost yet?
Global cooling, global warming, global climate change, AWG or whatever bait-and-switch term of the month is considered moving northeast. Let it go on for too long, we fall off the north or east side of the board. Are you lost yet?
You and Koggit appear to fixated on determining exactly where southwest is whereas I'm looking for ways to move south or west. Does that make any sense to you? I understand Koggit won't understand the analogy because he didn't think of it first and there isn't nearly enough jargon.
...
The questions posed to Koggit are how much should the average family pay to counteract horrible global warming and what recourse should the average family have when the money taken doesn't have the desired result?
I'm sure he answered the questions, but I'm far too ignorant to understand. I agree with him, but I'm not agreeing with him in the right way. I didn't believe in Jesus Christ the right way either.
...
Finally, the desire to reverse global warming is ultimately futile unless the actions of 2 or 3 billion people across China, India, the Middle East and Africa are countered as well.
[/quote]
I'll try another analogy. Let's assume we're on a flat two dimensional board. Fall off the edge and bad things happen. Are you lost yet?
Global cooling, global warming, global climate change, AWG or whatever bait-and-switch term of the month is considered moving northeast. Let it go on for too long, we fall off the north or east side of the board. Are you lost yet?
You and Koggit appear to fixated on determining exactly where southwest is whereas I'm looking for ways to move south or west. Does that make any sense to you? I understand Koggit won't understand the analogy because he didn't think of it first and there isn't nearly enough jargon.
...
The questions posed to Koggit are how much should the average family pay to counteract horrible global warming and what recourse should the average family have when the money taken doesn't have the desired result?
I'm sure he answered the questions, but I'm far too ignorant to understand. I agree with him, but I'm not agreeing with him in the right way. I didn't believe in Jesus Christ the right way either.
...
Finally, the desire to reverse global warming is ultimately futile unless the actions of 2 or 3 billion people across China, India, the Middle East and Africa are countered as well.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'll try another analogy. Let's assume we're on a flat two dimensional board. Fall off the edge and bad things happen. Are you lost yet?
Global cooling, global warming, global climate change, AWG or whatever bait-and-switch term of the month is considered moving northeast. Let it go on for too long, we fall off the north or east side of the board. Are you lost yet?
You and Koggit appear to fixated on determining exactly where southwest is whereas I'm looking for ways to move south or west. Does that make any sense to you? I understand Koggit won't understand the analogy because he didn't think of it first and there isn't nearly enough jargon.[/quote]It makes sense, but I believe that you have misrepresented the positions entirely. I would argue that you are not "looking for ways to go south and/or west", but rather, asking Koggit how much gas it will take to get there without any consideration for how we're going to go about it. Point is, I'm saying that your initial question here was totally unfair.
...
What was the topic of this thread again? Shining Force 2, you say? Man, that turtle was a beast for the first half or so, but he really dropped off towards the end. Just not enough HP.
Global cooling, global warming, global climate change, AWG or whatever bait-and-switch term of the month is considered moving northeast. Let it go on for too long, we fall off the north or east side of the board. Are you lost yet?
You and Koggit appear to fixated on determining exactly where southwest is whereas I'm looking for ways to move south or west. Does that make any sense to you? I understand Koggit won't understand the analogy because he didn't think of it first and there isn't nearly enough jargon.[/quote]It makes sense, but I believe that you have misrepresented the positions entirely. I would argue that you are not "looking for ways to go south and/or west", but rather, asking Koggit how much gas it will take to get there without any consideration for how we're going to go about it. Point is, I'm saying that your initial question here was totally unfair.
...
What was the topic of this thread again? Shining Force 2, you say? Man, that turtle was a beast for the first half or so, but he really dropped off towards the end. Just not enough HP.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Not true at all. Temperatures have changed drastically in just a few years. See this page for quick reference:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
[/quote]
The only problem is that graph shows a time scale of thousands of years while we're seeing temperature spikes over decades now.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
[/quote]
The only problem is that graph shows a time scale of thousands of years while we're seeing temperature spikes over decades now.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']which once again shows that california is a world leader is a cutting green house emissions.[/quote]
The South is right behind them though.
The South is right behind them though.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']It makes sense, but I believe that you have misrepresented the positions entirely. I would argue that you are not "looking for ways to go south and/or west", but rather, asking Koggit how much gas it will take to get there without any consideration for how we're going to go about it. Point is, I'm saying that your initial question here was totally unfair.
[/quote]
I haven't really dug into the $3000 per year per family carbon tax. There is more than one point of view.
http://www.wgnsradio.com/the-carbon-tax-and-how-it-could-affect-local-residents-by-3000/6882/
http://washingtonindependent.com/37029/the-3000-light-switch-tax-myth
I was skimming through http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146.pdf using "alternative" as a search term. I didn't see a lot about the carbon tax being used to fund alternative energy, but I didn't read the report in full. Of course, that may not have been within the scope of the report.
To vaguely attempt to get back on topic, I'm betting the government will collect the carbon tax and use it as a tool to bankrupt more people instead of developing sustainable energy. Additionally, I'm sure the government will make it harder for middle class or lower upper class people to produce their own green electricity on their own land.
[/quote]
I haven't really dug into the $3000 per year per family carbon tax. There is more than one point of view.
http://www.wgnsradio.com/the-carbon-tax-and-how-it-could-affect-local-residents-by-3000/6882/
http://washingtonindependent.com/37029/the-3000-light-switch-tax-myth
I was skimming through http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146.pdf using "alternative" as a search term. I didn't see a lot about the carbon tax being used to fund alternative energy, but I didn't read the report in full. Of course, that may not have been within the scope of the report.
To vaguely attempt to get back on topic, I'm betting the government will collect the carbon tax and use it as a tool to bankrupt more people instead of developing sustainable energy. Additionally, I'm sure the government will make it harder for middle class or lower upper class people to produce their own green electricity on their own land.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
The government is in the business of making people dependent on them. Who needs a big government if everyone comes up? It doesn't matter if it's the Dems or Repubs. They want America dumb, lazy, and broke.
bread's done