http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Which is why I don’t correct Dr. Matt and Aragorn on any scientific question that is remotely technical–and why either of them would ruin any of us in a debate related to science, as I am told has happened in the past. It is why I don’t correct Dr. S on any Torah-or-medicine-related question that is remotely technical, and I don’t correct Beans on any tax-related question that is remotely technical.[/quote]
And neither do I. However, they haven’t spent the last thirty years making apocalyptic predictions that all turn out to be baloney.[/quote]
You are returning to a logical fallacy for which you’ve already been corrected, and not only by me.
Not every climatologist has “spent the last thirty years making apocalyptic predictions that all turn out to be baloney.” You are again addressing your attention to the imprudent extreme of a group that includes many cool and reasonable credentialed experts. It was clear by the way that I framed this hypothetical that you were not up against some guy who said we’d be swimming down Park Avenue by 2010. Thus, my argument stands. You go up against a mainstream, top-tier PhD whose view is representative of what I’ve been saying in this thread (which in turn is representative of a calm and rational measurement of the consensus opinion among climatologists). You argue whatever it is you’re arguing about AGW being hokum or negligible. Do you think for a minute that you win? Or tie?[/quote]
You are completely mischaracterising mainstream climate science. I’ll make this as simple as possible: please show me one climate model produced in the last thirty years that has not been spectacularly wrong. Please show me a model that has proved to be accurate and can be relied upon to accurately predict future climate change attributable to carbon dioxide.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html[/quote]
Millions of people in the third world die because they don’t have electricity thus no refrigeration, poor sanitation etc. The UN and the international community are wasting enormous amounts of money and resources on carbon reduction and closing down power plants. This money would better be spent on reforestation, desalination, medicine and medical equipment, power plants, education etc.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You are completely mischaracterising mainstream climate science. I’ll make this as simple as possible: please show me one climate model produced in the last thirty years that has not been spectacularly wrong. Please show me a model that has proved to be accurate and can be relied upon to accurately predict future climate change attributable to carbon dioxide.
[/quote]
This is a regurgitation of an argument made by someone else a few pages ago. My responses to you are exactly the responses I gave to him.
Now, what is your answer to my question? Do you think you’d hold your own in that thought experiment, or not? Your evidential argument and his. Would you even participate in such an event?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You are completely mischaracterising mainstream climate science. I’ll make this as simple as possible: please show me one climate model produced in the last thirty years that has not been spectacularly wrong. Please show me a model that has proved to be accurate and can be relied upon to accurately predict future climate change attributable to carbon dioxide.
[/quote]
This is a regurgitation of an argument made by someone else a few pages ago. My responses to you are exactly the responses I gave to him.
Now, what is your answer to my question? Do you think you’d hold your own in that thought experiment, or not? Your evidential argument and his. Would you even participate in such an event? [/quote]
I can tell you one thing. I’ve got many pertinent questions that they’d be unable or unwilling to answer.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html[/quote]
Millions of people in the third world die because they don’t have electricity thus no refrigeration, poor sanitation etc. The UN and the international community are wasting enormous amounts of money and resources on carbon reduction and closing down power plants. This money would better be spent on reforestation, desalination, medicine and medical equipment, power plants, education etc.[/quote]
You will have to excuse me while I say BULLSHIT . If there were that amount of money lying around , you would be clamouring like the rest of the Republicans that the very , very , very wealthy get a tax break.
It is not our duty to house ,feed or heal these fucking heathens 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html[/quote]
Millions of people in the third world die because they don’t have electricity thus no refrigeration, poor sanitation etc. The UN and the international community are wasting enormous amounts of money and resources on carbon reduction and closing down power plants. This money would better be spent on reforestation, desalination, medicine and medical equipment, power plants, education etc.[/quote]
You will have to excuse me while I say BULLSHIT . If there were that amount of money lying around , you would be clamouring like the rest of the Republicans that the very , very , very wealthy get a tax break.
It is not our duty to house ,feed or heal these fucking heathens
[/quote]
Yes okay pit. Republicans are all evil and just want tax breaks for billionaires. Whatever you say.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html[/quote]
Millions of people in the third world die because they don’t have electricity thus no refrigeration, poor sanitation etc. The UN and the international community are wasting enormous amounts of money and resources on carbon reduction and closing down power plants. This money would better be spent on reforestation, desalination, medicine and medical equipment, power plants, education etc.[/quote]
You will have to excuse me while I say BULLSHIT . If there were that amount of money lying around , you would be clamouring like the rest of the Republicans that the very , very , very wealthy get a tax break.
It is not our duty to house ,feed or heal these fucking heathens
[/quote]
Yes okay pit. Republicans are all evil and just want tax breaks for billionaires. Whatever you say.
[/quote]
Yeah Pitt you have to admit that conservatives around here are arguing for tax breaks for everybody, not just for the wealthy.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html[/quote]
Millions of people in the third world die because they don’t have electricity thus no refrigeration, poor sanitation etc. The UN and the international community are wasting enormous amounts of money and resources on carbon reduction and closing down power plants. This money would better be spent on reforestation, desalination, medicine and medical equipment, power plants, education etc.[/quote]
You will have to excuse me while I say BULLSHIT . If there were that amount of money lying around , you would be clamouring like the rest of the Republicans that the very , very , very wealthy get a tax break.
It is not our duty to house ,feed or heal these fucking heathens
[/quote]
This statement makes absolutely no sense neither on its own nor in the context in which it was written. Your blind allegiance to a political party that has just as much disinterest in you as the other party has caused you to become completely incoherent.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html[/quote]
Millions of people in the third world die because they don’t have electricity thus no refrigeration, poor sanitation etc. The UN and the international community are wasting enormous amounts of money and resources on carbon reduction and closing down power plants. This money would better be spent on reforestation, desalination, medicine and medical equipment, power plants, education etc.[/quote]
You will have to excuse me while I say BULLSHIT . If there were that amount of money lying around , you would be clamouring like the rest of the Republicans that the very , very , very wealthy get a tax break.
It is not our duty to house ,feed or heal these fucking heathens
[/quote]
Yes okay pit. Republicans are all evil and just want tax breaks for billionaires. Whatever you say.
[/quote]
Yeah Pitt you have to admit that conservatives around here are arguing for tax breaks for everybody, not just for the wealthy.[/quote]
Actually the flat tax and fair tax proposals are actually a dastardly Republican plot ensure that the richest. 0.00000000001% don’t pay any tax. Didn’t you know?
With the exacerbation of income inequality, good luck selling tax breaks for the wealthy.
This isn’t the time. I think they’ll manage food, shelter, lawn care, and vacation homes with the status quo.
Edit: If the trend continues much longer, maybe they can get tax breaks for contracting private security.
The next time I hear about evil Republicans wanting tax breaks for rich corporations, I am going to go full fucking ham in this bitch.
“State lawmaker Raul Bocanegra is leading an aggressive push, along with entertainment companies and Hollywood unions, to hand out as much as $2 billion in new tax breaks to increase movie and television production in California, which has lost business to states like New York with far more generous subsidies. Last year, for the first time, more studio movies were filmed in Louisiana than in California, according to the nonprofit FilmL.A.”
I personally think that Mitt paying a lower tax rate than Pitt is the Republican Agenda.
IMO the biggest issue with making changes to our carbon out putt is , that if we do not demand the same standards from our trading partners , then we are putting American producers at a huge disadvantage
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Global Warming is a super hot, mucho caliente political football that stomach cancer and weapons engineering aren’t.
[/quote]
Of course it is.
That does not change anything about the point I made, which is still, as ever, standing tall.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But alas, truth be known, this ain’t really, really about science.[/quote]
I’ll come back to this in a second.
I do not disagree with you that money, power, and ideology are involved to the great detriment of verity and rightness. I do not disagree with you that it would be calamitous for us to hand a blank political check to some hyperventilating Bill Maher type. I do not disagree with you that there’s a lot of bullshit to cut through.
However, if you don’t think science is actually involved–and that’s what I’m talking about, the science–then you haven’t looked at the actual work that’s been done. Not by Mediamatters or Huffpo or Al Gore. By the kind of researcher whom you’re up against in my “what if.” They are out there, and they are highly credentialed and extremely intelligent good scientists.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Which is why I don’t correct Dr. Matt and Aragorn on any scientific question that is remotely technical–and why either of them would ruin any of us in a debate related to science, as I am told has happened in the past. It is why I don’t correct Dr. S on any Torah-or-medicine-related question that is remotely technical, and I don’t correct Beans on any tax-related question that is remotely technical.[/quote]
Whatever happened to the credo of the 1960’s, “Question Authority?”
While I am honored to placed among my friends, I emphasize that we are all learning here. To learn means to question one’s understanding of and one’s experience.
Regarding the medicine part–no one is ever “right;” we come close, something new happens, the theory is reviewed, rejected, or improved. And then we start again.
It is not about appealing to authority. Even my authority. It is about challenging the accepted wisdom, particularly when critical choices in behavior are proposed.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Which is why I don’t correct Dr. Matt and Aragorn on any scientific question that is remotely technical–and why either of them would ruin any of us in a debate related to science, as I am told has happened in the past. It is why I don’t correct Dr. S on any Torah-or-medicine-related question that is remotely technical, and I don’t correct Beans on any tax-related question that is remotely technical.[/quote]
Whatever happened to the credo of the 1960’s, “Question Authority?”
While I am honored to placed among my friends, I emphasize that we are all learning here. To learn means to question one’s understanding of and one’s experience.
Regarding the medicine part–no one is ever “right;” we come close, something new happens, the theory is reviewed, rejected, or improved. And then we start again.
It is not about appealing to authority. Even my authority. It is about challenging the accepted wisdom, particularly when critical choices in behavior are proposed.[/quote]
Well, this is why I added the “that is remotely technical” clause. Of course I enjoy questioning authority in the general sense. In fact I absolutely love it.
The problem with a debate that is less political than technical, or as political as it is technical, is that in order to question Dr. Matt on the intricacies of particle physics, for example, I would have to do more reading and more studying and more research than I can/will. In fact, I’d literally have to become a PhD in Physics. And unfortunately my schedule is rather cluttered this week. Perhaps in June.