Obama wins Nobel Peace prize

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by burlesontiger, Oct 9, 2009.

Page 16 of 17
  1. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Pants on fire, nose as long as a telphone wire.
     
    SabanFan, Oct 20, 2009
    #151
  2. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    what? my side has always been that we dont have proof or know how things effect each other. you said earlier in the thread that global warming means warm water which means hurricanes. but you said that because you are woefully ignorant about the science.

    then explain to me again why you do not oppose the carbon credits thing.

    (i am aware that that is one of the issues you are desperate to not take a stand on, but try)
     
    martin, Oct 20, 2009
    #152
  3. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    and what percetntage of the warming (although, again, it hasnt actually warmed since the 90's and we mostly cooled between the 40's and 70's) is caused by humans and what % is caused by natural causes? how can you know? YOU CANT.
     
    martin, Oct 20, 2009
    #153
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    It accurately describes Emmanuel's conclusions. You disagree, so what?

    You've made that mistake before and been exposed as foolish. And stop trying to discredit my responses before I make them. It's a childish exercise, practiced by losers unsure of their own position.

    Because I think it works. It worked with acid rain and business did not collapse as its opponents rashly predicted. As I explained before, cap & trade itself works. Now, the energy bill that contains cap and trade also contains a lot of poison provisions having nothing to do with the cap & trade policy that may make it unpalatable, but it ain't finalized yet either.

    STOP trying to characterize my position, stick to your own silly notions.

    If you are going to continue to pose a question to me and try to answer it yourself first, I'm done with you. You refuse to conduct an honest debate. Read the IPCC report and you would know the answer.
     
    red55, Oct 20, 2009
    #154
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    do you or do you not agree with scientific consensus? if you do, then you were ignorant about hurricanes. there is no consensus, and you were wrong.


    it works to what end? stopping global warming? again, YOU are the one with the political agenda, not me. you are the one trying to get legislation through that crushes people in the name of the environment. YOU are the one using science for political purposes. i do not favor any action based on climate science. do you not see how this works? allow the science and the politics to be intertwined, and the science is ruined.
     
    martin, Oct 20, 2009
    #155
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    What an illogical conclusion! Go back to school, Harry Potter. Just because a consensus exists about AGW doesn't mean that it must exist for every other scientific phenomenon in the world. The issue that you choose has a lively debate going on. Citing one author's conclusions doesn't make me wrong about anything.

    Gobbledegook. I have defended the science of global warming on this thread. Period.

    We have discussed the politics of global warming in other threads and I have mixed feelings about them depending on the individual issue. My political beliefs on climate change policy are based not only on the science, but also on the economics and social realities and especially the cost/benefit ratio.

    But Nowhere have I ever used a political belief as scientific evidence, as you continually attempt to do. It is you that always endeavors to derail a scientific discussion into a political rant for reasons that I've already pointed out.
     
    red55, Oct 20, 2009
    #156
  7. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    agreed, so go back in this thread to when you ignorantly claimed that warmer water means more hurricanes and tell yourself that.


    you also said that you believe that cap and trade "works". what do you mean by that if not that it reduces carbon for the purposes of lessening global warming? so pay attention, junior, you are making policy based on your science, you are intertwining things that shouldnt be intertwined.


    goofball, the cost benefit analysis you are speaking of is based on the "benefit" of reducing global warming. and when i ask you what sort of benefit this is, you just refuse! how much will it cost humankind that the globe is warming? how can we know that the warming will be stopped at all? how can we know the warming is not a benefit? these are all scientific questions that you do not have the answer for, but pretend to in order to influence policy.


    again, you simply dont understand this issue. why do you think we are not arguing chaos theory here? because it hasnt been politicized! youa re the one trying to force policy on us based on this! you are the one that is pretending to understand the costs and benefits of carbon cap and trade enough to favor the policy!

    the rest of make no claims about our ability as humans to influence something we definitely do not understand, the climate. but you and barack and al gore and the political left, you have all the answers, your science is inextricably intertwined with justifying big government policy.
     
    martin, Oct 20, 2009
    #157
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Of course.

    I answered a direct question from you about a concept that has been proven to work for sulphur and it will work for carbon. I also pointed out that that is different from promoting the energy bill under consideration. If you are too dim or too obstinate to grok that, it ain't my problem.

    No it's not Einstein. It's simply about how much carbon is reduced for what expense. Cheap solutions are no brainers, expensive solutions have to be weighed carefully and sometimes are not worth the expense. Balance is the key--tangible benefits for a reasonable cost.


    I will not answer questions if you continue to try to characterize them before i can answer. It's cheap propaganda, not honest discussion.

    I understand it far better than you, Gilligan.

    By having an opinion? Don't be a hysterical pussy.

    Prove it.
     
    red55, Oct 20, 2009
    #158
  9. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    tell that to red efore he flip-flopped:

    again, NOT TRUE, ignorant.

    so carbon needs to be reduced? why? your science? fine. just dont be too weak to admit you are using science to accomplish your policy goals. i am not. i do not favor any policy restricting anything based on climate models that are totally unproven. and i definitely know there is no evidence that a warmer earth is a worse earth. but you have it all figured out eh?


    i dont need to prove it, you just claimed the policy for cap and trade on carbon will "work". how can you possibly know that? we dont even fully understand the relationship between carbon and global temperature, or even if temperature changes are bad!
     
    martin, Oct 20, 2009
    #159
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Again, NOT PROVEN, obstinate.

    That's right.

    You have failed to prove anything, once again. I cited an example of cap & trade having already worked before. You have offered nothing to support your contention that "we can't possibly know" that it works.
     
    red55, Oct 20, 2009
    #160
Page 16 of 17

Share This Page