Global Warming Pie Chart

[ClosedCaption]

After 30 pages that's a safe bet wouldn't you say

 

[Foxfyre]

After 30 pages that's a safe bet wouldn't you say

Yep a very safe bet. You have consistently accused me of saying what I haven't said, accused me of thinking what I don't think, accused me of wanting what I don't want, and accused me of posting what I didn't post. So its a pretty safe bet that if you accuse me of ignoring your questions, that you are wrong about that too. If I overlooked a serious question though, please ask it again in a way it can be answered, and I'll do my best.

However, in your defense, I frequently do ignore questions asked after I have answered them, or questions that aren't questions at all but are rather personal attacks, and I get tired pretty quickly of circular arguments by those who have no interest in discussing a topic but are only interested in demonizing or accusing others and do so dishonestly.

So it is quite possible that I have been unresponsive here and there. Don't hold your breath for an apology though.

 

[ClosedCaption]

yeah except all I'm saying is pro vs con. Your so wrapped up in who would be getting money that you're against doing anything for the planet we all live on. If we were talking about not cutting your front lawn...ok, you would have to deal with the ticks, bugs, weeds etc.

We're talking about not doing anything for the entire block (for example) and you want everyone to deal with the ticks, vermin, bugs and weeds because you don't want the landscaper to make money. Makes total sense...except, no

Excuse me? You don't know me and don't have a clue about what I am for and against re the planet.

But just for your edification, I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us. Good stewardship in all things is pretty damn important to me.

So lets break this down for a sec. You only want things to be done that have a proven record to work. I agree, except how do you get a proven record of something working without testing, research and theorizing? You cant, so you've already baked failure into the cake unless you know a way to finding solutions with research. Next Paragraph



Again, how do you find a solution without a theory first? Does it come from god?
Also you just took a motive you don't like (personal power and fortunes) and applied to everyone in the field. So, how do you find a solution when you don't want them to theorize a solution AND you want to withhold any money to find a solution because you believe they are doing something else with the money and power. Again, baking failure right into the cake. I'll ask again, how do you come up with a solution without theorizing, testing, and researching? Also, how do you test, theorize and research without money because you don't want them to have it? Next Paragraph..

What I am NOT for is giving up my or anybody else's liberties, choices, options, and opportunities for what is very likely flawed science being used by unethical and opportunistic people.

"Very likely flawed science" - You're on a roll, not only do you not want anyone to research, theorize and test. Because that's bad? But you don't want anyone to have any money to provide the answer that is supposed to come by divine power...but also you already know that the science or answers they'll produce in the future is already flawed. Now we are getting somewhere...You don't disagree with research, you don't believe anything scientist have to say on the subject. And that's why you throw up all these other smoke screens about motives, answers without research, power etc. It all stems from your inability to believe in ANY results they have or WILL produce in the future. Next Paragraph...

What I am NOT for is condemning some of the world's poorest people to ever more generations of crushing poverty because they are denied the ability to use their natural resources to better the lives as the rest of us have already done.

Be careful what you accuse others of in your zeal to grovel at the feet of the great gods of the AGW religion.

Everyone is against that. Its like being against cat fucking. You're not really going rogue with that opinion.

So please explain to everyone (you've laid out what you aren't for, why I don't know) How you plan to produce answers to the problems we could face without money, researching, testing, and theorizing? And how will any of that stop you from accusing anyone of producing flawed science? How do you propose to make sure someone isn't doing it "just for power" that would make it ok for you?

All of these have no answers because your issue isn't really with the 14-15 things you listed here. You have an issue with the subject altogether. Everyone has 1 or 2 reasons for something but when the "reasons" are this many they become excuses

Here it is....

 

[ClosedCaption]

I went point by point and all you replied with is nothing burger. So where is your answer now smart guy?

 

[Foxfyre]

There are LOTS of questions in what you posted. What questions have I not answered throughout this thread? I believe I have addressed all of them. In some way or other, I certainly have addressed every point you have raised. I may not have answered you directly because I had already posted my thoughts on it. And some I did answer directly and you ignored my point or misrepresented it. And you arent the only other person involved in this discussion.

For instance, just because I don't approve of self-serving, politically motivated, bogus, or intentionally flawed research to further some polical thesis, that is not the same thing as being against all research. I have said that again and again. And you have religiously refused to acknowledge that as my position.

And so it goes. . . .

 

[ClosedCaption]

There are LOTS of questions in what you posted. What questions have I not answered throughout this thread? I believe I have addressed all of them. In some way or other, I certainly have addressed every point you have raised. I may not have answered you directly because I had already posted my thoughts on it. And some I did answer directly and you ignored my point or misrepresented it. And you arent the only other person involved in this discussion.

For instance, because I don't approve of self-serving, politically motivated, bogus, or intentionally flawed research to further some polical thesis, is not the same thing of being against all research for instance. I have said that again and again. And you have religiously refused to acknowledge that as my position.

And so it goes. . . .

Holy fuck! Your dancing skills are bar fucking none.

If you don't support and I quote:

I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us.

How can we find out what WILL WORK if you are against maybes, mights and probablys? How can we start out with a solution and totally skip the hypothesis phase?

 

[Foxfyre]

There are LOTS of questions in what you posted. What questions have I not answered throughout this thread? I believe I have addressed all of them. In some way or other, I certainly have addressed every point you have raised. I may not have answered you directly because I had already posted my thoughts on it. And some I did answer directly and you ignored my point or misrepresented it. And you arent the only other person involved in this discussion.

For instance, because I don't approve of self-serving, politically motivated, bogus, or intentionally flawed research to further some polical thesis, is not the same thing of being against all research for instance. I have said that again and again. And you have religiously refused to acknowledge that as my position.

And so it goes. . . .

Holy fuck! Your dancing skills are bar fucking none.

If you don't support and I quote:

I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us.

How can we find out what WILL WORK if you are against maybes, mights and probablys? How can we start out with a solution and totally skip the hypothesis phase?

And if you put that into the full context of the argument I have been making, it conveys my opinion that you don't keep using the same graphs and charts that have been proved to be flawed or incomplete or dishonest to make the argument. You don't keep doing what hasn't worked just because it has a nice sounding grant title or you word it to soothe and gain approval of the AGW religionists. And you don't commit public funds for the primary purpose of increasing the power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes of those receiving the funds. And you don't initiate policy and laws based on how you HOPE the research comes out or for political motives, because nine times out of ten you will be hurting those you claim to be helping.

I AM for research and development for whatever MUST be done for the good of all the people, and I am equally convinced that, with very few exceptions, the private sector will almost always do a better job of that than government ever can.

If you read back throught the thread you will find that I have made all these arguments, most more than once. Arguments that you as often as not have ignored or misrepresented.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You answer questions with strawmen and negatives (What you don't do is...(strawman)...What you shouldn't do is...(strawman)

Your answer says you agree with research as long as its not doing the same thing over and over. I've asked you several times on what evidence you have that scientist are doing the same thing over and over. You come back with paragraphs, but no links.

You call the science that is not even presented yet, flawed and I've asked you several times how you can support the science AND determine its flawed BEFORE it's presented? You come back with paragraphs, no links.

 

[Foxfyre]

You answer questions with strawmen and negatives (What you don't do is...(strawman)...What you shouldn't do is...(strawman)

Your answer says you agree with research as long as its not doing the same thing over and over. I've asked you several times on what evidence you have that scientist are doing the same thing over and over. You come back with paragraphs, but no links.

You call the science that is not even presented yet, flawed and I've asked you several times how you can support the science AND determine its flawed BEFORE it's presented? You come back with paragraphs, no links.

I and others have provided links that you ignored.

You apparently don't have a clue what a strawman is.

I've answered your questions several times in several different ways, and it is futile to continue to do so when you consider 'is not' to be a valid rebuttal and then refuse to acknowledge that the question was answered .

And only an idiot would continue to have a discussion, must less debate, somebody who consistently and dishonestly mischaracterizes the other person's position and/or argument.

Do have a nice day.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'll have a nice day but what I wont do is have a nice day while those who seek to gain power take advantage of my nice day...that's my you impression

 

[westwall]

When it's my tax dollars at work I want it invested in something that has a CHANCE to work. Solyndra is the tip of the iceberg. It had NO chance to work. The other companies that got money for the most part also had NO CHANCE to work.

Do you get it yet?


"Crony Capitalism: With the election still more than eight months away, is it too soon to ask if the president can be re-elected with the green baggage piling up around him? Right now, that pile is deep — and getting deeper.

Obama's green energy scandal is more than Solyndra, the failed solar panel maker that squandered $535 million of Obama stimulus cash and hosted the president for a propaganda visit. It's a series of green-energy companies failing despite the administration's ceaseless promotion of the industry and the unseemly White House ties that run throughout.

While the legacy media often shills for Democrats, sometimes an outlet surprises us, as the Washington Post did with this week's story outlining the shady Obama links to the clean-energy industry and implying the administration has engaged in first-class corruption.

Post reporters, for instance, "found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers."


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Obama's Growing Green Energy Scandal Is More Than Just The Failure Of Solyndra - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Oh so you were Pro Global Warming / Climate Change before Obama and his crony capitalism?

I believed the propaganda till one of my students began asking questions I couldn't answer.
We both took a look at the science at that point, and came to the conclusion that it was all crap.

Climatology is the only "science" I can think of that treats computer models as data. That is laughable.

And now I will follow Foxy's lead and refrain from feeding the trolls....which would be you....

 

[Derideo_Te]

Certainly we need to make compromises that disrupt the natural ecology as little as possible. So long as it is recognized that humankind is also part of the ecology and what humans do is natural to them too. And humankind doing what comes naturally, even when it changes things, is not automatically a bad thing.

As a teenager I often walked along the base of the northern Sandias when we drove over here from Santa Fe. There were some areas we kids liked to hang out in. There was little there though other than bare dirt, rock, cactus, yucca, a few fern and rabbit bushes, and few other plants barely clinging to life. Aesthetically it was pretty grim.

Well humans have pretty well moved into that entire area now. All the trash and debris that had been carelessly dumped there is all cleaned up and there are lovely homes, elegant landscaping, artistic sculpted walls and terraces that blend in beautifully with the natural surroundings and have transformed a rather non descript desert into a place of beauty. The road runners enjoy running along the walls instead of the boring dirt paths now, the rock squirrels thrive, the coyotes still yip at night. It's all very harmonious.

But yeah, getting the building permits past the environmentalists who thought the desert should remain pristine wasn't easy to accomplish that.

The point is, if there is natural global warming, then lets focus on helping folks adapt to it. If humans are causing global warming, lets don't throw out the baby with the bath water while we seek remedies for that. And if we humans are having neglibible effect on climate change or are in fact improving where we live, then there's nothing at all to be done but let humans live and let live.

Yeah, humans have been moving into a whole bunch of new areas, thereby driving off the indigenous life forms in one way or another. And if they don't leave, we exterminate them in order to make room for our homes, our lawns, our roads, our stores, our farms, our businesses, etc.

I failed to respond to this. In a previous post, however, I provided some real life illustrations where humans moving into the area have not bothered the wildlife in the least and in some cases seem to have improved the habitat. Everything is relative. You get too many rabbits, and there is less food for other critters. You get too many deer, and none thrive well.

But yes, humans displace other earth creatures when we do what we do. Just as species have always displaced species throughout the anals of time. Birds, reptiles, and mammals migrate with changing climates and habitats. Beavers dam streams that displace countless other creatures and insects, but produces a pool that other creatures enjoy. If the bear destroys the beehive and it moves elsewhere, there may be insufficient pollination for the berry bushes and other plants that other creatures need, and they have to go elsewhere to find them. If lightning ignites a dry forest, thousands of creatures perish or must find new homes. Such is the way of nature.

But of all the creatures on Earth, the ONLY ones that even care what happens to any others are humans. The ONLY ones that intentionally go out of their way to protect, preserve, and encourage any species other than themselves are humans. And it seems wrong to think that what humans do as humans is any less natural than what any other species do.

And the fact is, most homeowners like knowing that a rare creature live on their property; most ranchers LIKE having a rare species hanging around - UNLESS - the government mandates that they can't use their property as intended because of the presence of the rare creature. That provides great motivation for the land owner to get rid of the rare creature before the government finds out it is there. But somehow, the environmentalists have never quite figured out that simple fact.

It is not just rare creatures. All creatures that exist in close proximity to humans need to have their habitats respected. When a tree is taken down because it might fall on a nearby house is another planted elsewhere? Are domestic cats allowed to roam free and decimate the local chipmunk population (for sport since they aren't hungry) while depriving the natural avian predators of their food source?

It is possible to live in harmony with the natural world. In Genesis caring for the creatures of the planet was the task that God assigned to Adam. What would Jesus drive if he were alive today? Would he be a proponent for the preservation of the planet's ecology? Would Jesus be denying that Global Climate Change was happening?