Obama Admin - Belive in Climate change, or dont work here.

[T9D]

I once had a friend tell me that if the earth was the size of an aircraft carrier that the amount of pollution on it would be the size of a postage stamp.

I think that's probably somewhat accurate and within reason. Do you really think that tiny amount of (relative) pollution is going to have these so called devastating
effects on the earth? It will hurt the direct environment such as the water fish are in, or the smog in the city it's in. But not do entire Global changes and damage. It's not going to do anything super major the same a postage stamp wouldn't do a damn thing to an aircraft carrier. It's not going to alter it's course, it's not going sink. It's going to keep going on. It is however going to change course from time to time like it always does.

Yes we are polluting the earth, but I don't for a moment believe it's at what they are trying to push with this "global climate change". We do need to
change our ways. Which they have massively in the past few decades. Cleaned up a lot areas, made regulations, started more recycling. And more needs to be done. I'm all for the environment, the amount of polluting is disgusting. It does need to be addressed. But climate change from it like they spew out.....not so real.

 

[zinfamous]

And big business science will go where the money is. Currently thats pumping up global warming.

How much money is their in debunking global warming? vs. How much money is there in continuing fear mongering?

Some how you global warming believers think that scientists are somehow these pure incorruptible individuals, with no personal motives, with no finical motives, they just do it for science.

-They're not.

you're still being willfully ignorant. Not a god damn thinking person that chooses this career ever thinks they will be making money--and they aren't. They basically never will.

Tell me, what "big business science" is actively researching climate change? Most of this is done at the University level and is funding by federal grants. I can assure you, there is essentially zero profit involved.

again, you use that word "belief" in a field where it does not apply.

basically: you are an idiot.

create a false thread based on created content from a quote that you don't even understand, and just keep the misinformation going.

 

[brycejones]

I once had a friend tell me that if the earth was the size of an aircraft carrier that the amount of pollution on it would be the size of a postage stamp.

I think that's probably somewhat accurate and within reason. Do you really think that tiny amount of (relative) pollution is going to have these so called devastating
effects on the earth? It will hurt the direct environment such as the water fish are in, or the smog in the city it's in. But not do entire Global changes and damage. It's not going to do anything super major the same a postage stamp wouldn't do a damn thing to an aircraft carrier. It's not going to alter it's course, it's not going sink. It's going to keep going on. It is however going to change course from time to time like it always does.

Yes we are polluting the earth, but I don't for a moment believe it's at what they are trying to push with this "global climate change". We do need to
change our ways. Which they have massively in the past few decades. Cleaned up a lot areas, made regulations, started more recycling. And more needs to be done. I'm all for the environment, the amount of polluting is disgusting. It does need to be addressed. But climate change from it like they spew out.....not so real.

So you are applying "common sense" based on what your friend told you instead of reviewing the scientific research? That's an interesting approach.

 

[chucky2]

Oh lordy, you really don't get it?

No, I get it, you dont seem to though. See below...

First, what you said about invasions is by definition false. If someone invades a country they have by definition contributed to its invasion.

Impossible. As has been discussed many times, Millions of illegals invading our country is not an invasion, it is them looking for better opportunities. You all need to make up your mind here: Either Millions of illegals are an invasion by the sum of their individual actions, or, what you are arguing is wrong. I'll let you pick.

Your argument seems to be that personal invasion of a country will be ineffectual, therefore someone is not a hypocrite for not undertaking that action despite advocating for a collective invasion. I want you to think long and hard about how that might relate to an individual writing checks to the federal treasury to pay off the national debt or to reduce the deficit.

I really don't need to think long and hard on that at all. On one hand, one will know beforehand that their action is completely, as in, 100%, pointless. On the other, one will know that, however small, their action got to the Fed more money, which is what they want the Fed to have. I'm sorry I cannot make this simpler for you to understand. I think it must have something to do with pointing out how rich people bleeting about how taxes need to increase fail to put their money where their mouths are at, which sort of makes the Moar taxes! message...less effective. I don't know, maybe try a $9 coffee and re-think?

Chuck

P.S. My $25k sellout idea for votes was amazingly effective on this board. I think we had, what, 4 sellouts really quickly? How's it going with your Political friends on getting this going? I'm ready to stimulate the sh1t out of the economy once I get my first $5k sellout check. I will blow it faster than a LINKS card recipient at a gas station... Timeframe?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I want those who emit pollutants to compensate the rest of us for the damage they do to our environment. If this leads to lower wages and higher unemployment that is simply reflecting the true nature of their business when previously they were able to pollute without consequence.

Your argument is bad.

Not really. You didn't do anything than defend and the idea that no other options could even exist seems utterly foreign to you.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I get it, you dont seem to though. See below...



Impossible. As has been discussed many times, Millions of illegals invading our country is not an invasion, it is them looking for better opportunities. You all need to make up your mind here: Either Millions of illegals are an invasion by the sum of their individual actions, or, what you are arguing is wrong. I'll let you pick.

lol wut.

Your ability to logically argue is breaking down before my eyes. Someone who invades is by definition contributing to an invasion. Their status as an invader is already assumed as true by the structure of the argument. Your attempt to bring the argument about whether or not Mexicans should be classified as 'invaders' is utterly illogical as the debate is not over how 'invader' is defined.

Do you even know what you're arguing about anymore?

I really don't need to think long and hard on that at all. On one hand, one will know beforehand that their action is completely, as in, 100%, pointless. On the other, one will know that, however small, their action got to the Fed more money, which is what they want the Fed to have. I'm sorry I cannot make this simpler for you to understand. I think it must have something to do with pointing out how rich people bleeting about how taxes need to increase fail to put their money where their mouths are at, which sort of makes the Moar taxes! message...less effective. I don't know, maybe try a $9 coffee and re-think?

Chuck

P.S. My $25k sellout idea for votes was amazingly effective on this board. I think we had, what, 4 sellouts really quickly? How's it going with your Political friends on getting this going? I'm ready to stimulate the sh1t out of the economy once I get my first $5k sellout check. I will blow it faster than a LINKS card recipient at a gas station... Timeframe?

While it's nice that you get to unilaterally declare people's actions to be pointless with absolute certainty, that's not how the real world works. It should be extremely easy for anyone to relate the futility of unilateral invasion with the futility of unilaterally paying off the deficit/debt. I'm sure if you give it another shot and think some more you'll figure it out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There's going to be an economic cost, whether it affects workers, CEO's, investors, consumers or some combination of all of them. This must be weighed against the cost of warming the planet. Are you looking for a pain free solution that is win-win for everyone?

Some of these things do get shifted around. So if it's more expensive to emit carbon, there is incentive for cleaner alternatives, and jobs can be created in those sectors. But that doesn't mean there is no net cost. It isn't realistic to solve a global problem and expect that no one gets hurt.

When things are shifted as you say there is some disturbance. Certainly what has been discussed thus far has great negative consequences. Instead someone might entertain alternatives. I don't want to go through my plan again. I'm looking to see if there are others who have ideas instead of weighing what they are told they must have. I find it interesting that some claim that things like government health care for the good of the people must happen, but are glad to see them out of a job.

Someone suggest an alternative and we can debate it and the goals being to mitigate or improve both the environment and economy. Is there no one with imagination?

 

[chucky2]

lol wut.

Your ability to logically argue is breaking down before my eyes. Someone who invades is by definition contributing to an invasion.

Their status as an invader is already assumed as true by the structure of the argument. Your attempt to bring the argument about whether or not Mexicans should be classified as 'invaders' is utterly illogical as the debate is not over how 'invader' is defined.

Do you even know what you're arguing about anymore?

Look, I'm not the one that made the case that someone who achieves their goal of getting the Gov more money is the same as someone who achieves nothing because individually invading is doomed. I can't defend your position because it's indefensible. You're going to have to figure out a way to try and make it work. That's your job, not mine.

While it's nice that you get to unilaterally declare people's actions to be pointless with absolute certainty, that's not how the real world works.

No, really, that is often how the real world works. If you'd like to prove me wrong, go invade a country individually and let us know (well, let someone watching you let us know) what % of your goal was successful. I can save you your life and/or imprisonment time though: It will be 0%.

It should be extremely easy for anyone to relate the futility of unilateral invasion with the futility of unilaterally paying off the deficit/debt. I'm sure if you give it another shot and think some more you'll figure it out.

I think what we've all figured out is your example was just flawed. On one hand, we have someone who has a goal of invasion, and who will be 0% succesful. On the other, we have someone who wants Gov to have more money, and will be 100% successful.

It's good you went into the Navy, going down with your ship is admirable...

 

[BlueWolf47]

And big business science will go where the money is. Currently thats pumping up global warming.

How much money is their in debunking global warming? vs. How much money is there in continuing fear mongering?

Some how you global warming believers think that scientists are somehow these pure incorruptible individuals, with no personal motives, with no finical motives, they just do it for science.

-They're not.

You have officially lost all touch with reality.

 

[fskimospy]

Look, I'm not the one that made the case that someone who achieves their goal of getting the Gov more money is the same as someone who achieves nothing because individually invading is doomed. I can't defend your position because it's indefensible. You're going to have to figure out a way to try and make it work. That's your job, not mine.

This is true, you didn't make that argument. What you DID do is try and change the goalposts so that you don't have to admit you were wrong. From your previous arguments it's hard to tell if this is due to dishonesty or stupidity, but I guess it doesn't matter.

First, I never said that he needed to conquer the country nor did I ever mention any specific military objective. I simply stated that the individual advocated for military action against the country, an objective that he would absolutely concretely contribute to attacking them himself, although to approximately the same level as an individual trying to pay off the national debt. So what you have is an individual contributing to his preferred policy, but in a weak an ineffectual way.

Right about now you're probably feeling that slightly uncomfortable feeling where you realize that you have -yet again- said something stupid and now you're caught. It's okay, we all make mistakes. That's why pencils have erasers.

I think what we've all figured out is your example was just flawed. On one hand, we have someone who has a goal of invasion, and who will be 0% succesful. On the other, we have someone who wants Gov to have more money, and will be 100% successful.

It's good you went into the Navy, going down with your ship is admirable...

Hopefully in the future you will take a lesson from this and make sure you actually understand an argument before attacking it. I have limited hopes for you in this as you combine ego and lack of ability to an extent that probably makes you beyond much hope for improvement, but you never know.

 

[glenn1]

So now we are hypocrites if we don't break off from the powergrid and create our own power source?

Well, it's not like you're really taking actions that really hurt you personally in response to this existential threat. It's pretty easy to argue for the things you support, and takes no courage or sacrifice on your part. Like railing against SUVs when you don't have a large family that needs hauling around; those who do will just have to figure how to strap the toddler seat to the roof of a Smart-For-2. Or suggest a carbon tax knowing that a few extra dollars in the electric bill each month will barely be noticed by you, versus the elderly pensioner who might have to choose between food and the heat staying on in Chicago winter weather. Or suggesting government spending for wish-list items you fancy, like a "Manhattan project for green energy." Without the context that nuclear fission was already a known science and simply being weaponized, whereas you're hoping it produces a currently unknown new energy souce that doesn't even exist as a theory yet.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Well, it's not like you're really taking actions that really hurt you personally in response to this existential threat. It's pretty easy to argue for the things you support, and takes no courage or sacrifice on your part. Like railing against SUVs when you don't have a large family that needs hauling around; those who do will just have to figure how to strap the toddler seat to the roof of a Smart-For-2. Or suggest a carbon tax knowing that a few extra dollars in the electric bill each month will barely be noticed by you, versus the elderly pensioner who might have to choose between food and the heat staying on in Chicago winter weather. Or suggesting government spending for wish-list items you fancy, like a "Manhattan project for green energy." Without the context that nuclear fission was already a known science and simply being weaponized, whereas you're hoping it produces a currently unknown new energy souce that doesn't even exist as a theory yet.

Or maybe I understand that the long term costs of not taking action will be astonomical compared to short term investments that we can start making now. The whole climate change action will kill the poor argument is getting old. You are equating a divestment from fossil fuels with the destruction of the economy. France gets 75% of their energy from nuclear reactors so we know its not something unachievable. And surely your not going to blame their unemployment rate on nuclear power.

 

[brycejones]

Or maybe I understand that the long term costs of not taking action will be astonomical compared to short term investments that we can start making now. The whole climate change action will kill the poor argument is getting old. You are equating a divestment from fossil fuels with the destruction of the economy. France gets 75% of their energy from nuclear reactors so we know its not something unachievable. And surely your not going to blame their unemployment rate on nuclear power.

Nuclear power is commie power! We need more freedom power in this country. Coal, the official fuel of freedom.

 

[chucky2]

This is true, you didn't make that argument. What you DID do is try and change the goalposts so that you don't have to admit you were wrong. From your previous arguments it's hard to tell if this is due to dishonesty or stupidity, but I guess it doesn't matter.

First, I never said that he needed to conquer the country nor did I ever mention any specific military objective. I simply stated that the individual advocated for military action against the country, an objective that he would absolutely concretely contribute to attacking them himself, although to approximately the same level as an individual trying to pay off the national debt. So what you have is an individual contributing to his preferred policy, but in a weak an ineffectual way.

Right about now you're probably feeling that slightly uncomfortable feeling where you realize that you have -yet again- said something stupid and now you're caught. It's okay, we all make mistakes. That's why pencils have erasers.

Right now I'm LMAO at you haha. Did you actually just compare someone failing to achieve any part of their objective before even starting to someone who quite simply can do their part in totally achieving their objective and call that a "win"? Worse, are you actually suggesting that when people advocate for people who want higher taxes to start paying those higher taxes as suggesting they are advocating for those people to pay off the debt themselves, rather than an act of putting their money where their mouth is, then we'll talk about stealing more of my money?!?! If so, no wonder your posts are so F'd up! No one suggesting these higher tax people put their money where their mouths are is for the purpose of paying off the debt, it's simply a barometer to guage just how serious these high tax people are about the problem they are trying to solve. Yeesh...

Hopefully in the future you will take a lesson from this and make sure you actually understand an argument before attacking it. I have limited hopes for you in this as you combine ego and lack of ability to an extent that probably makes you beyond much hope for improvement, but you never know.

The irony of this post may actually upset the balance of the universe... :ninja:

 

[Londo_Jowo]

France gets 75% of their energy from nuclear reactors so we know its not something unachievable.

The ironic thing is the biggest opponents to nuclear power in the US are some of the same people who are pushing for alternate power sources.

 

[BlueWolf47]

The ironic thing is the biggest opponents to nuclear power in the US are some of the same people who are pushing for alternate power sources.

Well both sides have there fair share of kooks.

 

[brycejones]

The ironic thing is the biggest opponents to nuclear power in the US are some of the same people who are pushing for alternate power sources.

Agreed unfortunately. I'm hoping the experimental thorium reactor in Sweden works as expected.

 

[michal1980]

you're still being willfully ignorant. Not a god damn thinking person that chooses this career ever thinks they will be making money--and they aren't. They basically never will.

Tell me, what "big business science" is actively researching climate change? Most of this is done at the University level and is funding by federal grants. I can assure you, there is essentially zero profit involved.

again, you use that word "belief" in a field where it does not apply.

basically: you are an idiot.

create a false thread based on created content from a quote that you don't even understand, and just keep the misinformation going.

I'm sorry you are so stupid that you cannot figure out how much money is being spent on pimping global warming.

Obama wants to budget 2.7 billion to study 'climate change' http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budge...energy-security-and-addressing-climate-change

Germany spending 110 billion on stalling global warming
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/1/climate-guru-germany-spending-110b-stall-global-wa/

The whole thing is about big money. go do some research. Your still hero worshiping scientists, when all they are doing is pimping science for the next paycheck.

It doesn't matter if its at a university or private business. There all looking for money, universities are just pimping themselves for taxpayer handouts, and because climate change is the current big thing, that's what they'll continue 'working' on to keep the funding up.

What would happen to all those researchers if they found out that Global Warming is bunk, and we don't have to worry about? They'd be out of work. But what if they continue saying theres a problem, and we just need to look into it more? They get more money.

 

[michal1980]

You have officially lost all touch with reality.

I'm not blinded by hero worshiping scientists. Only a stupid person would think they aren't influenced by money.

 

[Thebobo]

And big business science will go where the money is. Currently thats pumping up global warming.

How much money is their in debunking global warming? vs. How much money is there in continuing fear mongering?

ok "big business science" what is that?

What's more likely

Scientist conspiring together to pump up global warming to get more grant money?

Or corporations which have a vested interest to eliminate global warming regulations trying to debunk GW.

Its a no brainer, there is HUGE money in debunking global warming from savings from potential regulations. Honestly you think scientist have more power than huge world wide mega corporations and that they are trying to push an agenda to make what, money?


http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

 

[BlueWolf47]

I'm not blinded by hero worshiping scientists. Only a stupid person would think they aren't influenced by money.

Do you really strive to be the most ignorant poster in all of P&N? Your ignorance makes me want to devote every waking moment of the rest of my life to time travel, just so I can go back in time and give your mother a coat hanger. I think most of P&N would concur.

 

[shadow9d9]

That is because to the progressive the point of government (and by extension these departments) is to enact authoritarian policies.

They see nothing wrong with it because to them government is simply a tool to enact social and economic justice (IE socialism/communism)

Luckily there is only one progressive in congress(the socialist).

 

[michal1980]

Do you really strive to be the most ignorant poster in all of P&N? Your ignorance makes me want to devote every waking moment of the rest of my life to time travel, just so I can go back in time and give your mother a coat hanger. I think most of P&N would concur.

way to once again not got after the point. Its typical of you liberals when you lose the argument.


Are scientists influenced by money? Simple question, YES, Or NO?

 

[michal1980]

ok "big business science" what is that?

What's more likely

Scientist conspiring together to pump up global warming to get more grant money?

Or corporations which have a vested interest to eliminate global warming regulations trying to debunk GW.

Its a no brainer, there is HUGE money in debunking global warming from savings from potential regulations. Honestly you think scientist have more power than huge world wide mega corporations and that they are trying to push an agenda to make what, money?


http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

you again refuted NOTHING I posted.

When government is spending BILLIONS on climate CHANGE research. What conclusion do you expect the scientists to reach?

'Sorry mr president, we didn't find anything, please keep those billions of dollars"

Or "Mr president, we found that global warming might be caused by XYZ, but we're not sure, so give us more money"

 

[BlueWolf47]

why to once again not got after the point. Its typical of you liberals when you lose the argument.


Are scientists influenced by money? Simple question, YES, Or NO?

Please proofread your post before submitting it. It's hard to argue with someone who lacks the ability to spell even with an application that does it for you.