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

[shadow9d9]

When it comes to civil servants who aren't political appointees, then political issues should be completely off-limits. Questions of science that are basically proxy political positions are completely immaterial for how civil servants do their jobs.

It's wrong when Democrats imply that people work under them should believe in climate change. Likewise if the GOP held the Presidency right now I would be just as concerned if a cabinet member wanted his/her employees to vouch that life begins at conception (a key article of faith/science in the abortion wars). There should never be "suggestions" that civil servants should feel a particular way, no "hoping they don't work here," and no pressure to confirm with the policy preference of the administration.

It isn't a political issue. It is a health/safety/future issue...

 

[BlueWolf47]

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"

I guess bush wanted to kill the oil industry that his family company, Halliburton, supplies equipment to. Thats the only way to explain all the climate change studies that continued to be published during his administration.

I am actually starting to pity your state of mind.

 

[zinfamous]

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"

You haven't made claims that are substantiated in reality. You haven't even tried to present anything as actually based in fact.

Your comments are pure supposition, based on fantastical interpretations of a world that actually doesn't exist.

Case in point, this last comment of yours that I bolded--this isn't even remotely close to how research functions, and how the funding works.

again: you're a fucking idiot troll. How is one to refute irrational assumptions based on pure ignorance?

 

[zinfamous]

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

some are. and when their data is shown to have been spurious, they are basically ostracized.

that's how it works.

Your pride of "not being blinded by hero worship" is simply you patting yourself on the back for not understanding jack shit about what you are talking about.

The vast majority are not influenced by money.

Again--anyone who makes it through grad school has plenty of understanding that you are not going to be getting wealthy doing science. All you are doing is pulling pure fantasy out of your cavernous asshole with this conspiracy nonsense.

 

[michal1980]

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.

once again, not addressing the point.

Thanks for losing the argument.

 

[michal1980]

some are. and when their data is shown to have been spurious, they are basically ostracized.

that's how it works.

Your pride of "not being blinded by hero worship" is simply you patting yourself on the back for not understanding jack shit about what you are talking about.

The vast majority are not influenced by money.

Again--anyone who makes it through grad school has plenty of understanding that you are not going to be getting wealthy doing science. All you are doing is pulling pure fantasy out of your cavernous asshole with this conspiracy nonsense.

I've posted numbers.

All you are posting is blind speculation and projection. Not one fact, but plenty of opinion.


PS I never said they'd get wealthy. Just that they go after money. And right now the money is in global warming. There is ZERO incentive for scientists to disprove the current theory of global warming, and plenty of reasons ($$$$) to continue to support it.

 

[BlueWolf47]

I've posted numbers.

All you are posting is blind speculation and projection. Not one fact, but plenty of opinion.


PS I never said they'd get wealthy. Just that they go after money. And right now the money is in global warming. There is ZERO incentive for scientists to disprove the current theory of global warming, and plenty of reasons ($$$$) to continue to support it.

To call you a skeptic would be a blatant insult to the few legitimate skeptics that are out there.

 

[michal1980]

To call you a skeptic would be a blatant insult to the few legitimate skeptics that are out there.

And there you go, attacking me, without addressing any points I made.

If you had anything that could refute my claims you would by now.

Instead you resort to name calling, and spell checking.

 

[xBiffx]

And there you go, attacking me, without addressing any points I made.

If you had anything that could refute my claims you would by now.

Instead you resort to name calling, and spell checking.

He is used to it from the other thread. That's all the arguments he has left by now.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

No...it's not hard to argue with someone who lacks the ability to spell even with an application that does it for you...it's hard to argue with pompous idiots.

Hrmm, no labatory tested properties of CO2, no temperature correlations, no scientific models based on over 30 years of climate science, and no geoligical and icecore samples representing past climatic changes?

I guess ill go take a shit and you flip a coin, if my shit is solid and your coin turns up tails we can confirm climate change is real.

Obviously science won't convince you.

I guess we could argue symantics but clearly excess CO2 from non naturally occuring sources is having a negative impact on our climate. Now this impact may be over dramaticized at times, but long term it could be catastrophic. Venus is a good example of a run away green house effect.

I will compare your polutant argument to that of toxic chemicals. Any naturally occurring substance becomes toxic if consumed in an amount that exceeds a certain threshold.

A carbon tax isn't the only solution it was merelyva suggestion. However, renewables have to be beter able to compete with oil and other carbon rich energy sources. Also, energy efficiency should be a goal in every industry and incentives would help move technology forward.

 

[dank69]

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...



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

Do you think it is possible for a single person to travel to another country, obtain a gun while there, and then kill a few people before being caught/killed?

 

[chucky2]

Do you think it is possible for a single person to travel to another country, obtain a gun while there, and then kill a few people before being caught/killed?

Entirely possible. That wouldn't be invading though, that'd be a terrorist act. Invading would be showing up at your border, crossing over to theirs, and overcoming resistence as met. While someone could in fact do this if they say, wanted to invade Canada from the US, that someone would quickly be subdued/killed and hence they would have absolutely zero affect on the invasion of Canada. They in fact failed before they started.

Contrasted with, a rich billionaire wanting taxes raised on the rich for the purposes of making sure the Gov has more tax receipt monies. This rich person is legally obligated to pay lets say, $100M in taxes this year. This same rich billionaire can write a check for $200M rather than the $100M he owes. Has his objective, from what he himself is able to accomplish, of the Gov receiving more tax money been met or not?

I can't believe another person decided to jump on this failed comparison...

 

[fskimospy]

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"?

No, not only did I not describe anything as a 'win', but you appear to be continuing to try and substitute your own made up conditions for the actual conditions of the example you took issue with. There's no explanation for this other than an inability to understand what's being discussed or a realization that you're in deep trouble if you don't.

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...

At this point you should be noticing disturbing similarities between the prospect of someone unilaterally undertaking military action and someone choosing to pay higher taxes. There's no way that even someone as dim as yourself isn't starting to wonder why you took up this argument to begin with.

 

[monovillage]

No...it's not hard to argue with someone who lacks the ability to spell even with an application that does it for you...it's hard to argue with pompous idiots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueWolf47 View Post
Hrmm, no labatory tested properties of CO2, no temperature correlations, no scientific models based on over 30 years of climate science, and no geoligical and icecore samples representing past climatic changes?

I guess ill go take a shit and you flip a coin, if my shit is solid and your coin turns up tails we can confirm climate change is real.

Obviously science won't convince you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueWolf47 View Post
I guess we could argue symantics but clearly excess CO2 from non naturally occuring sources is having a negative impact on our climate. Now this impact may be over dramaticized at times, but long term it could be catastrophic. Venus is a good example of a run away green house effect.

I will compare your polutant argument to that of toxic chemicals. Any naturally occurring substance becomes toxic if consumed in an amount that exceeds a certain threshold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueWolf47 View Post
A carbon tax isn't the only solution it was merelyva suggestion. However, renewables have to be beter able to compete with oil and other carbon rich energy sources. Also, energy efficiency should be a goal in every industry and incentives would help move technology forward.

Seriously owned.

 

[dank69]

Entirely possible. That wouldn't be invading though, that'd be a terrorist act. Invading would be showing up at your border, crossing over to theirs, and overcoming resistence as met. While someone could in fact do this if they say, wanted to invade Canada from the US, that someone would quickly be subdued/killed and hence they would have absolutely zero affect on the invasion of Canada. They in fact failed before they started.

Contrasted with, a rich billionaire wanting taxes raised on the rich for the purposes of making sure the Gov has more tax receipt monies. This rich person is legally obligated to pay lets say, $100M in taxes this year. This same rich billionaire can write a check for $200M rather than the $100M he owes. Has his objective, from what he himself is able to accomplish, of the Gov receiving more tax money been met or not?

I can't believe another person decided to jump on this failed comparison...

The only way you can "win" this argument is by perverting the definitions of "invade" and the conditions of success/failure. It's telling that you need to use an example of a billionaire when I believe you yourself have said on at least one occasion that anyone who believes taxes should be higher can send in a check. Who is more successful, a guy who manages to shoot a few border patrol agents and cross said border, or me if I send a $10,000 check to the IRS when not obligated to do so?

 

[dank69]

Seriously owned.

Huge win for your team, resulting in many liberals such as myself abandoning our cause and going full conservative. Can you tell me where I can pick up my copy of "A Retard's Guide to Rationality," brother?

 

[kage69]

I came in here expecting something akin to Rove and Cheney purging non (R) voting prosecutors from the Justice Dept prosecutors. But no, just another standard idiotic troll thread attempting to whip up fellow idiots into a outraged, sanctimonious froth.

Sooooooo lame. I thought parrots were capable of learning?

 

[BlueWolf47]

Seriously owned.

Besides my spell check hypocrisy those were some pretty good posts you found. Thanks for the summary.

 

[ivwshane]

Besides my spell check hypocrisy those were some pretty good posts you found. Thanks for the summary.

Spell checking is his thing, facts, rational discussion, and logic? Not so much.

 

[zinfamous]

PS I never said they'd get wealthy. Just that they go after money. And right now the money is in global warming. There is ZERO incentive for scientists to disprove the current theory of global warming, and plenty of reasons ($$$$) to continue to support it.

Again: You have NO FUCKING CLUE HOW RESEARCH works.

The thrust of research is to disprove the current model. that is how we "do science."

Every scientist in any field is seeking to disprove the best model. The reason it hasn't happened in climate science, is because they can't, not because they are being paid not to. The data is essentially "failure to disprove."

If you can't get that--and this is very easy to understand--then you have no goddamn hope.

Jesus tap-dancing christ--you tell people over and over that this is how x works, they simply refuse to listen.

Seriously--you have no fucking business putting your ignorant little mitts into this discussion because you bring absolutely nothing of substance to the table.

 

[BlueWolf47]

I tried to explain hypothesis testing but apparently its over their head.

 

[monovillage]

It's just a litmus test to join the Administration. You have to agree with the new religious orthodoxy or you will not be permitted to work for that branch of the government.

 

[Incorruptible]

This doesn't surprise me at all. Typical POS obama. Climate change isn't real and a problem yet this moron thinks it is. obama defenders are getting really pathetic defending him on everything.

 

[chucky2]

The only way you can "win" this argument is by perverting the definitions of "invade"

Impossible. I mean, a bush is a tree, mud is clear water, etc. Irrespective of that, I didn't pervert anything. I don't know anyone who would say a single person is capable of invading a country. A group of people? Sure. A single person? No.

and the conditions of success/failure.

I'd have thought the conditions would have been quite obvious, but hey, I'm not the ones trying to suggest that a lone person can invade a country, and even if they tried to, that their "invasion" would actually be reported on as an invasion. Holy smokes...

It's telling that you need to use an example of a billionaire when I believe you yourself have said on at least one occasion that anyone who believes taxes should be higher can send in a check.

Exactly, I'm sure I have. In fact, I'm sure I've used both examples, any idiot and specifically a billionaire. Why? Because the - obvious - point is that it's not about reducing the dollar amount of the Fed debt from $16T to $15.99999999999999999999999999T from some idiotic progressives contribution, but rather, that said idiot would prove how serious they view the problem of Gov needing more tax revenues by voluntairily putting their money where their mouth is. And, because of that insanely obvious point, there is zero logical comparison on some lone person failing before they even started on invading Canada vs. someone who can write said check and actually put their money where their mouth is. For being on an ideological side that purports themselves to be the beacon of intelligence, you two have so utterly failed on this example it's...beyond any level of measurable embarrassment. Good god...

Who is more successful, a guy who manages to shoot a few border patrol agents and cross said border, or me if I send a $10,000 check to the IRS when not obligated to do so?

Given the above, do I really need to answer this, or are you going to continue to elect to go down with eski on his - by now, past crush depth - ship?

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

No, not only did I not describe anything as a 'win', but you appear to be continuing to try and substitute your own made up conditions for the actual conditions of the example you took issue with. There's no explanation for this other than an inability to understand what's being discussed or a realization that you're in deep trouble if you don't.


At this point you should be noticing disturbing similarities between the prospect of someone unilaterally undertaking military action and someone choosing to pay higher taxes. There's no way that even someone as dim as yourself isn't starting to wonder why you took up this argument to begin with.

You might want to read my reply to your bud above. When you realize how F'd up you are on this, the other thread could use you. I've got yet another conservative here buying into my plan. I'd like to know what your status is on this plan of mine that is getting conservatives left and right (well, more right than left obviously) onboard and blowing shitloads of money we don't have and will stimulate the F out of the economy for like 30 months. Since I came up with it first, can I get my $5k check first too?