| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| still latching onto the word "trick", eh? Even though it's been explained as a legitimate technique from many scientific resources. |
The dirty thug that is defending the "trick" has the credibility of a scoundrel. The 'trick' is also among the least offensive things exposed by the emails.
| Quote: |
| Even if AGW theory is incorrect, we still have problems with related causes: pollution, ozone depletion, sustainability, ocean acidity, public health issues, etc. |
It is incorrect. Excellent news. There are now billions of dollars available to correct actual environmental problems. And if you're just myopically focused on carbon, call your local rep and ask for a carbon tax. Reducing carbon emissions is an extremely easy thing to do. But that's not what the hysterics want. They want power, prestige and personal gain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, it seems like they want to reduce carbon emissions.
I don't think being a 150k/yr researcher is some insane, maniacal power grab. And you're speaking as if having a solid knowledge of our planet's climate isn't worth researching.
Of course, you'd be opposed to the billions now available being spent regardless what on, so what's the next smear campaign gonna be to further your pro-market agenda? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm glad to see the Toronto Star ran the editorial. Only decent newspaper in the whole country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
Actually, it seems like they want to reduce carbon emissions.
I don't think being a 150k/yr researcher is some insane, maniacal power grab. And you're speaking as if having a solid knowledge of our planet's climate isn't worth researching.
Of course, you'd be opposed to the billions now available being spent regardless what on, so what's the next smear campaign gonna be to further your pro-market agenda? |
Strawman. Same as always. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| when mises wants to strawman about a handful of yuppie scientists allegedly trying to take over the world and become our overlords, I think I'm entitled to one or two myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
| when mises wants to strawman about a handful of yuppie scientists allegedly trying to take over the world and become our overlords |
Ridiculous strawman.
| Quote: |
| I think I'm entitled to one or two myself. |
Yeah I figured you had a sense of entitlement... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| There are now billions of dollars available to correct actual environmental problems. |
I agree, immediate environmental problems should really take precedence, but it always just seems like not enough is ever being done this way- particularly in developing countries.
As I always said, if we have healthy, functioning ecosystems in place it will go a long way to offsetting the harm from climate change.I'm talking seas that are allowed to recover from overfishing, rainforest that is secure and protected, end so on.
Carbon reductions is akin to trying to clean up a distant country when your own back yard is in a mess. (For want of a better analogy).
But if as you say..
| Quote: |
| Reducing carbon emissions is an extremely easy thing to do. |
then why not just do it as precaution until AGW is either definitively disproved or confirmed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| then why not just do it as precaution until AGW is either definitively disproved or confirmed? |
Aside from it being incompatible with free marketeer dogma, it would also take away the 4 yuppy-scientists-trying-to-rule-the-world-through-fear conspiracy theory. Internet libertarians need something to rant about on the internet.
But seriously, this is a point that just can't seem to be hammered home... reducing emissions has a score of benefits that don't just apply to AGW theory. Yet, that's always ignored... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
| Quote: |
| then why not just do it as precaution until AGW is either definitively disproved or confirmed? |
Aside from it being incompatible with free marketeer dogma, it would also take away the 4 yuppy-scientists-trying-to-rule-the-world-through-fear conspiracy theory. Internet libertarians need something to rant about on the internet. |
In your own mind you probably think you sound like your idol Keith Olbermann, and have your fellow fake-liberal lackeys snickering behind their keyboards, but in reality everything you write is just a giant, tired cliche. Strawman, mockery, repeat. Each and every time.
| Quote: |
| But seriously, this is a point that just can't seem to be hammered home... reducing emissions has a score of benefits that don't just apply to AGW theory. Yet, that's always ignored... |
But seriously, nobody on here has stated otherwise. Yet, that's always ignored... by you. The issue here is carbon taxation (based on admitted lies) to fund world government. Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Actually, it seems like they want to reduce carbon emissions. |
No, their actions tell us that they want to create revenue.
| Quote: |
| I don't think being a 150k/yr researcher is some insane, maniacal power grab. And you're speaking as if having a solid knowledge of our planet's climate isn't worth researching. |
I know.. If I only had some evidence that these are self-interested thugs.. Maybe if I had some emails.. That would work nicely.
| Quote: |
| Of course, you'd be opposed to the billions now available being spent regardless what on, so what's the next smear campaign gonna be to further your pro-market agenda? |
Pro-market agenda. You owe your entire material standard of living to the market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Aside from it being incompatible with free marketeer dogma, |
Alright, I'm annoyed. What is your skill-set? In what society other than one where the market has created so much surplus capital would you even be able to afford a computer? Is your back strong enough to be a hired hand? Think about your life and your standard of living and why you have what you have. Don't be ignorant.
| Quote: |
| it would also take away the 4 yuppy-scientists-trying-to-rule-the-world-through-fear conspiracy theory. |
Conspiracy theory. Ok. Here's a fun fact: You and your agw hysterical buddies lost. It's over. There will not be enough public support for your little silly obsession. Move on. The more hysterical you get the less people will support you now. And the more you push it, the less the public will support you on other (non-fictitious) problems. The more you rely on pejorative, the fewer people will support you.
| Quote: |
| Internet libertarians need something to rant about on the internet. |
Isn't this clever.
| Quote: |
| But seriously, this is a point that just can't seem to be hammered home... reducing emissions has a score of benefits that don't just apply to AGW theory. Yet, that's always ignored... |
They have no desired to limit carbon emissions. Their actions show this. Pay attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| carbon taxation (based on admitted lies) |
There is no "admitted lies". You don't seem to get that the peer review process was not tampered with or damaged in any way. An inconsequential jokey private expression of frustration... in an email years ago..woo hoo.
| Quote: |
| to fund world government. Period. |
None of those hundreds of basically dull emails, covering more than a decade...hold even the slightest evidence of any global conspiracy to world domination.
Neither have you ever provided any actual evidence of such a scheme.
Best down your meds and stop spamming the board with your paranoid drivel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Here's a fun fact: You and your agw hysterical buddies lost. It's over. There will not be enough public support for your little silly obsession. |
 Actually I think its nearly over for you and the all other smug, dirty polluting capitalists.
Copenhagen: deal within reach
2 hours ago
Politicians and scientists urged the December 7-18 talks, attended by 15,000 delegates from about 190 nations, to agree immediate action to curb greenhouse gases."A deal is within our reach," Rasmussen said.
EMAILS
He also defended the findings by his panel after leaked emails from a British university last month led sceptics to say that researchers had conspired to exaggerate the evidence.
He said there were rigorous checks on all research.
"The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges," he said.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091207/tts-uk-climate-copenhagen-ca02f96.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
haha, now claiming that everything good accomplished by mankind is due to markets.
kinda funny how this internet we're posting on is the result of publicly funded state research.
markets are tools that can be harnessed for a certain level of efficiency in terms of basic labor and production. however the profit motive, when allowed to aggregate snowballs into large scale oppression and imbalancing of democratic equality.
and for the record, so far it would appear that societies with strongly harnessed markets and active governments provide the best living.
in reference to affording a computer: there could exist a society where everyone has a computer in lieu of 10% of the population driving oversized gas-guzzling grocery carriages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocket_scientist
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Location: Prague
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I can't find the link now but... the global warming theory advocates want to move the industry (factories) from the industrialized countries to non industrialized countries so that carbon emissions may be more balanced. They suggested giving the current employees first pick of the ported jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
