Page 114 of 134 FirstFirst ... 1464104110111112113114115116117118124 ... LastLast
Results 3,391 to 3,420 of 4001
  1. #3391
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    He won't take a stand on anything when you try to get right down to it.

    I find land-use changes to be more compelling.

    So you attribute most of the change to land changes?

    I never said that.

    Its probably to the point now where you treat him like Chump does the 9/11 truthers.
    Your inability to read clearly is amazing. You delusionally read into things I never said and take them widely out of context to create strawman arguments. I explicitly said,

    "I have seen more compelling evidence for things like land-use changes having an affect on a local climate."

    This was in the context of the evidence that is compelling to show an affect, it was not on what I believe to be the most compelling to explain changes in the global climate. Land use change could have an affect on a local climate and still not explain 99.9% of the change. This is irrelevant to the global climate.
    Poptech is offline

  2. #3392
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Do you believe CO2 has a appreciable effect on the global climate?
    I believe the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere has an affect on the global climate. I do not believe CO2 is a climate driver.
    Poptech is offline

  3. #3393
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Well, I was mostly ignoring him regarding the discussion of the list because it seems he's incapable of addressing things out of cone he's obviously gotten used to framing it within. Everything outside of that envelope is irrelevant to him and he just ignores it or dodges the question.
    I have addressed every point that is brought up.
    Poptech is offline

  4. #3394
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,629
    I believe the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere has an affect on the global climate. I do not believe CO2 is a climate driver.
    Care to elaborate?

    Do you believe the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic in nature?
    _____________________________

    MannyIsGod is offline

  5. #3395
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,399
    Yay more canned answers!

    You also equated socialism with the Soviets and communism.

    Where is the independent verified source that claims they are communist?

    Also your Red Scare tactics are hardly my concern alone. Not resorting to it has been a cornerstone of intellectual conservatism since 1962:

    Nonetheless, in February 1962 National Review ran a six-page editorial against Welch, arguing that he was damaging the anti-Communist cause by “distorting reality” and failing to distinguish between an “active pro-Communist” and an “ineffectually anti-Communist liberal.” It would be several years before Buckley excommunicated all Birchers from the conservative movement, but his editorial emphasized that “There are bounds to the dictum, Anyone on the right is my ally.”
    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...n-conservatism

    How can the John Birch Society be an effective political instrument while it is led by a man whose views on current affairs are, at so many critical points . . . so far removed from common sense? That dilemma weighs on conservatives across America. . . . The underlying problem is whether conservatives can continue to acquiesce quietly in a rendition of the causes of the decline of the Republic and the entire Western world which is false, and, besides that, crucially different in practical emphasis from their own.
    Even Bill would have thought you a hack.

    I vote for the libertarian party all the time as I have not voted for either of the two parties in any election since 1998 and I vote in every national election. I always vote third party; many times that has been the libertarian party. Does that make me a libertarian?

    Supporting a particular socialist policy neither makes one extreme nor socialist. Most Americans --myself included-- believe in a mixed economy. The acceptance of the notion of socialized medicine is pretty well split along party lines:

    '. Historically, the phrase socialized medicine has been used to attack health reform proposals in the U.S. However, a new poll by the Harvard Opinion Research Program at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and Harris Interactive finds that Americans are split on whether a socialized medical system would be better or worse than the current system. Among those who say they have at least some understanding of the phrase (82%), a plurality (45%) says such a system would be better while 39 percent say it would be worse. Twelve percent say they do not know and four percent say about the same.

    The poll shows striking differences by party identification. Seventy percent of Republicans say that socialized medicine would be worse than our current system. The same percentage of Democrats (70%) say that a socialized medical system would be better than our current system. Independents are more evenly split with 43% saying socialized medicine would be better and 38% worse.

    "These results suggest how polarizing the issue of health care will be in the general election," says Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The phrase ‘socialized medicine' really resonates as a pejorative with Republicans. However, that so many Democrats believe that socialized medicine would be an improvement is an indication of their dissatisfaction with our current system. Independents, who are the key swing group in this election, are split like the country as a whole."
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pre...-medicine.html

    Further antitrust laws have been a foundation of american economic policy for over a century. At the same time most american's -myself included-- support our incarnation of property laws and subsequent liberty in forming our own businesses.

    Contrast that with the laissez faire political view: the libertarian party. They have never had a representative in the US congress nor have they received over 1.1% of the popular vote.

    So those authors make false statements but you still went ahead and took their work? its cherry picking plain and simple. You just pick and choose to please your confirmation bias. the whole papers were peer reviewed not just the parts that you like.

    You do not get to arbiter what is considered the totality of what is considered an acceptable skeptics paper nor have i heard any decent argument why either list needs to be exhaustive.

    Will you please quit asking the stupid question if I think their list is exhaustive or not. I do not contend that either the pro or the con arguments are exhaustive. Perhaps you will have a point at some point.

    As for Idso, did he or did he not accept money from Exxon?

    Oh and as to your edit, I am not in a position to know whether or not he is lying. I certainly can see cause as to why he would be deceptive to their influence over him but that is nothing more than supposition.
    Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 05-02-2012 at 02:21 AM.
    _____________________________
    "All Knowledge is built upon instinctive belief, failing that there is nothing left." -Bertrand Russell

    "Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken

    Officially Noted By Agloco

    Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  6. #3396
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,399
    Your inability to read clearly is amazing. You delusionally read into things I never said and take them widely out of context to create strawman arguments. I explicitly said,

    "I have seen more compelling evidence for things like land-use changes having an affect on a local climate."

    This was in the context of the evidence that is compelling to show an affect, it was not on what I believe to be the most compelling to explain changes in the global climate. Land use change could have an affect on a local climate and still not explain 99.9% of the change. This is irrelevant to the global climate.
    Oh i can read just fine, dissembler.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  7. #3397
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,629
    Its irrelevant. Yet, he brought it up.

    MannyIsGod is offline

  8. #3398
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,399
    I have addressed every point that is brought up.
    You give canned answers in your line by lines for the most part. its pretty obvious that you are practiced at arguments concerning your list. that is not the same thing as addressing every argument.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  9. #3399
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,113


    PS I don't think much of Poptech. Couldn't care much less what he/she thinks of me.
    Do you realize how many things you might be refering to from that?

    Again, stop making me guess. I'm not playing your silly game. Put it in words.
    _____________________________
    I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...



    Wild Cobra is offline

  10. #3400
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,113
    If you were, you would be competant enough not to make some of the illogical arguments that you do.

    It is a double edged sword, and no one here trusts you with sharp objects.
    I see...

    It's not my explanations you disagree with, it's that I don't speak like a snob, like you.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  11. #3401
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,399
    I see...

    It's not my explanations you disagree with, it's that I don't speak like a snob, like you.
    Logical arguments have nothing to do with arrogance except according to those intimidated by intelligence, dolt.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  12. #3402
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,629
    Do you realize how many things you might be refering to from that?

    Again, stop making me guess. I'm not playing your silly game. Put it in words.
    I put it in words for you. I gave you pictures. Videos maybe?

    Its funny though because you act like I give a shit whether you understand. We're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond that point.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  13. #3403
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,113
    I put it in words for you. I gave you pictures. Videos maybe?

    Its funny though because you act like I give a shit whether you understand. We're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond that point.
    What does that have in your favor for sea ice? Much of the sea ice of Antarctica is outside the Antarctic Circle. Virtually none of the Arctic ice is outside the Arctic Circle.

    What are you trying to say?

    Am I to assume you realized you point was invalid, so you won't tell me?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  14. #3404
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,629
    Assume what you'd like!
    MannyIsGod is offline

  15. #3405
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,113
    Assume what you'd like!
    That's just it. I want a strait question. I will not assume.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  16. #3406
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,113
    OK... I will assume that you agree that I have a point when I point our that since you agree that observation equals causality, that soot is why the average northern sea ice is in retreat while the Southern sea ice isn't. And I'm not speaking of seasonal variations, but the long term changes.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  17. #3407
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,629
    Ok, you do that!
    MannyIsGod is offline

  18. #3408
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,113
    Since you're not man enough to say what's on your mind, I will. Wanting me to be a mind reader. Shit... That's what women do to us.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  19. #3409
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,629
    If you're as bad at reading women as you are at reading English then I'm not surprised you'd have issues there.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  20. #3410
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,113
    If you're as bad at reading women as you are at reading English then I'm not surprised you'd have issues there.
    I get it Manny. You're tired of me always proving you wrong. That's why you want me to guess.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  21. #3411
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,629
    Thats it.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  22. #3412
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,113
    I'll tell you what. let's try this again.

    Non of us disagree that the norther sea ice is retreating. Why is there no discussion about the southern sea ice? Is it because it has an upward trend?

    Since you AGW alarmist types like to use correlation to claim causality, I thought I would remind you that there is no large industrial buildup where the polar winds carry soot to the southern sea ice like the polar winds that carry soot from Asia over the norther sea ice. I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern sea ice follows that increase pretty good.





    [/QUOTE]
    What do you have to say about black carbon on ice?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  23. #3413
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    You also equated socialism with the Soviets and communism.

    Where is the independent verified source that claims they are communist?
    This is a lie. Where is the quote from the article of me claiming they are communists?

    Also your Red Scare tactics are hardly my concern alone. Not resorting to it has been a cornerstone of intellectual conservatism since 1962:

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...n-conservatism

    Even Bill would have thought you a hack.
    In the context of my article they are yours alone as my article has nothing to do with the, "Red Scare". I have never referenced Buckley to support an argument. Your obsession with him is entertaining though.

    I vote for the libertarian party all the time as I have not voted for either of the two parties in any election since 1998 and I vote in every national election. I always vote third party; many times that has been the libertarian party.
    I have a REAL hard time believing you vote for the Libertarian party, they are not the only third party on most ballots. The Green Party would fit your views better than the Libertarian party.

    Does that make me a libertarian?
    No but if you do not share a majority of their views, it makes you confused.

    Supporting a particular socialist policy neither makes one extreme nor socialist. Most Americans --myself included-- believe in a mixed economy. The acceptance of the notion of socialized medicine is pretty well split along party lines:
    Yes, it makes you a socialist. Supporters of a mixed economy are socialists. It is irrelevant to how well it is split across party lines as both parties contain socialists. Medicare Part D was socialist, so was the bailouts of the financial sector and the auto industry.

    Further antitrust laws have been a foundation of american economic policy for over a century. At the same time most american's -myself included-- support our incarnation of property laws and subsequent liberty in forming our own businesses.
    The length that socialist laws have existed does not make them any less socialist. Property laws are part of the frame work for a capitalist economic system.

    Contrast that with the laissez faire political view: the libertarian party. They have never had a representative in the US congress nor have they received over 1.1% of the popular vote.
    This is true which is why I believe it is more effective to be a Libertarian in the Republican party. While the Libertarian political party has not had much success, Libertarians effectively have with Libertarian Republicans; Senator Rand Paul, Representative Ron Paul, Former Representative Mark Sanford and Former Senator Barry Goldwater among others.

    So those authors make false statements but you still went ahead and took their work? its cherry picking plain and simple. You just pick and choose to please your confirmation bias. the whole papers were peer reviewed not just the parts that you like.
    You really have a reading comprehension problem. My comment about them making false statements was in relation to why their paper was listed.

    You have dodged this,

    Why do the author's believe their papers were listed?

    You do not get to arbiter what is considered the totality of what is considered an acceptable skeptics paper nor have i heard any decent argument why either list needs to be exhaustive.
    Where am I claiming to be the arbiter of anything outside of what I actually think?

    Will you please quit asking the stupid question if I think their list is exhaustive or not. I do not contend that either the pro or the con arguments are exhaustive. Perhaps you will have a point at some point.
    You have dodged this,

    Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?

    As for Idso, did he or did he not accept money from Exxon?
    ExxonMobil has given unsolicited donations to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which he is president. None of which has changed his position on the issue,
    "Clearly, one should not believe what we at CO2 Science or anyone else says about carbon dioxide and global change without carefully examining the reasoning behind, and the evidence for, our and their declarations, which makes questions about funding rather moot. It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue. [...]

    That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that." - Sherwood Idso
    His objections to AGW Alarm date back to 1980 in the peer-reviewed literature, long before the center existed.

    Oh and as to your edit, I am not in a position to know whether or not he is lying. I certainly can see cause as to why he would be deceptive to their influence over him but that is nothing more than supposition.
    Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 05:46 AM.
    Poptech is offline

  24. #3414
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Do you believe the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic in nature?
    I believe there is evidence to show it has had an anthropogenic component.
    Poptech is offline

  25. #3415
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,113
    Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?
    These libtards do this all the time. They dismiss any paper, article, etc. if they can loosely attach an energy company to it.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  26. #3416
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Its irrelevant. Yet, he brought it up.
    I brought it up as comparison to something that I have seen more compelling evidence for not as compelling evidence for global climate change.
    Poptech is offline

  27. #3417
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    You give canned answers in your line by lines for the most part. its pretty obvious that you are practiced at arguments concerning your list. that is not the same thing as addressing every argument.
    If you could come up with an original argument that has not been refuted about the list I would not be forced to repeat myself. Regardless, I am typing every reply here except for the quotes and links. I have addressed every argument about the list ad nauseum.
    Poptech is offline

  28. #3418
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,629
    I believe there is evidence to show it has had an anthropogenic component.
    How large of a component?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  29. #3419
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,629
    Also, you failed to elaborate on CO2's affect on the climate and what you meant by it not being a driver.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  30. #3420
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,629
    I'll tell you what. let's try this again.

    Non of us disagree that the norther sea ice is retreating. Why is there no discussion about the southern sea ice? Is it because it has an upward trend?

    Since you AGW alarmist types like to use correlation to claim causality, I thought I would remind you that there is no large industrial buildup where the polar winds carry soot to the southern sea ice like the polar winds that carry soot from Asia over the norther sea ice. I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern sea ice follows that increase pretty good.





    What do you have to say about black carbon on ice?[/QUOTE]

    MannyIsGod is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •