Page 115 of 161 FirstFirst ... 1565105111112113114115116117118119125 ... LastLast
Results 2,851 to 2,875 of 4001
  1. #2851
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I chose the point that was relevant to the conversation I was having. I wasn't interested in whether or not Lutz statement was true.

    I was discussing ABC's and the White House's misrepresentation of a government report.
    So was I. You went to a politically partisan blog. I went to a newspaper and insurance industry sources.

    You are not the arbiter of this debate for anyone but yourself. If you do not think that how property claims are rising or what the insurance industry is doing about it in Florida and lists as cause is compelling then so be it but it is very much so on point.

    Critical thinking helps. I do not allow myself to be spoonfed by pundits and hacks.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  2. #2852
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Your point?

    I've already stated the actual report that was released by the government did not make the claim the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100. I merely demonstrated the person announcing the release said that in his speech and indicated it in the PowerPoint presentation accompanying the release.

    That, apparently, was sufficient for ABC News to run an alarmist story about "Thinking twice before retiring to Florida."
    My point is that you are both factually incorrect, and that your thinking about the subect is seriously logically flawed.

    Your public policy perscription about the science that you think illogically about, and actively, provably misrepresent, is quite arguably disasterous, and the worst effects you claim about not adopting your policy perscription are simply not plausible.

    You are about as wrong on this as it is possible to be on a subject.
    RandomGuy is offline

  3. #2853
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    i also want to point out that I went to those tow sources versus scientific literature precisely because the discussion was with you. You have indicated a distrust and/or difficulty understanding --I am now realizing is more out of convenience-- of scientific literature.

    I figured you being a self styled 'conservative' might consider industry leaders to be a source that you could actually find credence.

    What i am finding is that you are so politically programmed to distraction. Your reaction is predetermined before an argument is even made. You as a matter of course just discount arguments and find solace in pundits and hacks.

    I am ambivalent between concern and sadness.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  4. #2854
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Thats what I figured.

    And you cannot see a relationship between the insurance industry getting out of the Florida risk market and AGW? Intentionally obtuse is cute.

    those are news articles from the Orlando Sentinel saying that the insurance industry is bailing out of the risk market because of water and weather related claims. Thats not peer reviewed anything. Its a newspaper article.

    What I am trying to convey to your 'conservative' mindset is that because they believe in AGW as evidenced by

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...rance-836.html



    http://articles.businessinsider.com/...rance-industry

    They are putting their money where their mouth is and dumping FL homeowners and flood policies. This should appeal to your 'conservative' mindset because those policies do not just go away they are picked up by the fed and state governments.
    Oddly enough, the number of claims for lightning strikes is... (drumroll) directly related to temperature as well.

    The costs of doing nothing to society are buried in everything.

    The costs of pushing for green energy are upfront.

    Because we have a segment of the population that will and whine about taxes, a cost they can see, we will be forced to accept the higher, hidden costs to our economy that will cost us far more in the long run.

    The same can be said about a lot of things.

    Goverment is where we actively, collectively pool our resources to do things that the free market and individuals cannot.

    This pooling of resources gets demonized as inherently evil, severely limiting our ability as a country to respond to obvious trends in a thoughtful manner.
    RandomGuy is offline

  5. #2855
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    My point is that you are both factually incorrect, and that your thinking about the subect is seriously logically flawed.

    Your public policy perscription about the science that you think illogically about, and actively, provably misrepresent, is quite arguably disasterous, and the worst effects you claim about not adopting your policy perscription are simply not plausible.

    You are about as wrong on this as it is possible to be on a subject.
    Wait, I'm not an English major either.

    What are you saying?

    I'm wrong about ABC misrepresenting the report?

    I'm wrong about the White House discussing information, in the release, that isn't contained in the report?

    I'm wrong about asserting there are a bunch of idiots trying to scare us into believing in anthropogenic global climate change?

    I'm wrong about there not being any reasonable, knowledgeable people -- with a shred of credibility on the issue -- explaining AGCC to the country or the world?

    What am I wrong about?
    Yonivore is offline

  6. #2856
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    If there is "no evidence" of AGCC, as you claim, all that is lies and mis-representation.

    Please stop claiming that I claim this, as you misrepresent ME.

    I don't think there is "no evidence" of AGW -- I just have doubts about (1) the amount of human contribution vs. natural variability (2) climate sensitivity and (3) the nature of feedbacks.
    DarrinS is offline

  7. #2857
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    i also want to point out that I went to those tow sources versus scientific literature precisely because the discussion was with you. You have indicated a distrust and/or difficulty understanding --I am now realizing is more out of convenience-- of scientific literature.

    I figured you being a self styled 'conservative' might consider industry leaders to be a source that you could actually find credence.

    What i am finding is that you are so politically programmed to distraction. Your reaction is predetermined before an argument is even made. You as a matter of course just discount arguments and find solace in pundits and hacks.

    I am ambivalent between concern and sadness.
    Think about what it takes to be a religious conservative, and it becomes clearer.

    Unfailing, unchanging, unquestioning, adherence to dogma, and commonly held belief systems. That is what it takes to sustain a religion.

    Now apply an inability to adapt to change to a rapidly changing world that requires changing policy solutions, and adaptations in position to changing conditions.

    Conservatism, and caution are not inherently bad. It just leads to inadaptability, especially given human tendencies to confirmation bias.
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #2858
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    So was I. You went to a politically partisan blog.
    I went through a politically partisan blog to get to a government website, a government presentation and an ABC report.

    For what it's worth, the politically partisan blog, about which you're hyperventilating, supported Manny's view. I think I pointed that out several times.

    I went to a newspaper and insurance industry sources.

    You are not the arbiter of this debate for anyone but yourself. If you do not think that how property claims are rising or what the insurance industry is doing about it in Florida and lists as cause is compelling then so be it but it is very much so on point.
    They're not compelling in a discussion about whether or not ABC and the government are misrepresenting facts contained in a government report. I didn't even get into what the facts are -- just that ABC and the presenter of the report, represented facts different than how they were printed in the actual report.

    Critical thinking helps. I do not allow myself to be spoonfed by pundits and hacks.
    So does paying attention to what's being said.
    Yonivore is offline

  9. #2859
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    That's not how ABC reported it.


    You're right it is 2011 and that's 12 years beyond when the United Nations told us, back in 1989 that global warming would be beyond our control and creating eco-refugees by 1999.



    Yeah, how 'bout that guy. He's AGCC's biggest fan and it's biggest financial beneficiary.

    The AGCC crowd will never live down that piece of crap receiving a Nobel for his work on climate change.
    If I had a dime for every statement or mistake by a scientist mouse dredges up to disprove evolution...

    Your ad hominem is rejected.

    Given the amount of published science is increasing exponentially, with the implication that our overall knowledge base is increasing, it should surprise no one that 30 year old predictions didn't pan out.

    "This guy predicted we would have men on the moon by 1950, boy was he wrong. That must mean that predictions of being on the moon by 1970 are just as wrong".

    Specious, and illogical, with a side order of sneering condescention.

    No thanks.
    RandomGuy is offline

  10. #2860
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Think about what it takes to be a religious conservative, and it becomes clearer.

    Unfailing, unchanging, unquestioning, adherence to dogma, and commonly held belief systems. That is what it takes to sustain a religion.
    "Settled Science" - Motto of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. Al Gore, Head Pastor
    Yonivore is offline

  11. #2861
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    If I had a dime for every statement or mistake by a scientist mouse dredges up to disprove evolution...

    Your ad hominem is rejected.

    Given the amount of published science is increasing exponentially, with the implication that our overall knowledge base is increasing, it should surprise no one that 30 year old predictions didn't pan out.

    "This guy predicted we would have men on the moon by 1950, boy was he wrong. That must mean that predictions of being on the moon by 1970 are just as wrong".

    Specious, and illogical, with a side order of sneering condescention.

    No thanks.
    Well, except that it's not just any scientist, it's the same body upon which you would have me rely for scientific certainty, today.

    Who's to say they're not wrong again?
    Yonivore is offline

  12. #2862
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431


    Get the media to convince me.

    Really Yoni?


    I mean REALLY?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  13. #2863
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Think about what it takes to be a religious conservative, and it becomes clearer.

    Unfailing, unchanging, unquestioning, adherence to dogma, and commonly held belief systems. That is what it takes to sustain a religion.

    Now apply an inability to adapt to change to a rapidly changing world that requires changing policy solutions, and adaptations in position to changing conditions.

    Conservatism, and caution are not inherently bad. It just leads to inadaptability, especially given human tendencies to confirmation bias.
    Its just very disappointing to me how far critical thinking and consideration of principles has disappeared. I put conservative and liberal in quotations because as principles they no longer have meaning. They are just about who gets to have control.

    Its engendered by the political process and most people are too lazy to give a .

    I can understand tradition.
    I can understand risk aversion.
    I can understand liberty.
    I can understand compassion.

    Its certainly not about policy specifics either. Its about who gets to make them, what or why they are that way be damned.

    You'll get some lipservice as to that but there is always a source and seldom its from true self reliance and an attempt at critical decision making.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  14. #2864
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Do you not see the irony in using this poll to support your assertion?


    Did you read this?



    Most Americans agree that this winter has been warmer than usual in their local area, but don't agree on the cause. Republicans and independents are more likely to say the warmer temperatures are due to normal year-to-year temperature variations, while Democrats are more likely to say the cause is global warming.


    Seriously? @ Manny. You know better.
    DarrinS is offline

  15. #2865
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    .
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-18-2012 at 05:32 PM. Reason: made a simple mistake, and need to fix. sorry
    RandomGuy is offline

  16. #2866
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372


    Get the media to convince me.

    Really Yoni?


    I mean REALLY?
    No, not really.

    Get the media and world organizations that want me to be alarmed about AGCC and be convinced it is real, that it's bad, and that I can do something about it to FIND an anthropogenic global climate change proponent with credibility and an ability to communicate complicated science in a easy way.

    Neil DeGrasse Tyson, for instance. He might could be a good spokesperson -- even though he's not a climate scientist -- for the AGCC crowd to develop into a credible, reasonable messenger.
    Yonivore is offline

  17. #2867
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Well, except that it's not just any scientist, it's the same body upon which you would have me rely for scientific certainty, today.

    Who's to say they're not wrong again?
    Wait! There are people saying they're wrong again and, quite frankly, they make a more compelling argument, to me -- a simple lay person, not involved in climate science -- that Al Gore, you, or any of the white papers you've linked in here.
    Yonivore is offline

  18. #2868
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Wait, I'm not an English major either.

    What are you saying?

    I'm wrong about ABC misrepresenting the report?

    I'm wrong about the White House discussing information, in the release, that isn't contained in the report?

    I'm wrong about asserting there are a bunch of idiots trying to scare us into believing in anthropogenic global climate change?

    I'm wrong about there not being any reasonable, knowledgeable people -- with a shred of credibility on the issue -- explaining AGCC to the country or the world?

    What am I wrong about?
    Your misrepresentation are based on strawman attacks where you misrepresent what scientists say by implication.

    You are wrong that there is no evidence of AGW.

    Your "do nothing" public policy prescription leads to a lot of hidden, widespread costs. These costs will end up being far more disruptive to the economy than any 100 Solyndras. But, you won't see them. They won't be detailed in conservative blogs or on Fox news headlines. For you, they won't seem to exist.

    They will be there nonetheless.

    You claim that pushing for renewables and lowering emissions would "push us off a cliff". I have repeatedly pointed out that is quite arguably not only wrong, but the opposite of what would likely happen in the long run.

    Your response is simply to double down on ad hominems, and whatever other logical fallacy seems to make sense to you.

    (shrugs)

    I do not buy the evil conspiracy. There is evidence of AGW, because that is what the scientists producing the research have concluded.

    I take them at their word, because I do not have reason to doubt them.
    RandomGuy is offline

  19. #2869
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Do you not see the irony in using this poll to support your assertion?


    Did you read this?






    Seriously? @ Manny. You know better.
    Raising the global temps has raised winter temps in the United States.

    This is not some random event like an isolated tornado outbreak.

    I read it, and I found nothing wrong with it.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  20. #2870
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    No, not really.

    Get the media and world organizations that want me to be alarmed about AGCC and be convinced it is real, that it's bad, and that I can do something about it to FIND an anthropogenic global climate change proponent with credibility and an ability to communicate complicated science in a easy way.

    Neil DeGrasse Tyson, for instance. He might could be a good spokesperson -- even though he's not a climate scientist -- for the AGCC crowd to develop into a credible, reasonable messenger.
    I have no doubt, none, zilch, nada, zip, that were he to do so, you would demonize him, and you would be joined by every other Denier blog, WSJ op-ed, and Fox news talking head.

    No one here doubts that either, even the people who tend to agree with your conspiracy theory.
    RandomGuy is offline

  21. #2871
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Darrin, I am not you. I read my links, and I make sure that they actually say what I want them to say before I post them. Why? Because I'm not pulling something out of thin air then googling away at finding things to support it.

    You are MORE than welcome to try to turn the way I bust you around on me in the future, but I would expect more face plants just like this one.

    I bet you felt sooooooooooooooooooo good when you thought you got me too.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  22. #2872
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    So was I. You went to a politically partisan blog. I went to a newspaper and insurance industry sources.

    You are not the arbiter of this debate for anyone but yourself. If you do not think that how property claims are rising or what the insurance industry is doing about it in Florida and lists as cause is compelling then so be it but it is very much so on point.

    Critical thinking helps. I do not allow myself to be spoonfed by pundits and hacks.
    So does paying attention to what's being said.
    Now you are being petulant. I am forced to dumb it down for you.

    You sit there and claim that all you care about is some supposed specific inaccuracy in an ABC report that amongst other things stated that Florida was expected to experience an adverse rise in sea levels in the next 100 years.

    Now lets just disregard for a moment that you have been waffling over and over again as to what that particular inaccuracy is.

    Instead, lets consider what I was saying. I linked multiple non-scientist, leading industry sources --trying to consider your bias-- that show that the insurance industry is very concerned about flooding and weather related claims in Florida, that they have spoken before both the Canadian and US congresses, and in fact are raising flood insurance rates as well as getting out of the homeowners coverage market entirely citing ballooning flood and weather related claims in the state.

    Its pretty clear what my point is: an entire financial industry believes in the significance of climate change in Florida. that they are not only talking the talk but they are walking the walk.

    Now lets consider what you are saying: that an ABC News Report about the significance of climate change was inaccurate about said significance in the sate of Florida.

    Does that clear up why I am saying that if what I am contending is irrelevant then you have no point? Does that clear up why I am saying that you are being intentionally obtuse? Does that clear up why I say that you are missing the forest for a tree?

    Do you want me to spell it out for you any clearer?

    You are behaving like a child. One that is putting their hands over their ears and screaming 'I don't have to listen to you.' Its intellectually dishonest and quite frankly contemptible.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  23. #2873
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Furthermore, can you explain to me how the poll fails to show that beliefs were broken down on party lines? That was my initial point.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  24. #2874
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Its just very disappointing to me how far critical thinking and consideration of principles has disappeared. I put conservative and liberal in quotations because as principles they no longer have meaning. They are just about who gets to have control.

    Its engendered by the political process and most people are too lazy to give a .

    I can understand tradition.
    I can understand risk aversion.
    I can understand liberty.
    I can understand compassion.

    Its certainly not about policy specifics either. Its about who gets to make them, what or why they are that way be damned.

    You'll get some lipservice as to that but there is always a source and seldom its from true self reliance and an attempt at critical decision making.
    I am, in the end, for what works. I don't really think of myself as terribly "liberal", but get shoved in that box by people who think of themselves as "conservative". At this point, it is just shorthand.

    FWIW, I end up at pretty much the same spot as the Dalai Lama at political compass.org. Civil liberties, freewill, and moral responsibility to those who need help.
    RandomGuy is offline

  25. #2875
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I am, in the end, for what works. I don't really think of myself as terribly "liberal", but get shoved in that box by people who think of themselves as "conservative". At this point, it is just shorthand.

    FWIW, I end up at pretty much the same spot as the Dalai Lama at political compass.org. Civil liberties, freewill, and moral responsibility to those who need help.
    Oh I get that just from hearing you talk about how taxation should be used as a tool to discourage behavior. That is application of principle which is exactly what I am talking about.

    I am referring to the reactionary drivel that you see most often.
    FuzzyLumpkins 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
  •