Reply With Quote
Lamer...
I linked the thread I said it in 45 minutes later. Knowing someone idiot like you would say I cried wolf otherwise. You are really late on this remark. I already proved I made the statement. On the 13th!
wouldn't hurt to abandon our egos as well.
Lamer...
I linked the thread I said it in 45 minutes later. Knowing someone idiot like you would say I cried wolf otherwise. You are really late on this remark. I already proved I made the statement. On the 13th!
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-16-2010 at 11:06 AM.
My bad, WC -- don't come here often enough to keep up with every post, so props for digging out your argument. I just thought your original deflection was so absurd that I couldn't resist posting the pic.
I mean c'mon! You said you may have typed it and then deleted it, and that that was as good as having posted it! I'm not trying to break your balls, but you have to admit that's some funny , man!
Nicely put.
Inherent, of course, in my statement is that when WC dismisses an argument as "utter bull ", he is, in essence surrendering as well, as you so aptly note.
Thanks for pointing that out, and again, I agree.
Would you like some sugar with your confirmation bias?
So, that's guy's video is basically arguing that we take action to limit greenhouse emissions, destroying an already weak economy in the process, because the risks of Al Gore's doomsday scenario are just too great? (even though Al Gore's 20 foot sea level rise described in his sci-fi horror drama is 12 times greater than the IPCC's worst case scenario and IPCC's models have already diverged from objective measurments over the last decade)
Sounds reasonable to me.
How about we strengthen our economy first?
Such actions won't harm our ecomomy. Quite the opposite, it would help it, and we would be better off.
That is what I must assume until you can provide some support for the statement:
"taking action to reduce CO2 emissions will destroy our economy"
I call bull . Prove it or withdraw the statement.
That's Random Propaganda for you...
I noticed you did not answer the question, though.
Can you prove, to a reasonable degree, that the economy would be harmed by lowering carbon emissions?
"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago." -Keith Briffa
"I believe..."
... now there's real solid science for ya, solid as creationist science.
You're saying that about a very prominant climatologist and AGW cultist.
He was confiding with his fellow warmists in what he thought was confidential email.
EDIT> Briffa's temperature reconstruction contained the decline they were trying to hide by using "Mike's Nature trick". Mike, being Michael Mann of Hockey Stick infamy.
Last edited by DarrinS; 09-16-2010 at 09:53 AM.
You mean by carbon trading, right?
Any money mandated to be spent elsewhere takes away from our rights to spend as we choose. Isn't that enough for you?
Anything energy related will cost more. The costs will be passed along to us consumers. This will drive down everyone's standard of living. If you cannot see these simple truths, then there is nothing else to discuss. just because i cannot quantify it, doesn't make it any less real. There will be a price to our standard of living with such things implemented.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
