Alright, I have been a bit too polemic in my posts, I will step back from that, and since you are being civil, will return that in kind.
You "became convinced a long time ago".
This statement is important for a couple of reasons.
First, are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?
(this is a simple yes or no, I just want to know if you are familiar with the term, and as of yet make no implications or assertions, the intent of the question is to provide an agreed on conceptual framework for discussion)
To answer your first question will take some doing.
The answer to the second question is a bit easier, but it probably not an answer you will be satisfied with.
That answer is: as many as you can. In assessing complex ideas, one should not rely on ONE thing, but take a more comprehensive approach.
If you really want something specific, it isn't too hard to find the peer-reviewed journals. I don't mind doing a quick google search if you want, but you can do it as easily as I can.
There is no conspiracy in the climate science community
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.The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can'tThanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible
but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with
these guys. However, I have my own su ions and hypothesis. I
dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I
think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to
gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare
tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring
to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The
CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other
factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may
be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I
postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial
motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal
to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations
are increased and continued grant funding, university
advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon
control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and
other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Yoni, how the do you think we got into this asinine "green" corn ethanol subsidy boondoggle in the US?
That was bought and paid for by Cargill and ADM.
Should we call then capitalists?
A capitalist uses his own money to turn a profit. Not government subsidies. I call those pushing it liberals.
Capitalists definitely use government subsidies to turn a profit.
All the time.
:facepalm:
Do you know what a question mark is?Should we call then capitalists?
What capitalists with the surrounding meanings of the word are pushing the agenda? Have any names?I call those pushing it liberals.
A person with capital often invests it to make money. If the government is going to give these rich people handouts, they are a fool not to take it, and recoup some of their paid tax dollars. I don't see them as the ones pushing these agendas that require tax credits or grands to achieve. These subsidies to the rich are not needed in a free market. Only in a market where you wish authoritarian powers to pick winners and losers.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 11-12-2010 at 01:01 AM.
You must be a huge fan of Exxon Mobil & the entire Military Industrial Complex.
Take a stab at it.
Surely there's one source, one person, one peer-reviewed journal, report, white paper that you can point to and say, "Here, here's a good example of the position with which I agree explained by a person, group, or ins ution I trust."
Yes, I could Google it but, you can find anything on the Internet.
I want to know what's convinced you so overwhelmingly that humans are responsible for climate change to the point you're willing to engage in expensive, heavy-handed, government-controlled measures to, not solve the problem, but maybe, possibly, theoretically make a small dent over the next 20-50 years.
Because environmentalists were convinced ethanol was the answer and there was a capitalist more than willing to provide the science and resources and product to make their dream come true.
Maybe they should have researched ethanol a bit longer before engaging in yet another silly fad they thought was the be-all, end-all mitigation of the environmental problems caused by petroleum-based fuels.
Has California ever gotten all the MTBE out of their water?
Yoni you make some good points at times but then you totally blow your credibility unnecessarily defending an impossible position like this one. There ARE predatory corporations that have bought and paid Congress to let them WRITE the legislation than provides them with billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies. They may be taking advantage of the naivete of the "green" movement but ethanol was clearly a cynical manipulation of Federal legislation in order to reap billions in profit. It was NOT "honest businessmen" just "taking advantage" of silly tax breaks written by environmentalists.
It's a simple question; which came first, environmentalists love of ethanol or capitalists exploitation of environmentalists to push ethanol? And, I never called them honest, in fact, I allow it's an exploitation.
But, either way, ethanol only became the monster it is because someone, somewhere, some time ago said it would solve an environmental problem. And, like MTBE and other oxygenates, the environmental crowd never bothered to fully examine their theory before falling in love.
It's the same pattern for pretty much all environmental initiatives which is why I'm so dubious about all of them.
They might be taking advantage of stupid congressmen with liberal agenda's, but I also see the likelihood they told congress something like this: "What you ask is impossible for us to do and make a profit. If you want us to do this, you have to subsidize the cost."
Considering Environmentalists don't want these biofuels I think we know which came first.
lol capitalists don't take subsidies
Did they ever want them? Did they ever advocate for biofuels as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels?
Ever? And, if so, was it before or after the biofuels market took off?
They did, before they wised up to the implications.
So because environmentalists might think some kind of biofuel would be a good idea, they should be blamed for biofuel legislation they explicitly did not want.
You people are idiots.
That's like blaming pro-lifers for laws that allow partial birth abortions. They want laws that restrict abortions, and that law does indeed restrict abortions.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 11-12-2010 at 02:02 PM. Reason: forgot an s
straw analogy and a really bad one at that considering laws that allow partial birth abortions don't restrict abortions at all.
Why would an environmentalist want a ing fuel that still pollutes the way fossil fuels do? What the is so green about biofuels? Biofuels have been pushed by people who want to get us off foreign oil and people who want to sell them.
WTF is a straw analogy?
straw analogy
The analogy fits exactly what Yoni is doing. Environmentalists are the ones suing to stop this yet Yoni wants to blame them. Its asinine.
It's quite apt.
straw analogy
Both situations should draw a wtf response.
I don't disagree that Yoni is wrong on this one and have already pointed it out to him.
That being said, Chumps analogy was ed up.
You're saying that partial birth abortion laws allow for any abortion at any time under any cir stance for any reason?
straw analogy and a really bad one at that considering laws that allow partial birth abortions don't restrict abortions at all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
