climategateFollow

I don't have to. I'm asking you to support your arguments. You trying to change the subject (so we can get into an argument about "saving the planet" instead and drift safely away from your original arguments) doesn't count as you supporting your assertions.


Again, trying to change the subject doesn't count. Either your argument can stand on its own or it can't. Since you're trying to play a game of using other people's arguments as the support for yours, it seems safe to say that you can't actually support it.

No, it's simplistic because it fails to address anything except some single arc: "They want government control of industry and thus the people who rely on those industries". As soon as you start asking "who?" and "why?", it becomes progressively sillier. That has nothing to do with your frantic grasping for some other argument to latch on to and start talking about instead.

Yeah, we've already established that lame taunting works better on you than on me

Better luck next time.

I just noticed that someone in this thread keeps repeating that carbon dioxide isn't toxic because it's benign and only kills you when it displaces enough oxygen in the environment. Just want to point out that this is completely false: CO2 kills even in the presence of more than sufficient O2 levels.



Edited, Dec 14th 2009 4:18pm by trickybeck

It's harder to die from CO2 poisoning than CO poisoning, therefore global warming is a lie.

CO2 levels are going to have to rise a LOT higher than their present < 400 ppm to cause anyone to die from hypocapneoa.

You're more likely gonna die from being eaten by a displaced polar bear that has swum south after his iceberg melted....

The thing that really tickles me is how the government can say, absolutely straight-faced, that Cap n' Trade is the "best" option because it utilizes markets! Nevermind that the initial allocation of credits, or sale of credits, is a hugely political proposal, and has more chance of being scammed than of succeeding as intended (although the sheer amount of participants reduces this possibility). And don't worry that open markets would be susceptible to huge distortions from participation by the plethora of environmentalist groups.

Why is it that no politician can adequately explain the effluent tax?

Edited, Dec 14th 2009 7:11pm by Demea

I can't speak for whoever you're listening to but I think it's probably more accurate to say that cap & trade is the best solution with any chance in hell of passing through Congress.

Really? So politician A doesn't support the inclusion of Politician B, C, and D's earmarks as long as they support the inclusion of his? Cause that would seem like a pretty (dare I say it) "obvious" interconnection.

Sorta like a group of politicians all supporting something like the IPCC in order to mutually gain political power over affected industries (and votes for appearing to be so environmentally conscious!). How do you not see that these are similarly motivated?


I'll ask again: Why do you think politicians do these things?


EDIT: The larger point is that I can provide a common example of what appears to be collusion among politicians to do something we all agree is "bad", without any massive conspiracy having to be involved. Just combined self interest...

Edited, Dec 14th 2009 5:26pm by gbaji

No, not even remotely close in scope or style.


You honestly think these are comparable? You can't see how quickly this falls apart?


I guess because I'm not grasping at straws to defend my asinine claim that it's "obvious" that ACC is one big scam designed to control industries so the government can control the people.


Earmarks aren't bad.

Edit: I'm not seriously vested in continuing this further since it's going to go in circles anyway. I really just wanted to draw out of you what was so "obvious" about ACC science and politics. I personally think your little theory is a mixture of partisan shield raising and tinfoil-hattery but, hey, now everyone else can read your master theory and come to their own conclusions. I never thought I'd change your own personal opinion.

Edited, Dec 14th 2009 7:46pm by Jophiel

Who's using a strawman now? You interjected the "scope and style" requirement, Joph. Not me.

They are similar in method. Which is what I'm talking about. Politicians engage in earmark trading for the same reason they support things like the IPCC recommendations. It's mutually beneficial to their careers to do so.



No. I don't. How about you explain it?

Oh wait! That would require that you actually perhaps give some alternative explanation as to why politicians would support the IPCC recommendations, wouldn't it? Heaven forbid you have to do that...



The methodology is "bad". Earmarks are a method to fund something with public money which the public would not choose to fund if it had a choice about it. They are favors traded by politicians in return for other favors. While this does not require that the results be "bad", it does enable funding for things which would not ordinarily be considered to be sufficiently "good" to warrant funding.



In other words: You don't have an alternative explanation, so you don't want to pursue the argument. That's ok.




That I'm willing to back up my assertions and you are not? Sure. I'll accept that status quo Joph. I'm not sure how far you'll get on the "I can't explain why, but I'm sure there's a good reason for it that it better than your reason" position, but whatever floats your boat...

Edited, Dec 14th 2009 6:42pm by gbaji

Yes. But in the absence of a better alternative explanation? Occam's Razor and all that...




Until someone else steps up to the plate and presents an alternative explanation, I'm not sure how you can call mine "weak".



I do find it amusing that the exact same argument is "strong" when it's scientists drawing a paycheck from the oil companies, but "weak" when it's scientists drawing a paycheck from governments. Is that an honest assessment of the likelihood of personal motivation affecting results? Or perhaps there's some bias in here?


I fully acknowledge that there's a vested interest on both sides of the issue. Can you?

Since you don't speak for the public at large, it's pretty easy to say that your unfounded ideas on this one have no basis in fact.

We don't dismiss them. We (by which I mean not you) take them into consideration, and we've found the science on one side of the issue to be stronger than the other. By the way, good job comparing my point to the idea of paranoid conspiracists, since that's essentially what you are right now.


Edited, Dec 15th 2009 1:22am by Majivo