 
     |
| Rinse would be a little disappointed (Green Tax Credits) (Page 3/7) |
|
cliffw
|
JUL 18, 11:27 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
You put a bunch of people in a room who all agree that government is "over regulated" but they will not be able to agree on which regulations need to go. |
|
Your showing off. Try to sound intelligent.
A room  ? What room ?
As I said, act intelligent.
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
... everyone wants to keep what they like and get rid of the rest. But a government can run like that. You have to have a process to create regulations then everyone has to agree with the process.
|
|
I bet you do not realize you put your finger on the problem.
Or am I wrong ?
|
|
|
BingB
|
JUL 18, 01:14 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
I bet you do not realize you put your finger on the problem.
|
|
Of course I realized it. That is why I wrote it down.
Glad we agree on this.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
AUG 03, 09:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
AUG 03, 09:43 AM
|
|
THAT AIN'T THE OLD WSJ
THAT IS THE FOX/MURDOC RWNJ VERSION
LIES BEHIND A PAYWALL
|
|
|
|
NewDustin
|
AUG 04, 09:47 PM
|
|
This is an opinion piece by a non-scientist who's opinions have been argued against by the vast preponderance of the scientific community and evidence. He's also been censured for scientific dishonesty.
I mean, you do you but if I find myself this desperate for a stance that agrees with my own will you please call me out on it?
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
AUG 06, 09:53 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by NewDustin:
This is an opinion piece by a non-scientist who's opinions have been argued against by the vast preponderance of the scientific community and evidence. |
|
Yeah, we heard all that. The vast preponderance is 97% agree that climate change really is a global threat. FALSE ! That is a hyper link.
| quote | Originally posted by NewDustin:
He's also been censured for scientific dishonesty. |
|
Ah yes. Denmark's Ministry of Truth. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) is now the subject of debate itself. With some advocating for the abolition of the Committee itself. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty initially did not censor Bjørn Lomborg for his work but public pressure caused them to change their mind.
It is fact we have heard many many fear, doom, and gloom warnings which have not come true. Heavily coupled with the emotional guilt about polar bears, peoples beach front homes being destroyed, Even cities which will end up like the Lost City of Atlantis. Submerged islands.
Did your elevation above sea level change ?
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
AUG 06, 01:00 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Ah yes. Denmark's Ministry of Truth. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) is now the subject of debate itself. With some advocating for the abolition of the Committee itself. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty initially did not censor Bjørn Lomborg for his work but public pressure caused them to change their mind.
It is fact we have heard many many fear, doom, and gloom warnings which have not come true. Heavily coupled with the emotional guilt about polar bears, peoples beach front homes being destroyed, Even cities which will end up like the Lost City of Atlantis. Submerged islands.
Did your elevation above sea level change ? |
|
yes it has
about 400 feet in 10 thousand years
you do know they can see and date older levels
hottest day on record several days in a row recently
but drill baby drill
and burn baby burn
act like nothing matters
rump plan is never do anything
so the gran kids will own it
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
OCT 12, 10:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
NewDustin
|
OCT 12, 11:42 AM
|
|
Now THIS is how you straw man! For those of you hoping to use or call out that fallacy in the future, pay close attention to what this author does:
Do they acknowledge that the actual claim is that there will be more high-strength storms, which is demonstrably true? NO! They find one big hurricane then claim their ideological opponents are saying that the biggest hurricane must be caused by global warming, ignoring the impact of thousands of years of statistical probability.
Do they acknowledge advances in early warning systems, disaster procedures, and technology in general? No, they ignore any reasonable point that might undermine what they are saying! More people died per-storm before CO2 emissions grew to the problem they are now, so the author immediately concludes the storms must have been worse.
Is it true that primarily US federal government-funded scientists are finding in favor of anthropomorphic climate change? Of course not, they but insist it is! They ignore that anthropomorphic global warming is overwhelming corroborated by a huge body of independent, peer-reviewed research from across the entire world.
Is it true that many grids rely largely on renewables, and energy security is not mutually exclusive with that? Sure, but don't acknowledge that! Focus on silly-sounding future plans, or just outright insist people are arguing against progress and energy security.[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-12-2024).]
|
|
|
cliffw
|
OCT 12, 04:42 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by NewDustin:
Now THIS is how you straw man! For those of you hoping to use or call out that fallacy in the future, pay close attention to what this author does:
Do they acknowledge that the actual claim is that there will be more high-strength storms, which is demonstrably true? NO! They find one big hurricane then claim their ideological opponents are saying that the biggest hurricane must be caused by global warming, ignoring the impact of thousands of years of statistical probability.
Do they acknowledge advances in early warning systems, disaster procedures, and technology in general? No, they ignore any reasonable point that might undermine what they are saying! More people died per-storm before CO2 emissions grew to the problem they are now, so the author immediately concludes the storms must have been worse.
Is it true that primarily US federal government-funded scientists are finding in favor of anthropomorphic climate change? Of course not, they but insist it is! They ignore that anthropomorphic global warming is overwhelming corroborated by a huge body of independent, peer-reviewed research from across the entire world.
Is it true that many grids rely largely on renewables, and energy security is not mutually exclusive with that? Sure, but don't acknowledge that! Focus on silly-sounding future plans, or just outright insist people are arguing against progress and energy security.
|
|
I have no idea of what you are trying to say.
| quote | Originally posted by NewDustin:
Do they acknowledge that the actual claim is that there will be more high-strength storms, which is demonstrably true? |
|
Demonstrably true? Which would mean you could prove it, yeah ? We expect numbers.
Stormfax
| quote | Originally posted by NewDustin:
Is it true that many grids rely largely on renewables, and energy security is not mutually exclusive with that? Sure, but don't acknowledge that! |
|
Which grids rely largely on renewables ?
|
|
|
|