global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

[Minister of Truth]

You're going to hell, its 6,000 years old if you have any respect for the bible.

I must have missed that part...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Sorry, but it's the oil business lobby that promotes the very viewpoint you have of ANY environmental scientist that dares to point out the flaws of "staying the course" with regards to our energy needs.

Case in point....the oil industry screamed bloody murder for YEARS when they were told to just clean up their acts regarding environmental impact. The Exxon Valdez disaster could have been avoided HAD EXXON MERELY INSTALLED ADDITIONAL NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT AND/OR PAID LOCAL CITIZENS TO MAN AN OBSERVATION POST IN THE AREA. Corporations went to court saying, "oh yeah, well PROVE that it was emissions from my plant that contributed to killing that lake with acid rain, and THEN I'll apply cleaner emission standards".

Yes, you have had controversy over 1 (ONE) group of scientist and their information (the jury is STILL out on that, despite all the supposition and conjecture and foregone conclusions).

The "drill baby drill" attitude isn't cutting it, because if we as a nation CONTINUE ON THE SAME PATH of energy consumption, even the fabled Anwar drilling would result in less supply than the amount of years, damage to the area and time/money to extract the oil.

There are alternatives...but people are selfish and greedy.

wow... you created a nice little strawman there.... you quite apparently did not read a word I wrote.

Try again.

Then try to answer these...

1) Do we have ANY control over environmental regulations for oil rigs/drills etc... in foreign countries? If so... how does that control compared to the same apparatus HERE in the US (or off our coasts)?

2) IF we were to drill here, does it keep the JOBS here in the US? Does it keep the money HERE in the US?

3) IF we allow the oil companies to drill our own reserves, do we or do we not control the percentage of the sale we receive in tax revenues?

4) WHERE in anything that I have written on the topic did I ever mention 'staying the course'??????

You see, your problem is hacks like you don't actually STOP and THINK about the problems and thus are incapable of coming to logical steps to correct said problems. Instead, you blindly follow a bunch of fear mongering flat earthers because they tell you 'big oil is bad... trust us no matter what shit we try to feed you'

Seems every blessed time someone deconstructs the various premises of global warming deniers using common knowledge and readily verified facts, the deniers cry "strawman". It's often a false and incorrect charge, all the more made absurd by the deniers then diverting and/or distorting the original point of contention of the discussion.

Right off the bat, 3D AVOIDS the points I made, and instead creates NEW AVENUES of discussion, in an attempt to validate his original assertions via association. Case in point:

1. His first "question" is an attempt to justify keeping the status quo in energy source operations. By comparing US to foreign oil drilling, the conversation becomes "we're better than them, and we can't control them". This is misdirection on 3D's part, because he's avoiding the FACT that the question of importance is to change how US does it's business.....as with coordination with other nations. Bottom line: if you and your international partners/counterparts and subsidiaries are operating in a fashion that is detrimental to the environment, then that has to be changed. As I pointed out earlier, the Exxon/Valdez incident could have been avoided IF EXXON HAD FULLY LIVED UP TO SAFETY REGS, INSTEAD OF CUTTING CORNERS.

2. See number #3. Why can't those potential jobs be put to construction and restructuring/maintaining of our infrastructure towards more green techonology? To advocate more oil drilling is not good for the environment of our dwindling forest areas. Why not ramp up the exisiting/closed refineries instead of depending upon foreign refineries.

3. Again, a question that AVOIDS recent historical FACTS. Case in point, the ANWAR controversy....were it was pointed out that AT OUR CURRENT RATE OF CONSUMPTION, the amount of oil that is estimated to be extracted out of ANWAR would last less than a decade, and would NOT equal the cost of constrution to extract the amount, not to mention the damage to the local environment, which would be permanent....unless of course several years down the line the oil company would cover the cost of dismantling all the equipment and restoring the area to it's original condition (without federal subsidy, mind you).

4. Advocating the same rhetoric that has been heard for the last 30 some odd years from the oil companies and their supporters is "staying the course".

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What you are doing is trying to directly link one particular accusation of fraudulent practice leveled at ONE group as the rule of thumb for ALL the material provided in the link.....and THAT is totally erroneous on your part.

Since (to my knowledge)there has been no RULING that EVERY SCIENTIST and scientific group are guilty of the charge, and that group in question has NOT been found "guilty", your assertion falls flat.

Now, that being said, what is in the material presented in the link can you logically and/or factually prove wrong?

actually, it is not leveled at 'just one group' but several.

Obviously the email scandal points to the collaboration between many different groups to suppress opposing views.

The IPCC has come out twice in the last month to admit their report contained assessments based on bullshit and not on SCIENCE.

Hansen at Goddard also fights every FOIA request he gets.

So pretending it is only 'one' group is absurd.

Even if it were 'just one'... it is ONE of the THREE main sources the fear mongers use to support their flat earth theories.

Making that generalized accusation will constantly talking about 1 incident is absurd.

FOIA applys to government records, not private industry. Until there is a court order that the e-mails be released to the general public, your supposition and conjecture will remain just that.

There are more than just 3 main sources regarding the global warming premise. National and international, individual and groups are involved.

Now, that being said....since you've taken up the response I put to Damo, can you answer the question I put to him?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yeah,yeah...its ok......I'm starting to realize you're not big on reading comprehension.....

Thought I'd BOLD and UNDERLINE the pertinent part to help you....
Maybe its a little over your head..

This was already responded to, you blithering bumpkin! I'm beginning to believe that you truly are stupid because I have to constantly dumb things down for you to comprehend....YOUR UNDERLINED ASSERTION IS ABSURD....BECAUSE YOU'RE COMPARING NATURAL PROCESS THAT TOOK HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF YEARS TO THE DEVASTATION THAT MANKIND HAS WROUGHT IN JUST UNDER 1 CENTURY.

Got that bunky?

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=600684&postcount=54"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - global warming naysayers miss the point...again![/ame]

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Essentially, you just avoid the FACT that Cypress provided UNDENIABLE PROOF that the source USFreedom uses DOES NOT support his or your assertions.

Once again, the one case you keep referring to has YET to be officially ruled as you say...and it's ONLY ONE GROUP involved in decades of research by scientist all over the world.

1) Nothing I stated had anything to do with USFreedoms source...

2) once again you pretend it is just ONE organization coming under scrutiny. It is NOT just one. You would know this if you actually paid attention to the issue.

1. Why do you think I said you AVOIDED what Cypress pointed out? Essentially, it negates your further assertions on an important point.

2. Once again, you promote the false notion that only 1 or 3 groups are responsible for the ALL the information regarding proof of global warming...an absurd notion given the international scope of the issue and the multitude of scientists envolved. And the ONE group you're so hyped about has NOT gone through any final legal conclusions yet. For you to carry on as if it's a done deal is just incorrect.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Watch it Super.....next TC will declare grass really is green and point out you're a willfully ignorant neocon and you need to read his links to far left "links for assholes" websites to get educated.....its kinda standard procedure for him/it.

There you have it folks.....Bravo proudly displaying his willful ignorance.

Keep lying your ass off, Bravo....just don't get an adult to read the chronology of the posts and then explain it to you, as the hinges of your fragile mind would be ripped assunder. Carry on!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Hey, Dixie, nice new avatar, asshole!!

 

[maineman]

Hey, Dixie, nice new avatar, asshole!!

do ya think he finally realizes that the stars and bars kinda highlights his deep seated racism?

 

[Taichiliberal]

You forgot the thing about "reviewing the chronology of the posts" ...that's important too!

So many times, I, like others, will naturally read the thread in arbitrarily random order, so I guess I must miss out on TC's brilliance. But he says, reading the thread in 'chronological order' is pertinent to understanding his idiocy. I guess that's why I can't ever make sense out of it?

So you admit you don't know WTF has transpired, but yet you defend shooting off your mouth as if you do? Are you such a deluded jackass that you are proud of your stupidity?

Seems when you can't BS your way pass someone, you just find some like minded fool for a maudlin exchange. See jackass the chronology of the post will ALWAYS BE THERE to prove what an intellectual joke you are:

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=600620&postcount=32"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - global warming naysayers miss the point...again![/ame]

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Because I read ALL the available material, pro and con, and then come to a rational and logical conclusion. Also, I don't use an incorrect prediction that's over 30 years old and has LONG since been proven wrong by the current environmental scientists (as it was disagreed by others 30 years ago) as a final determiner.

And if your conclusion is incorrect, then what??

Well, since the FACTS I present are irrefutable in this particular discussion, the conclusion is that I'm correct in this instance. If people cannot and will not acknowledge or discuss those FACTS, then their "argument" is rendered incomplete and therefore their conclusions erroneous.

 

[Annie]

Interesting, no?

http://sonicfrog.net/?p=2849

Lots of links, including that quoting Jones:

Huge Climate Story…. Honesty.


Did anyone else just hear the “bump-bump” of the Jones bus running right over the infamous Hockey Stick?

Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the Climategate scandal, has for the first time admitted that the Medieval Warm Period could have been warmer than the present day, flying directly in the face of the stupid Hocleystick Graph that caused so much of the Climate panic in the first place. From the BBC report, titled “Climate data ‘not well organised“:

Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.

He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.

But Professor Jones said he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.

He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.

But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.​

Here is why that is important. If there was a warmer Medieval Warm Period, then the current warming could be more likely due to natural variation, instead of CO2 and man-made. as the models don’t account for this earlier warmer condition. At the very least, the “certainty” and of doom and gloom warming predictions is overstated, as the world may have been warmer and the world didn’t end.

These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.

Yes, in fact, it does. Thank you Dr. Jones for finally being honest. I sincerely wish it didn’t have to come to this point where your life is in turmoil. Let this be a cautionary tale to others. Just be honest and open, and this kind of thing would be avoided.

 

[Annie]

Once again, follow the money:

http://bigjournalism.com/otockfield...on-following-the-money-all-e4-trillion-of-it/

...But hard-core warmists, intent on skepticizing the skeptics, invariably ask: “why would the media go along with this poppycock?”
Yes, why are the media so invested in the warming notion, given the countervailing evidence, the fact that the last climate theory (the global cooling scare of the 1970s) was so quickly disproven, and that it is self-evident that CO2, that most persecuted of molecules, is essential for life… for plant life. (When an elephant sighs, a tree smiles.)



Well, the BBC, a prime proponents of warming theory, or AGW, has heavily invested its pension fund in the theory, and thus have had a major non-Scientific reason for their bias. As revealed this weekend in The Express [6]:

The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit. Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted. The BBC is the only media organisation in Britain whose pension fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which has more than 50 members across Europe.

The IIGCC is an interesting group. As their website explains [7]:

The IIGCC is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4 trillion.

Wait… I hate to be a skeptic, but did they just say… “Four Trillion Euros”?

They did.

The Chairman of IIGCC investment group is Peter Dunscombe, who also happens to be the BBC’s Head of Pensions Investment.

Cui bono, my friend, cui bono?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1. Why do you think I said you AVOIDED what Cypress pointed out? Essentially, it negates your further assertions on an important point.

2. Once again, you promote the false notion that only 1 or 3 groups are responsible for the ALL the information regarding proof of global warming...an absurd notion given the international scope of the issue and the multitude of scientists envolved. And the ONE group you're so hyped about has NOT gone through any final legal conclusions yet. For you to carry on as if it's a done deal is just incorrect.

1) Again, that article did NOTHING to refute what I had stated

2) The three leading bodies behind global warming research are who? If you think all the scientific bodies 'studying' global warming are ALL compiling the raw data, then I believe you are sorely misinformed. The majority base their 'findings' on the data compiled by Goddard, the NOAA and the CRU. Please feel free and provide me with the other groups you think are compiling the raw data if you think I am wrong.

 

[NOVA]

Is it any wonder that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel privately called liberal activists "f---ing retarded."....Hes right...there is consensus....the debate is over....

 

[Taichiliberal]

Interesting, no?

http://sonicfrog.net/?p=2849

Lots of links, including that quoting Jones:

Yes, interesting.....now all one has to do is find a medevil period that matches the artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry, and with the range of global deforestation and urbanization of our major land masses, and then you can rest easy that global warming is all a dastardly hoax in order for the socialist communist to rule the world!

And then again, there is this:

Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_antarctica.html

 

[Annie]

Yes, interesting.....now all one has to do is find a medevil period that matches the artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry, and with the range of global deforestation and urbanization of our major land masses, and then you can rest easy that global warming is all a dastardly hoax in order for the socialist communist to rule the world!

Go to site. Read what Jones said.

 

[Minister of Truth]

do ya think he finally realizes that the stars and bars kinda highlights his deep seated racism?

Doubtful. But even Southerners who attempt to defend the Starz & Barz will dump on the official Confederate flag. The line of argument goes thus: the Starz & Barz represents our heritage while the official flag represents a foreign country that we do not condone. This argument is still bullshit, because the Starz & Bars represents killing American soldiers and little else. Dixie is taking it to extreme levels to display a flag that even his fellow Southerners will generally condemn.

 

[Taichiliberal]

1) Again, that article did NOTHING to refute what I had stated

2) The three leading bodies behind global warming research are who? If you think all the scientific bodies 'studying' global warming are ALL compiling the raw data, then I believe you are sorely misinformed. The majority base their 'findings' on the data compiled by Goddard, the NOAA and the CRU. Please feel free and provide me with the other groups you think are compiling the raw data if you think I am wrong.

1. Repeat yourself all you want, but the chronology of the posts shows how YOU avoided what Cypress stated...which essentially renders your assertions irrelevent. Your response was to him, was it not? So unless you're going to admit that you're using a standard lame neocon tactic of avoiding a point you can't disprove by foistering another avenue of discussion, you'll just have to settle for insipid stubborness.

2. Nice try, but it was YOU who hyped the one groups controversy as the be all end all. I never stated that there was an internationalin compiling raw data, so for you to state such is a lie....or you just don't comprehend what you read. And you seem to have a penchant for making these declarative statements that just don't hold up under scrutiny. Case in point:

1900 - Air Pollution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html


Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_antarctica.html

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yes, interesting.....now all one has to do is find a medevil period that matches the artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry, and with the range of global deforestation and urbanization of our major land masses, and then you can rest easy that global warming is all a dastardly hoax in order for the socialist communist to rule the world!

Go to site. Read what Jones said.

I did Annie....doesn't change what I stated above, nor the information in my link (Did YOU read it?)...unless you can produce a quote that does. In the meantime, check this out:


1900 - Air Pollution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html


Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ntarctica.html

 

[Taichiliberal]

Is it any wonder that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel privately called liberal activists "f---ing retarded."....Hes right...there is consensus....the debate is over....

For the proudly willfully ignorant like yourself, there never was a debate.