Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

miniTAX wrote:

Ask legislation to counter global warming, wow !
They are asking a legislation which can't combat crime, drug or poverty to combat global warming ? Man, they are going nuts or what ?[/quote]

You're a supporter of anarchism, correct?

0 Replies

And meanwhile you can just see some of these people gleefully rubbing their hands together in eager anticipation of harmful global warming, devastation among poor people, and their salivating over the idea of draconian taxes, regulation, restriction and every other thing the government can do to take away personal freedoms.

That is the only reason I can think of why they would grasp at any flimsy straw to support their desire to believe that the AGW group is correct and why they would summarily dismiss or bend over backwards to discredit anybody who presents any different point of view.

There just must be something in the water here and there to produce such enthusiasm for misery.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You're a supporter of anarchism, correct?

No Walter, no Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

There just must be something in the water here and there to produce such enthusiasm for misery.

Yeah. Good job on the thinking thing. Now, ought we to quote you or Ledeen on the delightful miseries that will follow from a withdrawl of american forces from Iraq?

0 Replies

Quote away but please do it on the Iraqi thread though they probably won't want you hijacking that thread with a completely non pertinent subject either.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
Biofuels really have little to do with "climate science." Climate science isn't the study of possible energy sources for human use.
So what the hell does the IPCC do in promoting Kyoto and recommending biofuel as a mitigation solution ?

I guess I am unclear where they do that in their science. Could you please give us the reference citation?

0 Replies

Blatham,
What I understood in Foxfyre words is some people are just unhappy with other's happiness, prosperity and freedom. There is a name for it: puritanism. In other times, they act by burning or hanging you. Now, they are more progressive: they try to tax and legislate :wink:

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I guess I am unclear where they do that in their science. Could you please give us the reference citation?

Read their Working Group III (mitigation) report.

0 Replies

Oh, parados, I've got better for you. Read the IPCC's summary for policymakers, table 5, where recommendations are made to profoundly change the world's energy infrastructure (they even recommend a tax level for a ton of CO2). Not bad for a "science" supposedly disconnected from energy policies right ?
What, you didn't know that ? Too late mate. Now they force it down your throat, just keep smiling.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Blatham,
What I understood in Foxfyre words is some people are just unhappy with other's happiness, prosperity and freedom. There is a name for it: puritanism. In other times, they act by burning or hanging you. Now, they are more progressive: they try to tax and legislate :wink:

Correct. But be prepared for your version to be equally misunderstood or red herring-ed too.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Blatham,
What I understood in Foxfyre words is some people are just unhappy with other's happiness, prosperity and freedom. There is a name for it: puritanism. In other times, they act by burning or hanging you. Now, they are more progressive: they try to tax and legislate :wink:

Nah. There's a logical fallacy in her 'reasoning' the size of an aircraft carrier but she doesn't have the integrity or courage to acknowledge it. Par for the course.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
Blatham,
What I understood in Foxfyre words is some people are just unhappy with other's happiness, prosperity and freedom. There is a name for it: puritanism. In other times, they act by burning or hanging you. Now, they are more progressive: they try to tax and legislate :wink:

Nah. There's a logical fallacy in her 'reasoning' the size of an aircraft carrier but she doesn't have the integrity or courage to acknowledge it. Par for the course.

And you blatham? Where is your integrity or courage to explain what you allege is Foxfyre's logical fallacy?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

blatham wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
Blatham,
What I understood in Foxfyre words is some people are just unhappy with other's happiness, prosperity and freedom. There is a name for it: puritanism. In other times, they act by burning or hanging you. Now, they are more progressive: they try to tax and legislate :wink:

Nah. There's a logical fallacy in her 'reasoning' the size of an aircraft carrier but she doesn't have the integrity or courage to acknowledge it. Par for the course.

And you blatham? Where is your integrity or courage to explain what you allege is Foxfyre's logical fallacy?

Go back. Reread her 'argument'. Consider the analogous 'argument' of dire warnings re Iraq and troop withdrawl. Then perhaps a nap.

0 Replies

The hotter the globe, the hotter it will be to be under the sun!

How about demanding that the UN pass a resolution requiring everyone 18 years and older, male and female alike, to carry parasols for themselves and those younger than 18, to protect themselves and those younger from global warming?

Wait! That's discrimminatory!

This resolution should require all born persons to carry parasols to protect themswelves from global warming.

Parasol manufacturers, and their parts and materials suppliers, will be among the most vocal supporters--not to mention most profiteering supporters--of this resolution.

Yes, the manufacture, distribution, and sales of over 6 billion of those parasols will generate lots of CO2! But that's no problem. Those parasols will protect us all regardless.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
blatham wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
Blatham,
What I understood in Foxfyre words is some people are just unhappy with other's happiness, prosperity and freedom. There is a name for it: puritanism. In other times, they act by burning or hanging you. Now, they are more progressive: they try to tax and legislate :wink:

Nah. There's a logical fallacy in her 'reasoning' the size of an aircraft carrier but she doesn't have the integrity or courage to acknowledge it. Par for the course.

And you blatham? Where is your integrity or courage to explain what you allege is Foxfyre's logical fallacy?

Go back. Reread her 'argument'. Consider the analogous 'argument' of dire warnings re Iraq and troop withdrawl. Then perhaps a nap.

Aah so! Blatham, Shocked

you lack the integrity and courage for you yourself to explain what you allege is Foxfyre's logical fallacy.

What the hell? Give it a try, Blatham! You might actualy learn something important from that exercise. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :wink:

0 Replies

Bernie has been accusing me of logical fallacies and far worse for years now, but to the best of my knowledge, he has never presumed to present a logical argument for his opinion. But from his unsupported snipes, it is reasonable to conclude that he considers himself to be far more virtuous, extremely more intelligent and much better read (as he has pointed out on numerous occasions) and measurably morally superior (this one he affirms) to me. Furthermore I have been described as dangerous. (I rather like that one. Smile

)

But hey, who is to say he is wrong? He might actually have something to back all that up but so far has presumed that his presumption is sufficient proof to keep saying it. From time to time we agree on a truce, but he can't seem to keep one longer than a week or two. A real pity.

Oh yes, most recently I am also hateful and mean spirited. Shoot, I bet if I worked at it, I could get credit for all the global warming problem that exists. Smile

0 Replies

No one requires logic to support a purely faith-based belief. By definition, the truth of a purely faith-based belief--logical or illogical--is self-evident to its believers.

And of course, a purely faith-based believer knows all persistent non-believers are "hateful and mean spirited."

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

...all it takes to get a person healthy is to balance the humours. And the nightime sky demonstrates equally clearly that the universe spins happily around us. And when your child is doing poorly in school, then a good sound beating will turn him right around and have him bringing in the first class marks in no time at all.

What a strange and twisted world you live in... very sad Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

No one requires logic to support a purely faith-based belief. By definition, the truth of a purely faith-based belief--logical or illogical--is self-evident to its believers.

And of course, a purely faith-based believer knows all persistent non-believers are "hateful and mean spirited."

Non-belief can be faith based too of course. But thinking about your comment, I suppose those of us who do are not faithful disciples of the leftist religion on various themes are almost hated--maybe actually hated--because of our unwillingness to believe without question in those themes. And of that I--probably several of us--am absolutely guilty.

I need a logical reason to believe as much as I need a logical reason to disbelieve no matter how much I do or don't want something to be true.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
No one requires logic to support a purely faith-based belief. By definition, the truth of a purely faith-based belief--logical or illogical--is self-evident to its believers.

And of course, a purely faith-based believer knows all persistent non-believers are "hateful and mean spirited."

Non-belief can be faith based too of course. But thinking about your comment, I suppose those of us who do are not faithful disciples of the leftist religion on various themes are almost hated--maybe actually hated--because of our unwillingness to believe without question in those themes. And of that I--probably several of us--am absolutely guilty.

I need a logical reason to believe as much as I need a logical reason to disbelieve no matter how much I do or don't want something to be true.

While I agree that non-belief can also be faith-based, I think most of the time my non-belief is an agnostic kind of condition. For example, people frequently claim great investment opportunities for either improving or sustaining my economic condition. Absent the offer of logical reasons for believing those opportunities actually exist, I ignore them. But even given logical reasons, I require some evidence that those logical reasons are realistic reasons.

This is analogous to the debate situation in this thread. When someone here claims something is true but is unwilling to tell me why they think so, I immediately suspect their thinking is purely faith-based. Worse, when they slander me or someone else for not believing what they believe, I think them fools or frauds. That is, they either truly believe what they claim but are unable to support it, or they do not truly believe what they claim, and know it cannot be supported.

Debating either type can be fun as long as one does not take them too seriously.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know