SCYUKON

Agreed, back to the debate. This is a funny interview. An pro nuclear environmentalist accuses the nuclear alarmists of using scare tactics and non-proven science. While he is using scare tactics of his own. LOL.http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/22/bran...dex.html?hpt=C1Here is a quick quote for mirth"Meanwhile, some anti-nuclear organizations have been using horrifying photographs of deformed babies with gross birth defects and saying these were caused by Chernobyl. It's just a lie, so that's a little alarming to see scare tactics like that based on nonscience."I know nothing about wheth

oh well, if nothing else good comes from all the recent hoopla, at least folks are starting to check their work a little bit betterhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010...retract-siddall

I hope Yorkie and VB don't watch find out about this training film.

So you are back to bleating that the science is settled. You are right, I guess we never did leave that place.If hundreds of scientists had determined that posting on the internet poker forum was bad for the world, would you do a bit more work on your own? You have enough confidence in the work of others in the case of AGW, since it kind of aligns with what you think, but if it didn't (like the internet posting tax), then you would do the work.So it is as simple as you agree with the AGW science without doing any work on your own. Ok.

So I guess we are back to determining whether or not sufficient proof exists for or against AGW. Good luck with your efforts (you folks are going to make an effort, I would assume?)

I am not worried about negative externalities. The question is how you would react to the scenario I presented. My guess is that you, VB, and Yorkie would protest strenuously against paying extra taxes for such nonsense. Am I right or wrong?So if we can assume that you all would agree that you would protest against a tax related to a nonsensical concept like taxing people who post on internet forums, then this AGW debate really simplifies to whether or not you agree with the AGW proof or not. My sense is all of you do agree, otherwise I don't see how you could be willing to pay the extra t

Not sure what percentage was covered by the government (do you have any stats for the 1983-1990 period?) but all I recall is that the tuition was in the order of $1000/term + approx $750/term for books for a total cost of around $3500/year. Which was a heck of a lot for my family at that point in time. But anyways, back to the question about the taxation of posting in an internet poker forum. You are welcome FCP Bob or VB to share you views on how you would react to that as well.

The above bizarre example reminds me of the stance of the US government that internet gambling is bad for you. Do you agree with that one? I don't see any proof, do you, yet they went forward with it. Did not have any tax implications (other than cutting down the internet whiz kids incomes) but was a policy rammed down people's throats with little proof that what they were doing was good for the world.

So then to spin back to the question at hand which I posed, if someone said that N had to be higher due to people posting on internet poker forums, what would be your reaction? Obviously this is a bizarre example, but useful for making my point, since I am trying to illustrate what I see as the lack of proof behind AGW (which you disagree with) as parallel with the obvious lack of proof that posting on an internet poker forum is bad for the world (you don't believe that posting on an internet poker forum is bad for the world, do you?).I mean - would you take the word of the "experts" who said

I would like to see the overall tax burden for all reduced. The goal is to reduce the overall tax burden by not creating extra taxes for problems which have not been yet sufficiently proven (in my opinion) to justify spending trillions trying to fix. Spending money on any problem which does not really exist hurts everyone - can we agree on that much? If someone came to you tomorrow and said that you had to pay 20 times more tax because you frequently post on a poker forum, would you not say to yourself "How is posting on a poker forum doing harm to the world", and get outraged? Show me the

No I am not. I did not spend 7 years in University getting a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Engineering, then work very hard for 20 years to get my career to the point where it is at, so that I could piss away my hard earned money on stupid taxes. I grew up with very modest means and through hard work have managed to build a nice life for my family. The opportunity to work hard is open to most everyone - some just choose not to pursue that path and instead bleat about wealth redistribution (directly or indirectly).

You should actually read those sections, maybe they will make you cry.

No, just a few little sections on the lack of calibration of the models that are predicting the doom and gloom. Nothing major. No need for concern. I will just pop in my Inconvenient Truth DVD and all will be good. What the hell was I thinking???

The other thing that happens in your 40's is that you are (for many) starting your peak earning years and you start to wonder why in the hell you are paying so much in taxes, with potentially more on the horizon in the form on cap and trade nonsense.I have always liked the line that "If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. But if you are not a conservative when you get older, you have no brain".Right now, you warmists have a lot of heart. God bless you.Curious to see how your thinking matures as your incremental tax rate increases.

So you are a true environmentalist, then, glad you outed yourself, bought time you came off the supposed fence you have been perched on."We should all be driving Hummers so we can get rid of this dirty crap as fast as we can. Once we have none left (or it is in short enough supply to be sufficiently expensive) we will find other ways. And probably not before then -- as long as it is affordable and available we will keep using it. True environmentalists recognize this and do their part to use as much gasoline as they can."

Fantastic Summary, in my opinion.

Throw in the fact that the climate models are not calibrated as of yet, have little predictive ability, and you pretty much have my position, yes. God Bless. I must say my mind was open at one point but after I started into the IPCC reports those doors got shut pretty quickly.

I am in the 40-45 age group.VB - I call bs that you are a skeptic. You and Yorkie and even FCP Bob (who by the way never did return to call out a certain someone as being stupid for developing a view on AGW after watching AIT) masquerade as seekers of the pure truth (in my opinion) and defenders of logic, but I never see you putting forth any analysis or logic checks which challenges the warmists. In your case, recently it just seems like you are on some unrelenting quest for complete exactness in quotations.And Yorkie - please don't stop clicking on this link - we would miss your "err" of

Um, time to point out the obvious, these two dudes (Mann and Jones) are kind of like the big fish, not too little nodes in the big circuit of global warming, would you not agree? Mann is (oops was) the head of UEA, a key player hooked up with IPCC. Not going to accept your attempt at dismissing their significance, sorry. Anyways, enough of the semantics. Just the facts. Would be delighted to see your work in this area.

Some more history around "the science is settled" in case you think I am making it up that it has been around. One persons opinion from http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/17/the-sci...is-not-settled/It’s a sad commentary on the state of the world when a scientist’s declaration that there is indeed room for reasoned scientific debate counts as a victory, but there you have it. The mantra “the science is settled” traces its roots back to the Clinton administration, when President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore declared that the certainty of the case for global warming, the “fact” that scientis

Thanks for doing some legwork for me 85suited. VB - did 85suited really need to have to dig those quotes up for you to admit that the AGW crowd has been echoing this position. You can't really say with any honesty that you did not realize this is the mantra that has been put forth on a continuous basis by the AGW crowd, can you?Can we get back to the facts, as you requested? I am still curious as to your response to the fact that Phil Jones and Michael Mann are under investigation. Does that not spur any curiousity in you?? Do you have any theories as to why they ignored freedom of inform

Well the reason I accuse the other side of being a religion is that up til now, in my opinion, formed from researching the (in my opinion) lousy predictive models, I did not see any solid proof of what was being put forth by the IPCC. Hence my, and others, thought that only blind faith, not cold hard objective facts, was behind the AGW theory. At any rate, happy not to use the R word and stick to facts, as we are going to be seeing a lot of fact finding going on in the future.So on that note, I think you will agree that it is a fact that Phil Jones, and Michael Mann, key IPCC figures, are no

Weill if AGW is such a catalyst in global warming, why has it not warmed even more in the last 15 years then? How does the lack of warming reconcile with the NASA position that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record? Were 1995 - 1999 that cold???? Has AGW gone down that much in the last 15 years if it is so causal in Global Warming? Or is this where the need to switch the term to climate change comes in to explain the lack of warming.The apparent admission by Phil Jones (note I have to say apparent because the warming crowd is not saying that Phil Jones was fed loaded questions, simila

Cherry picking again here Mills. Here the worlds largest coal company is taking the EPA to court. Can't wait to see how this turns out.Anyways, here is the link in case I don't understand or misinterpret or misrepresent what is going on:http://www.climategate.com/worlds-biggest-...fraud#more-4213