Global Warming

[CaneBrain 95]

Well the serious cold weather infecting the rest of the country ( low 70s here ) seems to be an indicator that the earth was created with he ability to cool itself off when it gets warm. Higher temperatures = warm air = higher levels of vapor evaporation = more reflective cover over earth to weaken the influence of the sun's rays = lowering the temperature. Looks like the earth was made pretty well, pretty well indeed.

Maybe if Canadians believed in Jesus a little more, it would not be so unseasonably warm there to the point they have to ship in snow for the olympics.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Just in case it wasn't clear already, you, mr. 85suited, are clearly not interested in having a discussion about global warming, and instead just enjoy rallying for your "side".

Really?Let's forget the whole "The Science is/n't Settled" Red Herring in this debate. You're going to try and play the "I've been at this for years, kids." Card? I forget, is that demagoguery or something else? Whatever, it certainly isn't "having a discussion about global warming".Now people are asking us to Disprove a Theory. "Hey, here is a Theory, now if you don't like it, Prove the Negative for me. While using the same flawed and manipulated data that was incorrectly applied to support the theory in the first place." Sorry, not my job. Someone has presented a Theory and asked, demanded at times, me and the REST OF THE WORLD to change our behavior as a result. They gobbled up millions (billions?) of research dollars. They established an entire infrastructure of Climate Change Science - foundations, Intergovernmental Panels, and other groups bear the name. They called opponents stupid and unscientific - steamrolling other professionals who dared to disagree with their conclusions. They presented this theory with at the very least an "Implied QED" at the end. I'd argue that they did more than imply, they may not have used the exact phrase "The Science is Settled" but they sure used words and actions to that effect.They aren't interested in debate, any more that US Congress People and Senators were interested in "debating" the Health Care Legislation in Town Halls. They have established a position and want to DEFEND it. That is different from coming into the debate with an open mind.So, no. I will not attempt to disprove said theory - Global Warming Climate Change is NOT true until proven false. If you want the World to accept your point of view and change our ways, then it is you (them) who must go back to the labs and strip away biases and present clean unmanipulated data. This time do this before asking for my Government's taxes, or "Cap Fees", or "Emissions Credits" to support your research and conclusions.

[CaneBrain 95]

So, no. I will not attempt to disprove said theory - Global Warming Climate Change is NOT true until proven false. If you want the World to accept your point of view and change our ways, then it is you (them) who must go back to the labs and strip away biases and present clean unmanipulated data.

There is reams and reams and tons and tons of unbiased manipulated data. It is the group that does not want to have to hear that they might (stressing might) have to change their ways that has seized upon the reports of a very small number of unethical scientists and tried to pretend/extrapolate/imply that their misdeeds invalidate everyone's work. (Of course this is better than the Hannity/Beck crowd that also try to use a current cold winter to imply that climate change science is wrong which both shows a complete misunderstanding of the ideas and ignores the areas of our continent that are having unseasonably warm winters.)A number of Republican/Conservative leaders had damaging sex scandals in the last 2 years. Should I assume that all Republicans that lean on a values platform are really completely full of crap? Should I put Larry Craig's sins or Mark Foley's sins or Mark Sanford's sins on every GOP member? Or should I accept that just because some GOP members actually have poor values that does not mean that every GOP values candidate is full of it?The speed with which the conservative movement has tried to throw dirt on the entirety of climate change theory based on the actions of a small few should be stunning but in our current gotcha/everything is black and white media climate it's just business as usual.

[vbnautilus 48]

Really?Let's forget the whole "The Science is/n't Settled" Red Herring in this debate. You're going to try and play the "I've been at this for years, kids." Card?

What? No, I think you just misunderstood. I was just making the point that I haven't even discussed my own position on the science because I've been responding to the logical nonsense. That, and I was making a joke at 85's expense. I think I'm actually younger than him. I guess it wasn't obvious since everyone responded seriously.

Now people are asking us to Disprove a Theory.

That is actually the way science works. We should always be trying to disprove our theories (and we can really only prove them false, and never prove them true). But I don't think you are in a position to do it any more than I think I am. This is pretty central to the point I've been making. You seem to believe you do have the necessary background to come to a conclusion, so I'm curious how this fits in with the rest of your position.

So, no. I will not attempt to disprove said theory - Global Warming Climate Change is NOT true until proven false.

If there is evidence for it we accept it until the evidence contradicts the theory's predictions. You are implying that these few potentially discredited papers are the only evidence for global warming. This is the elephant in the room that no one wants to address. It does not follow that because a paper written by someone in support of global warming was fabricated that global warming is false.

If you want the World to accept your point of view and change our ways, then it is you (them) who must go back to the labs and strip away biases and present clean unmanipulated data. This time do this before asking for my Government's taxes, or "Cap Fees", or "Emissions Credits" to support your research and conclusions.

Is this part supposed to be directed at me? I don't recall ever asking anyone to change their ways. The only solution I have ever advocated on this forum to the carbon situation is this:

Adding my 2c: There is an unlimited supply of energy in the universe. Have no doubt we will always find new ways to harness that energy if our motivation is great enough. This is why I advocate using up the oil as fast as possible. 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.

[vbnautilus 48]

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.

If they show up here and engage in poor reasoning, rest assured they will be challenged.

[SCYUKON 0]

Really?Let's forget the whole "The Science is/n't Settled" Red Herring in this debate. You're going to try and play the "I've been at this for years, kids." Card? I forget, is that demagoguery or something else? Whatever, it certainly isn't "having a discussion about global warming".Now people are asking us to Disprove a Theory. "Hey, here is a Theory, now if you don't like it, Prove the Negative for me. While using the same flawed and manipulated data that was incorrectly applied to support the theory in the first place." Sorry, not my job. Someone has presented a Theory and asked, demanded at times, me and the REST OF THE WORLD to change our behavior as a result. They gobbled up millions (billions?) of research dollars. They established an entire infrastructure of Climate Change Science - foundations, Intergovernmental Panels, and other groups bear the name. They called opponents stupid and unscientific - steamrolling other professionals who dared to disagree with their conclusions. They presented this theory with at the very least an "Implied QED" at the end. I'd argue that they did more than imply, they may not have used the exact phrase "The Science is Settled" but they sure used words and actions to that effect.They aren't interested in debate, any more that US Congress People and Senators were interested in "debating" the Health Care Legislation in Town Halls. They have established a position and want to DEFEND it. That is different from coming into the debate with an open mind.So, no. I will not attempt to disprove said theory - Global Warming Climate Change is NOT true until proven false. If you want the World to accept your point of view and change our ways, then it is you (them) who must go back to the labs and strip away biases and present clean unmanipulated data. This time do this before asking for my Government's taxes, or "Cap Fees", or "Emissions Credits" to support your research and conclusions.

Fantastic Summary, in my opinion.

[SCYUKON 0]

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."

[vbnautilus 48]

I guess you weren't even on the fence of having a sense of humor.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yeah, I guess you weren't even on the fence of having a sense of humor.

In your 40s, you start to lose the ability to recognize obvious jokes. Luckily, you gain the ability to accuse of others of being close-minded while excusing your own close-mindedness.

[vbnautilus 48]

In your 40s, you start to lose the ability to recognize obvious jokes. Luckily, you gain the ability to accuse of others of being close-minded while excusing your own close-mindedness.

I can't wait!!

[SCYUKON 0]

In your 40s, you start to lose the ability to recognize obvious jokes. Luckily, you gain the ability to accuse of others of being close-minded while excusing your own close-mindedness.

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

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.

I certainly hope I will not reach a point where I look at a small amount of data from the IPCC and make up my mind completely about a large, complex issue. Because that is not maturity of thought.

[SCYUKON 0]

I certainly hope I will not reach a point where I look at a small amount of data from the IPCC and make up my mind completely about a large, complex issue. Because that is not maturity of thought.

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???

[vbnautilus 48]

No, just a few little sections on the lack of calibration of the models that are predicting the doom and gloom.

This makes me laugh.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

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.

So, when it comes to tax philosophy, you're not exactly a fan of John Rawls, are you?

[SCYUKON 0]

This makes me laugh.

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

[SCYUKON 0]

So, when it comes to tax philosophy, you're not exactly a fan of John Rawls, are you?

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).

[LongLiveYorke 38]

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).

So, because you worked so hard to get where you are, you want to make it harder for others to get where you are by making the tax breakdown less progressive? In other words, for a fixed total amount of taxes, would you like to see the rich pay more or less in taxes. It initially appears that you would have them pay less.

[SCYUKON 0]

So, because you worked so hard to get where you are, you want to make it harder for others to get where you are by making the tax breakdown less progressive? In other words, for a fixed total amount of taxes, would you like to see the rich pay more or less in taxes. It initially appears that you would have them pay less.

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 proof?Or would you just say, no I better pay the tax so I can subsidize those who don't post on poker forums.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

So, because you worked so hard to get where you are, you want to make it harder for others to get where you are by making the tax breakdown less progressive? In other words, for a fixed total amount of taxes, would you like to see the rich pay more or less in taxes. It initially appears that you would have them pay less.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about?

He said that he worked hard to get to where he was, he went to school, etc etc. Therefore, it is unfair to tax him excessively because he earned all that he has made.I made the following counter argument:Fix the total amount of taxes that the government takes in. Imagine that the government must take in N dollars in taxes each year. For this fixed N, there is some distribution that the comes from. For example, people who earn $20,000 - $30,000 pay 5% of that, people who make $30,000-$50,000 pay 10%, people who make in X range pay Y%, etc etc.There is some distribution for a fixed N. Given that, to claim that rich people should pay less in taxes means that poorer people should pay more. If the N has to come from somewhere, and if the rich pay less, the poor pay more. Therefore, if a rich person says they pay too much, then I say that paying less would mean that poorer and middle class people pay more, and therefore it is harder for them to become rich as the rich person did. Now, one could argue that N should be smaller. I agree with that. But for any given N, we must decide on some distribution. And I favor a progressive one.

[Dagata 0]

He said that he worked hard to get to where he was, he went to school, etc etc. Therefore, it is unfair to tax him excessively because he earned all that he has made.I made the following counter argument:Fix the total amount of taxes that the government takes in. Imagine that the government must take in N dollars in taxes each year. For this fixed N, there is some distribution that the comes from. For example, people who earn $20,000 - $30,000 pay 5% of that, people who make $30,000-$50,000 pay 10%, people who make in X range pay Y%, etc etc.There is some distribution for a fixed N. Given that, to claim that rich people should pay less in taxes means that poorer people should pay more. If the N has to come from somewhere, and if the rich pay less, the poor pay more. Therefore, if a rich person says they pay too much, then I say that paying less would mean that poorer and middle class people pay more, and therefore it is harder for them to become rich as the rich person did. Now, one could argue that N should be smaller. I agree with that. But for any given N, we must decide on some distribution. And I favor a progressive one.

I understand the counter-argument, but we're not using a fixed income system, which is why we can argue the rich should pay less. Assuming we are using a fixed system, and the rich should pay less, than the government should spend less, so yes, lower income levels will pay a higher percentage of the taxes, but they won't pay anymore in taxes.The issue is not should the poor pay more. If N cannot be obtained on a fixed, or maybe even Deprogressive system, then N is too high and needs to be lowered.Deprogressive system, sounds like a crazy idea doesn't it? hblask made me think of it.

[SCYUKON 0]

He said that he worked hard to get to where he was, he went to school, etc etc. Therefore, it is unfair to tax him excessively because he earned all that he has made.I made the following counter argument:Fix the total amount of taxes that the government takes in. Imagine that the government must take in N dollars in taxes each year. For this fixed N, there is some distribution that the comes from. For example, people who earn $20,000 - $30,000 pay 5% of that, people who make $30,000-$50,000 pay 10%, people who make in X range pay Y%, etc etc.There is some distribution for a fixed N. Given that, to claim that rich people should pay less in taxes means that poorer people should pay more. If the N has to come from somewhere, and if the rich pay less, the poor pay more. Therefore, if a rich person says they pay too much, then I say that paying less would mean that poorer and middle class people pay more, and therefore it is harder for them to become rich as the rich person did. And to answer your original question, a flat tax for all would not break my heart in the least bit. The amount I pay would stay in proportion to my salary, but the more I make the more I would contribute. I could definitely live with that.Now, one could argue that N should be smaller. I agree with that. But for any given N, we must decide on some distribution. And I favor a progressive one.

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 that posting on the internet took away from the time you should be spending looking for a job, or doing that job once you land it, or doing charity work, or sleeping? These "experts" say they know better than you, so go ahead and start paying way more in taxes if want to keep posting on the internet - they are trying to incent you to stop since it is better for the world.How do you react to that scenario? Hopefully the same way I am reacting to the AGW initiative and the potential taxation impact.

[SCYUKON 0]

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.

[Balloon guy 158]

I stopped reading when one of my favorite smart guys on this board made some crazy point about taxes.Think of it this way.You go to school and you do well in school.Then one day the board at your college says that in order to keep the school running, they are going to increase the amount of credits you need to get your degree based on the quality of your work. If your GPA is above3.9, then you will need to have 75 credits, but if your GPA is below 2.0, then you only need 30 credits.Their reasoning is that the smarter kids can handle taking more classes, which means more tuition for the school, and the dumber ones will drop out if they are forced to earn more credits, so they make their load as light as possible.Now explain in my framed argument why you like this system.Show your work.