Global Warming

[Balloon guy 158]

And, yet, somehow the US economy has kept growing since the progressive tax was initiated in the 1980s.BG, by your comments, it seems you are not mad at the idea of the progressive tax itself but you are mad at how taxes in general are being put to use. We are again back to akoff's point....railing for a flat tax is a bit silly and unrealistic.....questioning strongly how and why the government is spending taxes as they do is a very legitimate thing to bring up.

No, I am just being argumentative.I got all my taxes back this year.

[CaneBrain 95]

No, I am just being argumentative.I got all my taxes back this year.

Ah, the beauty of self-employment.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ah, the beauty of lower sales figures

[Dagata 0]

And, yet, somehow the US economy has kept growing since the progressive tax was initiated in the 1980s.BG, by your comments, it seems you are not mad at the idea of the progressive tax itself but you are mad at how taxes in general are being put to use. We are again back to akoff's point....railing for a flat tax is a bit silly and unrealistic.....questioning strongly how and why the government is spending taxes as they do is a very legitimate thing to bring up.

Obviously my point is that you are inhibiting growth, yes we continued to grow, but you can't deny that progressive taxes can only inhibit growth. They certainly don't promote growth, and the idea that they have no effect is just silly. Which leaves they harm growth.By the way, a good way to reduce idiotic spending would involve a flat tax(which you say would restrict revenue) and then require the government to pay for everything up front. The idea that we are going to skimp on defense so we can study Sea monkeys will keep the government in check pretty nicely

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Obviously my point is that you are inhibiting growth, yes we continued to grow, but you can't deny that progressive taxes can only inhibit growth.

I can and do. Putting more money in the hands of the middle class and poorer people helps the economy. It helps more than putting the same money in rich people's hands because they're more likely to spend it quickly instead of saving it.

They certainly don't promote growth, and the idea that they have no effect is just silly. Which leaves they harm growth.

It's either A, B or C. But it's not A or B, so it must be C. QED.

By the way, a good way to reduce idiotic spending would involve a flat tax(which you say would restrict revenue) and then require the government to pay for everything up front.

I'm not sure what the first idea has to do with the second idea. How would a flat tax reduce spending?

The idea that we are going to skimp on defense so we can study Sea monkeys will keep the government in check pretty nicely

And the idea that total government spending on all research is even a fraction of a fraction of the defense budged is a joke. With the total money the government spends on research, we could be, say, an airplane or two.

[85suited 0]

Back to Global Warming

“The science is beyond dispute. The facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We see record drought, spreading famine, storms that are going stronger each passing hurricane season.”Barack ObamaGlobal Warming Junk Science SpeechNovember 17, 2008

[SCYUKON 0]

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 whether or not nuclear is safe - I just find it funny to see a pot call a kettle black.

[vbnautilus 48]

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.

Where does he use scare tactics? I read the whole interview and did not see one instance of him using a 'scare tactic'. He is rationally discussing why he believes nuclear energy is safe. What problem could you possibly have with this? Mis-describing the articles you link to is becoming a habit.

[SCYUKON 0]

Where does he use scare tactics? I read the whole interview and did not see one instance of him using a 'scare tactic'. He is rationally discussing why he believes nuclear energy is safe. What problem could you possibly have with this? Mis-describing the articles you link to is becoming a habit.

ORLY? In an interview with CNN.com, Brand said the project showed him that the globe's climate can change abruptly: "It goes over some tipping point and suddenly you're in a situation that you don't like and you can't go back. That got me way more concerned about climate as a clear and present danger than I had been."Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was referring to Brand using AGW scare tactics like the quote above while deriding the anti-nuclear crowd for their non-science scare tactics.

[vbnautilus 48]

ORLY? In an interview with CNN.com, Brand said the project showed him that the globe's climate can change abruptly: "It goes over some tipping point and suddenly you're in a situation that you don't like and you can't go back. That got me way more concerned about climate as a clear and present danger than I had been."Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was referring to Brand using AGW scare tactics like the quote above while deriding the anti-nuclear crowd for their non-science scare tactics.

Wow man that is really a stretch. He is describing why he personally became concerned about the climate. That is not a 'scare tactic'. Come on, now.In the words of the Great Bear of Tactics:

Say you're wrong. Just say you're wrong. Say you're wrong.

Note that you are the real hypocrite in this scenario. You claim to be against fear-mongering and catastrophism but its really the only tactic you ever use. You're not actually a proponent of reason and objectivity.

[Balloon guy 158]

Wow man that is really a stretch. He is describing why he personally became concerned about the climate. That is not a 'scare tactic'. Come on, now.Note that you are the real hypocrite in this scenario. You claim to be against fear-mongering and catastrophism but its really the only tactic you ever use. You're not actually a proponent of reason and objectivity.

But if he doesn't get his message through, the world will end and all life will die and only those people with at least $1 Billion will be able to survive.You know, I think this whole global warming to end the world is just Algore's way of getting out of paying taxes on his billion!

[vbnautilus 48]

But if he doesn't get his message through, the world will end and all life will die and only those people with at least $1 Billion will be able to survive.

See, when you describe it rationally it makes sense.

[Balloon guy 158]

See, when you describe it rationally it makes sense.

Good, now defend this position no matter what evidence is presented to you.

[El Guapo 8]

I thought this was a tax thread now. I was going to post on the intricacies of the Alternative Minimum Tax and how it was originally set up to only tax 155 people, and if they don't fix it, it will affect 1/5 of the tax paying population next year.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I thought this was a tax thread now. I was going to post on the intricacies of the Alternative Minimum Tax and how it was originally set up to only tax 155 people, and if they don't fix it, it will affect 1/5 of the tax paying population next year.

Sorry, we're onto Creationism vs Evolution now, next well move to whether 911 was a conspiracy, and finally we'll get into the Monte Hall problem. Please try to keep up.

[Balloon guy 158]

Sorry, we're onto Creationism vs Evolution now, next well move to whether 911 was a conspiracy, and finally we'll get into the Monte Hall problem. Please try to keep up.

Pretty sure Monte Hall believes in evolution, which shows why he was instrumental in the 9-11 cover up.Most Game show hosts are in fact real life spies / assassins and or the real power behind the throne.The game show gig is the perfect cover up.Most people don't know this but Gene Rayburn pretty much created crack cocaine as an initiation into the Bohemian Grove. Every single episode of Match game has an owl reference at least once.I haven't found the Global Warming connection yet, except it is kind of suspicious that the president when GW started was GW Bush...

[SCYUKON 0]

Wow man that is really a stretch. He is describing why he personally became concerned about the climate. That is not a 'scare tactic'. Come on, now.In the words of the Great Bear of Tactics: Note that you are the real hypocrite in this scenario. You claim to be against fear-mongering and catastrophism but its really the only tactic you ever use. You're not actually a proponent of reason and objectivity.

Well now it is my turn to be pedantic. Can you show me where I claimed to be "against fear-mongering and catastrophism". I simply stated that I got a kick out of the pro-nuclear fellow, who, yes, used scared tactics and then complained about the anti-nuclear crowd using scare tactics. I would be happy to use scare tactics if it got the AGW crowd to take an unbiased look at the problem. Don't you fear the economic impact associated with spending trillions of dollars fixing a problem which may not exist? That is something to be afraid of. Is good old California going to have to go completely bankrupt before you realize that there are more salient tangible problems like, um, say the 11% unemployment rate or whatever it is? But no, keep ramming those climate bills through, they are really helping deal with the problems facing the common man.

[vbnautilus 48]

Well now it is my turn to be pedantic. Can you show me where I claimed to be "against fear-mongering and catastrophism". I simply stated that I got a kick out of the pro-nuclear fellow, who, yes, used scared tactics and then complained about the anti-nuclear crowd using scare tactics. I would be happy to use scare tactics if it got the AGW crowd to take an unbiased look at the problem. Don't you fear the economic impact associated with spending trillions of dollars fixing a problem which may not exist? That is something to be afraid of. Is good old California going to have to go completely bankrupt before you realize that there are more salient tangible problems like, um, say the 11% unemployment rate or whatever it is? But no, keep ramming those climate bills through, they are really helping deal with the problems facing the common man.

My bad, I didn't realize you were pro-fearmongering and catastrophism! Can we just officially cross your name off the credibility list? Since you openly advocate scaring us into doing what you want? Or I guess maybe just draw another line through it, darker.

[SCYUKON 0]

My bad, I didn't realize you were pro-fearmongering and catastrophism! Can we just officially cross your name off the credibility list? Since you openly advocate scaring us into doing what you want? Or I guess maybe just draw another line through it, darker.

Feel free, the voice of reason is not something that the AGW crowd is interested in listening too anyways.

[SCYUKON 0]

Some scare tactics here (scary if your Al Gore of course)http://eca.sh/quzH

[SCYUKON 0]

Something else to scare the AGW crowd. Or maybe the "science is settled" subset. Or are they not one and the same. http://www.petitionproject.org/

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Or, if you actually want to learn something:The Goddard Institute page where one can access data from weather stations all over the world for the past century or so:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/A website describing the very reasonable adjustments that were made to the raw data:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ushcn.html#QUALA site describing the history and methodologies of their studies:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/Source code (for Linux users):http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/A website porting the above code into pythong, for those interested in running that:http://clearclimatecode.org/

[LongLiveYorke 38]

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists 2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists 3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists 4. Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists 5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists7. Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists LOL at all of this. I got a bachelors in... medicine...? Therefore I'm an expert in climate science..... weeeee!

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Can we just officially cross your name off the credibility list? Or I guess maybe just draw another line through it, darker.

haha

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Can we just officially cross your name off the credibility list? Since you openly advocate scaring us into doing what you want? Or I guess maybe just draw another line through it, darker.