Jump to content



Photo

One More Time...Global Climate Change??


108 replies to this topic

#101 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,372 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:43 AM



#102 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:45 AM

There is evidence, it's just evidence that you dispute. Also, sometimes we have to believe things before they are established 100% as incontrovertible fact. That does not mean there isn't evidence.

 

The scientific evidence is not on your side with that claim.Evidence is indisputable in such a context. You're going off unsubstantiated claims as evidence. And even more so, taxing people on their lives (which is essentially what you're saying), based on such beliefs is abhorrent. Anyway, that's where we obviously disagree and i'm thankful that such taxations have failed so far. 



#103 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,767 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:17 AM

The scientific evidence is not on your side with that claim.Evidence is indisputable in such a context. You're going off unsubstantiated claims as evidence. And even more so, taxing people on their lives (which is essentially what you're saying), based on such beliefs is abhorrent. Anyway, that's where we obviously disagree and i'm thankful that such taxations have failed so far. 


Here we go again. 

 

There is evidence. And I disagree that it's not "on my side". You interpret what you see differently. That does not make you right. You are taking an issue that is not settled and assuming that you are right. 
 
Of course, if there were scientific evidence against you, you would simply say that that evidence was coerced by a scientific community that pressures scientists to conform. See, you setup a nice little world for yourself. Anyone that disagrees is stupid, uninformed, or corrupted. You don't need indisputable evidence for your claims but anyone disagreeing does. 

 
No, evidence is not indisputable. You are disputing it. The evidence does not prove AGW 100%. There is also no evidence disproving AGW. This is something that no one knows for sure; that no one can prove (yet). To assume you are correct in such an instance is unsubstantiated. 
 

And I'll repeat this since you seem to have missed it:

 

Even aside from climate change, the production and use of carbon based fuels creates other environmental, health, and geo-political dangers. So even without climate change, a tax on carbon should be used to offset the externalization of the costs (issues) with using carbon + to make the valuation of energy sources more truthful, a carbon tax should be instituted. 



#104 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,372 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:43 AM

I think man has some effect on the climate but it is not the sole reason for global warming.climate change/whatever its marketing name is now.  

 

Aside from weather you agree or not, a tax will only further burden a struggling economy in the US and abroad.



#105 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 11:32 AM


Here we go again. 

 

There is evidence. And I disagree that it's not "on my side". You interpret what you see differently. That does not make you right. You are taking an issue that is not settled and assuming that you are right. 
 
Of course, if there were scientific evidence against you, you would simply say that that evidence was coerced by a scientific community that pressures scientists to conform. See, you setup a nice little world for yourself. Anyone that disagrees is stupid, uninformed, or corrupted. You don't need indisputable evidence for your claims but anyone disagreeing does. 

 
No, evidence is not indisputable. You are disputing it. The evidence does not prove AGW 100%. There is also no evidence disproving AGW. This is something that no one knows for sure; that no one can prove (yet). To assume you are correct in such an instance is unsubstantiated. 
 

And I'll repeat this since you seem to have missed it:

 

Even aside from climate change, the production and use of carbon based fuels creates other environmental, health, and geo-political dangers. So even without climate change, a tax on carbon should be used to offset the externalization of the costs (issues) with using carbon + to make the valuation of energy sources more truthful, a carbon tax should be instituted. 

 

I'm not asserting that I'm right. We dont know, and so far the projections and scientific evidence doesn't produce a strong case that AGW is real and dangerous. Therefore taxing people on it is abhorrent. Your conclusion on the issue doesn't match the available scientific data. The evidence, in this instance, would be indisputable. The science would clearly be able demonstrate the outcomes of the GHG effect. Yet they have not. We're not even 50% sure that CO2 drives temperature and even less sure that ppm of CO2 will adversely effect climate.

 

If there was scuentific evidence to support your claim, there wouldn't be a debate on the issue. Clearly, that is not the case. So saying what I would do when faced with such evidence is erroneous. Trying to pin me as some sort of K00k in the same fashion as any current skeptic to the consensus (that doesnt exist), again, doesn't lend to you as evidence that people should pay the government a tax for their use of energy.I also never said anyone who disagrees( which means to you someone who believes in something without evidence) is wrong or stupid, either. So you can stop trying for the character assassination route and just provide the evidence you feel is so compelling that taxing people over co2 is necessary.

 

As for disproving AGW, that's a logical fallacy. I do not have to prove a negative. I didnt make the assertion that AGW is real and dangerous. You did. Dont try logical fallacies on me,

Gary.

 

And a tax given to the governmetn to waste like all the other revenue they receive and waste doesn't address anything on the concept of pollution, AGW or anything else on its face. Its essentially feel good taxation that has no bearing actually addressing the problem or making an economically positive contribution. You are essentially saying the government should confiscate more money from people simply form using the currently abundant energy to enhance standards of living. It's abhorrent, IMO.



#106 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 11:45 AM

http://www.co2scienc...dProduction.pdf

 

Anyway, I'm done talking about penalizing people with a tax and decreasing their standard of living deliberately.

 

I read this study the other day. You may enjoy it.



#107 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,787 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:23 PM

http://www.co2scienc...dProduction.pdf

 

Anyway, I'm done talking about penalizing people with a tax and decreasing their standard of living deliberately.

 

I read this study the other day. You may enjoy it.

 

Here's a nice bio about the family that runs co2science.org :coffee:

http://www.motherjon...1-idso-family



#108 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,090 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:54 PM

Isn't "Idso" Latin for "shill"?



#109 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:22 PM

Here's a nice bio about the family that runs co2science.org :coffee:

http://www.motherjon...1-idso-family

 

That's blocked at work for whatever reason. Is it relevant to the actual study? I read this and this . That's quite the collusion conspiracy theory they have going on in the latter. Interesting stuff.

But it really doesn't say that these studies have been disproven or that they aren't with merit? It's always the character assassination thing.

 

Republicans are to blame for global warming. Unreal.





Reply to this topic