Is the 'Environmental' sub-Catagory a new FHOP

LOL

I don't see you posting any repeatable scientific experiments that lead to conclusive proof. You said AGW is based on those. Where are they? Just admit you don't know of a single repeatable scientific experiment that leads to conclusive proof that AGW is causing warming at a rate greater than that expected by solar irradiance or natural cycles alone. These should be abundant right? You claimed AGW is based on these experiments. Where are they? I think the term is "Put up, or shut up."

And I'm the "denialist" who doesn't know anything? Right ...

The most you post the wronger you get.

Thank you for giving me a good laugh this evening.

 

RP,

You said it, "And I'm the ignorant one? Right" not me! On this we can finally agree,

Thank you

 

Wow. What a total failure. Thank you for publicly verifying that you know very little about AGW. You cheer for it and parade around under the flag, and yet you don't know any details. You insult others who have a different opinion, because they give facts that differ from your beliefs, and yet you don't really know what you're talking about.

Really disgusting. I'm done with you

 

Chuck, I have tried this line also, drop talking about "climate change" and make it a discussion about national security and being fiscally conservative. But it seems some of the AGW denialists are not smart enough to get the connection between their energy consumption and national security.

 

That's funny. I've failed to see a single AGWer be able to hold their own in a debate with a "denialist." I think if you read pages 2-3 in this thread you'll see a great example of that.

 

Some data to back you up:

The conspiracy behind the climate change bill — revealed! - Climate change legislation, Climate change lobbyists, Waxman Markey | TerraPass: Fight global warming, reduce your carbon footprint

The number of climate change lobbyists has gone up immensely over the past 5 years.

Top 4 groups?

1. Manufacturing
2. Power companies and utilities
3. Oil and gas
4. Transportation

Hmmm....

 

Ok, radioprius, what is your understanding of the implications of 5% of the world's population using 25%+ of the world's energy from a national defense viewpoint? And do you find it to be fiscally responsible on both a personal and national level?

I personlly am not going to get drawn into the "debate" over AGW. Both sides can endlessly quote their "experts" or talking points. (I believe there are at least 20 current treads to debate AGW). Unfortunetly, the results of climate change will impact both believers and denialists.
I am more interested in discussing whether our current consumption of energy is sustainable. Our past history of consuming more than our share of energy resources worked only because most of the world was consuming much less than their share. As the rest of the world (India and China) move to match our energy consumption, I see real national defense problems trying to maintain our level of energy consumption.
Any comment on this angle?

P.S. radioprius said " I think if you read pages 2-3 in this thread...."
If 25 posts show up on three different pages, you really should learn how to use the internet, because as much time as you spend on this site (900+ posts in a 4 months) you certainly could save a lot of time if you were as smart as you think you are!

 

That is a political debate that is unrelated to AGW. You can not bait me into something unrelated. I am here to debate AGWers about AGW. If you think it is related, ask yourself this question: If AGW were untrue, how would it affect your lead-in?

Likewise, if I said "What is your understanding of the implications of performing a posterior lumbar interbody fusion vs. a transverse lumbar interbody fusion while attempting the most comprehensive evacuation of disc space and the implications of bone morphogenetic protein use?" OMG you don't know - AGW must be untrue! (kidding.)

Err, then why did you reply to me? I am here to debate AGW. If you don't want to debate that then why are you trying to bait me into something else?

Hello?

Yawn. If you are interested in debating that, start a thread on it and go for it. Likewise, if you want to debate the surgical efficacy of disc fusions, I'm here for you. We can all pick some random, unrelated topic to debate. I'm here for AGW.

It's actually quite funny - because everyone here runs around preaching AGW, and yet when challenged they don't know anything about it. You don't see me making wild claims energy sustainability do you? Hello?

lol. A personal attack against me because I've kept the default forum settings?

You guys are really grasping at straws.

 

Thought I'd throw this article out here:

The Ungreening Of America | The New Republic

 

If I incorrectly replied to your post I apologize.

If you think your failure to bait me into a debate I don't want to participate in somehow proves your point, then I think you need to go back to high school.

 

Interesting that whenever someone poses a response that RP doesn't like his response is, either the poster is being insulting, or he "is trying to bait me into a "political" debate I don't want to have".

As I have ask you many times before, do you not honestly believe that any conversation about climate/energy/tax/security policy is at it's core a "political" debate?

As I have also oft said, you have revealed you bias in the climate change debate by stating (in essence) that "you don't wish to be taxed to pay for anything YOU are not 100% sure of". You also worry about "being crippled" by any attempt to curb global warming, and yet you have never given us any idea as to how any current of future plan would cripple you. (Please note, these are not exact quotes,,if you feel I have mis-quoted you I will go back to the original posts a few (dozen) pages back.

Even though you love to tell others how they "should" debate, and what you think is an "appropriate topic" for debate, let me assure you, you are not the arbiter of such, no matter how many times you "report" someone to the mods.

 

This is my concern about the climate change topic: it's not being discussed on the facts pro and con. Not on this thead, or Copenhagen, or many other places.

Way too much personal attacks, hijackings, and climate change as a political conspiracy.



For me personally, the case is clear to substantially reduce consumption for reasons that are more tangible than climate change

• national security
• our economy can't rely on cheap oil anymore - look at it now.
• the environmental damage other than climate change is considerable, habitat destruction causing extinction of thousands of species.
• Heart disease and athesma (sp) is higher in cities such as Houston and LA because of bad air
• Would you want to live next to a mountaintop mining site?
• Global oil consumption has exceeded oil discovery since the 1960's, and there is no evidence to suggest this will change. Besides, China and India are accelerating this trend.

 

Sorry if I was unclear. It isn't your not wanting to discuss the topic that proves me right (I personally do not care whether you discuss it or not). It is the fact that you see your use energy as total unrelated to national security that proves my point. See your quote below.

And thank you for suggesting I go back to High School.
I remember it fondly as a time when the only important thing in life was getting laid!

 

Hi Icarus,

Did you find that evidence yet?

LOL

 

Thankfully the rest of us can think a little clearer than that. The fact is you simply failed to bait me into a debate of your choice. I am here to debate AGW. If you want to debate the efficacy of spinal surgery, we can debate that too.

Palmela Handerson?

 

Picked up this hilarious RP claim from another's post: "That's funny. I've failed to see a single AGWer be able to hold their own in a debate with a 'denialist.' I think if you read pages 2-3 in this thread you'll see a great example of that"

The denialist arguments have ALL been systematically destroyed, but like punch drunk fighters they have no sense of when to throw in the towel. They think they've won when instead they've had their asses handed to them over and over and over and over and over again. RP/Black Knight, just because you don't ever admit defeat doesn't mean you won.

Borrowing from Monty Python, RP will be playing the role of the Black Knight...

RP Style Denialist: 'Tis but a scratch!
Science educated rational human: A scratch? Your arm's off!
RP Style Denialist: No, it isn't!
Science educated rational human: Well, what's that then?
RP Style Denialist: I've had worse.
Science educated rational human: You liar!
RP Style Denialist: Come on, you pansy!
[they fight again. Arthur cuts off the Knight's right arm]
Science educated rational human: Victory is mine!
[kneels to pray]
Science educated rational human: We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy -
[cut off by the Knight kicking him]
RP Style Denialist: Come on, then.
Science educated rational human: What?
RP Style Denialist: Have at you!
Science educated rational human: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
RP Style Denialist: Oh, had enough, eh?
Science educated rational human: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left!
[puts RP Style Denialist on ignore list]

 

Look through the popular threads on this forum and see who makes more personal attacks - the AGWers or the "denialists".

 

Please point out a "personal" attack from your so called AGWers?

I believe you are the only one who has ever made a personal attack except you. In this thread alone I could find half a dozen written by you that by your definition would be personal attacks.

 

A cursory glance and I know this thead is heated...it happens at other fourms, including CleanMPG where I moderate.

What's not happening very much is...."let's see the facts", then form a conclusion. What I'm seeing instead is: "my politics is ______, therefore my line-in-the-sand climate change position is________" then selectively choose the facts (or what appears to be facts) to support that position.

The ignorance in the American public is incredible when 39% can't name a fossil fuel or 51% name an alt energy source, but they probably know what Lady Gaga or Beyonce just did.