How about a "balanced approach" to energy and climate policy?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Just which convincing proof do you need? The correlation on graphs between decades and technological changes, or the fact that your posts have to go back 20,000 years to the ice ages to find anything similar?

What evidence would it take?
 
jlprk said:
There is no debate that the Northwest has less rain and fewer snows than 10 years ago. Denny, if you want a balanced debate, the topic should be over where to spend money on this issue and where not to. Not over whether climate warming exists.

After all these years, I have yet to see a list of proposed costs. Each side should have a version.
Click to expand...

LOL

OMGERD!! The ESPN mod isn't the only insane one in your relationship. 10 YEARS :MARIS61:
 
Last edited:
jlprk said:
Just which convincing proof do you need? The correlation on graphs between decades and technological changes, or the fact that your posts have to go back 20,000 years to the ice ages to find anything similar?

What evidence would it take?
Click to expand...

20,000 years is a blink of the eye for the earth.

You're not really as dumb as your posts paint you, are you?
 
Denny Crane said:
I think you have a reading comprehension issue. Where am I contradicting myself in those two quotes?

The UN scientists and Al Gore claim the warming is so serious that the oceans should be rising by feet. I mock you by pointing out that a casual observation that I don't see the ocean has risen at all.

There is a difference between global warming, which is natural (where are those glaciers?) and MAN MADE global warming (no convincing proof of that).
Click to expand...


The CO2 and its causation to warming has already been given up by the Warmers. CO2 emissions continue to rise dramatically, while temperatures are rather stagnant.

Dumb people believe governmental/UN statistics, anyhow, in my mind.
 
PapaG said:
20,000 years is a blink of the eye for the earth.

You're not really as dumb as your posts paint you, are you?
Click to expand...

So if a metorite's coming right at you, all I have to say to get you to stand still is, "One meteorite is a drop in the bucket for the universe. You're not really that stupid, are you?"

A brain like you knows that rarity of a danger is irrelevant to the amount of danger per incident. I don't need to go to all the trouble I just did to type this post, as I would if you were a lunkhead or something.
 
jlprk said:
Just which convincing proof do you need? The correlation on graphs between decades and technological changes, or the fact that your posts have to go back 20,000 years to the ice ages to find anything similar?

What evidence would it take?
Click to expand...

There is no such correlation.

You can plot GDP on top of the manufactured climate data and see the same "correlation." Or you can plot population growth. Or you can plot govt. spending!!!! OMG, govt. spending is the cause of global warming. Kill it!

Uh. LOL?
 
I gave you a complete and quality reply. You just don't like the truth.

You-cant-handle-the-truth6.jpg
 
Hey, lookie. It's a graph of global warming.

chart-4.jpg


My bad, it's government spending.
 
Okay, i think I get it enough so I can write out your answer for you, since there is no reply.

Bush had nothing to do with killing Kyoto because...the government spends too much.

The evidence I would need to see to consider climate change to be manmade is...wait for it...the drama builds...the government spends too much.
Click to expand...
 

Please watch until the end, at least starting at this point.
 
But Westnob, other glaciers broke off 50,000 years ago, forcing a worldwide change in the economy from hunter-gatherer to land-owning agriculture. Since that is a blink of time on the geological scale, it doesn't matter if it's repeating now.

That makes sense to PapaG. How come he's for guns, but against a hunting economy?
 
jlprk said:
I detect a widening crevasse between the icebergs. Denny says there is no climate change. Maxiep says there is climate change, but not caused by humans. We're advancing. Like, from an ice age caveman to a paleolithic farmer freezing in his moccasins. Good.

Now, we need a 3rd faction who says that there is climate change and it's caused by man, but that it's not cost-effective to reverse. Finally, a 4th echelon, those with the most bulbous foreheads, who say there is climate change, caused by technology, and the plusses exceed the minuses to mitigate the effects.

Then the last 2 groups would trot out competing budgets and have a rational debate.
Click to expand...

I said "I don't know". Neither do you; you just pretend as if you do.
 
Correct; I don't know. So I said, a rational decision would start with competing budget numbers. Denny says no numbers allowed, because it's impossible to have climate warming since government spends too much. PapaG says no numbers allowed, because the ruination of humanity happened 50,000 years ago, too, though there wasn't as much to ruin, so it's okay now.

I disagree with them and agree with you. We don't know. So you agree that to decide cost-effectiveness, cost estimates are required? Don't go out on a limb and say yes or anything.
 
I say there's no correlation between anything jlprk has provided as evidence of man made global warming and actual global warming.

The govt. spending graph is hardly a correlation between govt. spending and global warming. It proves the point that liars fooled jlprk with graphs that look like the spending one.
 
Denny Crane said:
I say there's no correlation between anything jlprk has provided as evidence of man made global warming and actual global warming.

The govt. spending graph is hardly a correlation between govt. spending and global warming. It proves the point that liars fooled jlprk with graphs that look like the spending one.
Click to expand...

I need no evidence since I have no position on the science issue and leave that for others to address. The unaddressed issue is the cost numbers. I am simply adhering to standard business practice and asking for them.

If they are extremely high, it may not matter whether science is right; they are so much, it's cheaper to move everyone 1000 miles north.

If they are extremely low it may not matter whether science is wrong; they are so cheap, change the technology as we would normal minor environmental progress.
 
jlprk said:
I need no evidence since I have no position on the science issue and leave that for others to address. The unaddressed issue is the cost numbers. I am simply adhering to standard business practice and asking for them.

If they are extremely high, it may not matter whether science is right; they are so much, it's cheaper to move everyone 1000 miles north.

If they are extremely low it may not matter whether science is wrong; they are so cheap, change the technology as we would normal minor environmental progress.
Click to expand...

It's cheaper to move everyone 1000 miles north.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top