[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I leave you with a fun little link rebutting the "Mars/Pluto are warming!" argument (although, if the history of eBuddy and Doofy and Buckaroo and Spliffdaddy around here are any indication, I shouldn't expect you to read it). It also contains some in-depth links on the issue. I especially like the last little bit...

I'll usually read links when it's a subject I'm a little interested in. This particular issue ranks just below hitting my groin with a ball-peen hammer, but I find the hype mildly entertaining. To tell you the truth, I'm about as afraid of global climate change as I am a giant purple spaghetti monster landing on my roof and eating my children, but it seems you're doing enough worrying for the both of us. We'll call it a "crazy-credit".

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let me assure you, the response I gave you was an adequate response to the may likely be you failed to add to each of the points you made above. I'm curious though since you saw to include a partisan talking point in your last post; did you have a better non-response to my point that the Bush Administration has cut less funding for global climate research from 2001 to date than from 1995 to 2001 under the Clinton Administration or are you going to pretend you didn't see that also?

Why should I reply to you when you admit that you are giving non-responses to me?

That seems to be a theme of yours in this thread. You are "about as afraid of global climate change as I am a giant purple spaghetti monster landing on my roof and eating my children" and so you don't reply with substance to anybody. You might as well not reply at all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Why should I reply to you when you admit that you are giving non-responses to me?

That's the funny thing about all this. You pop in with some patently partisan nonsense, I correct you, and you can't put peeb away for five minutes to actually address the point. You're not representing the DNC here tie, this is supposed to be your utmost concern over the environment remember?

That seems to be a theme of yours in this thread. You are "about as afraid of global climate change as I am a giant purple spaghetti monster landing on my roof and eating my children" and so you don't reply with substance to anybody. You might as well not reply at all.

In seeing how you've handled the little bit of substance I have given you tie, why would I give you more? I like to pick apart BS and watch the ones espousing it squirm a little bit. Topics like this always seem to out the experts, but I'm curious; how many meteorologists or climatologists do we actually have in this thread tie do you know? I'm not interested in links to op-eds on global climate change with first two paragraphs on Bush's policy of stem-cell research because that only affirms my suspicion that we're not so much concerned with global climate as we are in manipulating political climate. I'm not interested in hacking scientists' statements of "may likely be" to "is" and demanding immediate government policy or we're all doomed in less than 30 years' fear-mongering. I'm not interested in the "if you're not for us, you're against us" mentality when I'm not polluting any more than you are.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's the funny thing about all this. You pop in with some patently partisan nonsense, I correct you, and you can't put peeb away for five minutes to actually address the point. You're not representing the DNC here tie, this is supposed to be your utmost concern over the environment remember?

You didn't correct me. You just wrote, "Let me assure you, the response I gave you was an adequate response to the may likely be you failed to add to each of the points you made above." You didn't reply to me at all, except you keep on accusing me of emotional involvement and now as being a DNC representative. Sorry? If you want to reply to my points, then reply to them. I don't need your stupid accusations.

To recap:
- You said we should urge the science, and wait perhaps another 32 years.
- I gave evidence that waiting decades would make solving the problem substantially more expensive. I also said that we are currently not "urging" the science, because we are cutting its funding.
- You agreed that we are cutting funding on climate science, and gave some supporting statistics. (Thanks, although I'm not sure what your source is.) You repeatedly refused to respond to my points on the science because you "are not interested" in the science.

[BadKosh]

RED FLAG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"waiting decades would make solving the problem substantially more expensive."

Um, so we "KNOW" exactly how to "Solve" the problem NOW?? Or is it that WE DON'T KNOW YET, how to fix things but we "KNOW' that 32 years just "MUST BE" too long, as the costs will be too high. Anyway thats BS.

[tie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'm also puzzled as to why as a "Liberal" you aren't already familiar with cowardice.

RED FLAG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are an idiot.

[besson3c]

I think that PacHead has several new handles....

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by tie 

RED FLAG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are an idiot.

Your deep intellectual response suggests you MUST be a flaming, fuzzy thinking, liberal "JA"

[besson3c]

I farted.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You didn't correct me. You just wrote, "Let me assure you, the response I gave you was an adequate response to the may likely be you failed to add to each of the points you made above." You didn't reply to me at all, except you keep on accusing me of emotional involvement and now as being a DNC representative. Sorry? If you want to reply to my points, then reply to them. I don't need your stupid accusations.

You may not need them, but you want them tie. You're begging for them. Let me show you what I mean;

To recap:
- You said we should urge the science, and wait perhaps another 32 years.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Personally, I'd like to see a little less "urging government" and a little more "urging science". Who knows, it may not take another 32 years to turn our current understanding on its head.

With enough focus from scientists urging science instead of urging government, there's no reason it should take another 32 years for progress. Down to 2 of 3.

- I gave evidence that waiting decades would make solving the problem substantially more expensive.

A. I did not suggest waiting decades. B. You wanted to talk about the NIH Research budget and health spending because you can't get off one partisan talking point to discuss your partisan shilling on another. You cited an article that began by discussing Bush's policy on stem-cell research and you conveniently lumped that in with "funding science". It doesn't work that way. There are blocks of grants set aside for very specific issues proposed each FY. Global Climate Research does not constitute one broad "science" assignment when cutting or augmenting a fund. C. The article and "evidence" you're referring to above began with Although major uncertainties remain... and the entire article is founded upon these major uncertainties, yet you want massive and sweeping change. Do you even know how massive? No? I'll show you in a minute why this is so asinine, but suffice it to say we're down to 1 of 3. (technically 2 of 4. You snuck another one in here)

- I also said that we are currently not "urging" the science, because we are cutting its funding.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by tie

And climate science is even worse, since it is being so heavily censored and politically manipulated by the current administration.

Seeing as how you saw fit to throw in the partisanship, I then asked you if this administration is doing less for climate science than the last administration? The funny thing was you knew this was a trap door going in, but your ego wouldn't let you resist. You answered; "what do you think?" I told you what I thought including stats showing the Bush Administration cut less on global climate science than the Clinton Administration. The source by the way is Rick Piltz ( former senior associate with the Climate Change Science Program) who is lobbying government for more funding and the Congressional Budget Office. Now, 1 of 4.

- You agreed that we are cutting funding on climate science, and gave some supporting statistics. (Thanks, although I'm not sure what your source is.) You repeatedly refused to respond to my points on the science because you "are not interested" in the science.

I let science do what it does. When science says "major uncertainties" I let them hash those out. You take "major uncertainties" and start screaming "SCIENCE SAYS WARMING WILL DESTROY US UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING QUICK! SCIENTISTS SAY WE'VE GOT 30 YEARS, BUT I THINK IT'S MORE LIKE 20!!!"

Next time, it'd behoove you to let someone else "recap" a discussion. You suck at it. You see tie, I'm one of those pesky guys that looks past the fashionable hype to really consider the implications of your calling. Let me tell you about a few more "major uncertainties";

To get the necessary amount of carbon-free energy you and Nathan are talking about, we would have to...
- build one new 1 gigawatt nuclear reactor every other day for the next 40 years. Nuclear plants are good for about 50 years so we're going to have to keep building them. Not to mention, we're going to need to use plutonium to power all that goodness which is an extremely dicey affair geo-politically.
- Wind Power could generate maybe 4 terawatts?
- Hydroelectric power? As I understand it there are about .9 terawatts of accessible power, but we're already using .6 of it.
- Nuclear fusion? Nope. In fact, I think your mentor Nathan Lewis was instrumental in letting us know how unlikely that'll be. We wait on this to prove itself out and we'll surely be dead.
- Solar energy. Personally this one is my favorite unfortunately...
a. over 600 million homes would need to use it.
b. Today it is at least 5 times more expensive than fossil fuels. Just from crunching numbers on employing this technology in my home (some time last year when I was curious), I'd need 1/3rd of my lot for energy storage (batteries) that cost upwards of $2,000/per with (if I recall correctly), a 6-9 year life span currently?

Not so bad you say? Well, according to your "highly scientific" prognosis, we'd better get started at least 10 years ago. I'm sure you'd agree that even a (D) wearing a cape can't make this happen. There's another wrinkle in the foundation of your "logic" here tie; If you truly felt the science was this certain, you'd not be advocating the spending of even one more solitary dime on global climate research science, but would be calling for a massive shift in funds to design and engineering. Worse, given your historical litany of indictments against this current Administration for corruption, fraud, waste, lack of concern, and inefficiency; you'd be begging the private sector to save us.

The problem is you're not doing any of these things tie. You're just doing a lot of screaming and for all you know; at someone who has a smaller footprint than you.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You may not need them, but you want them tie. You're begging for them. Let me show you what I mean;

Exactly, I was begging for any answers from you. It's like pulling teeth.

With enough focus from scientists urging science instead of urging government, there's no reason it should take another 32 years for progress. Down to 2 of 3.

32 years was your number, not mine. I don't know what "scientists urging science" means, and I guess you don't either. Your solution is to cut funding and "urge science."

You cited an article that began by discussing Bush's policy on stem-cell research and you conveniently lumped that in with "funding science".

You never read this article? And now you want me to defend linking to it? For that, you'll have to beg me. Or.. why not read the article?

Global Climate Research does not constitute one broad "science" assignment when cutting or augmenting a fund.

..which is why I asked who compiled your numbers. I didn't beg for them, and I humbly thank for deigning to answer.

Seeing as how you saw fit to throw in the partisanship, I then asked you if this administration is doing less for climate science than the last administration?

You threw in the partisanship, not me. I complained about the current administration, and you didn't deny anything, and responded "but Clinton!"

I let science do what it does. When science says "major uncertainties" I let them hash those out.

By cutting their funding? Maybe you should look into the science, and see what those uncertainties are.

There's another wrinkle in the foundation of your "logic" here tie; If you truly felt the science was this certain, you'd not be advocating the spending of even one more solitary dime on global climate research science, but would be calling for a massive shift in funds to design and engineering.

That's right, I'm a hypocrite. You caught me out. We shouldn't spend one more solitary penny on global climate research science. What we don't know can't hurt us.

Your position is illogical.

[Uncle Skeleton]

"scientists urging science" means what scientists ordinarily do: make discoveries which prompt further avenues of investigation... for scientists. It's nothing more than the opposite of "scientists urging government," which is something very uncharacteristic of scientists to do.

Don't worry, he's not urging you to do anything. He's just criticizing the scientists who are "urging" up the wrong tree. It really is the heart of the issue. Scientists' power is not in their credibility. It's the very nature of their craft to be tentative; it thrives on its conclusions' flexibility to change utterly in the face of new evidence. The only powers of persuasion scientists have in public policy is their ability to demonstrate truths of the world through elegant and thorough experiments. If (more like when) scientists find their conclusions don't hold enough sway to convince the public, their reaction should be to redouble their efforts. Their scientific efforts. And produce some science that is convincing enough to move the public zeitgeist. Simply "urging" people more forcefully to accept their existing findings is useless and illogical. It will only divide those who already believed from those who are skeptical (and increasingly irritated). Unfortunately, scientists aren't the most adept group at such social dynamics...

[tie]

Sure, that's perfectly reasonable. But I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying that we need to cut off funding for the science, and calling me a hypocrite for not agreeing (because not "even one more solitary dime" should be wasted). When science is indicating such a serious problem -- and, frankly, it is common sense that hugely increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause serious problems; the role of science is to quantify it all -- it behooves us to investigate further and insure ourselves.

ebuddy supported the war on Iraq, by the way. I don't think it is irrelevant to point out that he has poor judgement in evaluating evidence and evaluating risks. I'm sure he thought the chances of no WMD turning up were about the same as of a "giant purple spaghetti monster landing on [his] roof and eating [his] children."

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Unfortunately, scientists aren't the most adept group at such social dynamics...

Perhaps, but they've been hugely successful over the last few years. Or at least, they've managed to convince a few other people (e.g., Gore) who themselves have. I think it's been about as good as can be expected. A large proportion of those they haven't convinced are the same people who argue against teaching evolution in schools. No amount of science will ever convince this kind of person.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Exactly, I was begging for any answers from you. It's like pulling teeth.

You're welcome to keep trying tie. Evidenced by this recent post in which you've offered absolutely no substantive rebuttal, you're not pulling any teeth from your mouth tie, you're pulling them from the floor.

32 years was your number, not mine. I don't know what "scientists urging science" means, and I guess you don't either. Your solution is to cut funding and "urge science."

This timeline stemmed from someone's point that 32 years ago, the call was global cooling and there were those urging government at that time. I suggested that maybe we not urge government this time and it won't take another 32 years to turn our current understanding on its head. Try to follow along. I'm starting to get embarrassed for you.

You never read this article? And now you want me to defend linking to it? For that, you'll have to beg me. Or.. why not read the article?

I read the article tie. I told you what was in it. I told you why it was not relevant including a summary of how Congressional FY Budgets are managed and that it's not simply one block of funding for "science".

..which is why I asked who compiled your numbers. I didn't beg for them, and I humbly thank for deigning to answer.

And?

You threw in the partisanship, not me. I complained about the current administration, and you didn't deny anything, and responded "but Clinton!"

It wasn't just "but Clinton". You drew the partisanship with your statement. Do I need to post it again or are you going to let your ego rest a minute? I simply asked you if this Administration has done less than the prior. Your answer was; "what do you think?" This was a non-answer. I then gave you stats and the sources for them and this is honestly the best you've got?

By cutting their funding? Maybe you should look into the science, and see what those uncertainties are.

To be honest tie, I have only a cursory understanding of what those uncertainties are, but I'm not the one playing 'internet climatologist' here and calling for massive government policy change. The more I read of your posts, the more inclined I am to believe you haven't a clue of what you're talking about. Worse, I suspect you're calling for something, but you haven't a clue of what it is you're even calling for.

That's right, I'm a hypocrite. You caught me out. We shouldn't spend one more solitary penny on global climate research science. What we don't know can't hurt us.

I'll try again; what do you want tie? You want more funding on global climate research? Why? Are we not certain enough of our climate data suggesting we've got less than 20 years before some point of diminishing returns that we shouldn't act now? If I were as certain my roof were going to cave in as you are the climate data you espouse, I would not spend one more solitary dime on studying my roof. All of my money would go into the repair of it. This is an illogical stance? I will keep asking, what do you want tie?

Your position is illogical.

You're saying this isn't logical yet you've not even tried to indicate why. I'm all ears Dr. Spock. After all, I went into exhaustive detail of why your position is fallacious out of the gate and this is the best you've got? Please tell me you have more to offer than, "your position is illogical". Is it possible that you haven't spent more than 5 minute's thought on this issue?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Sure, that's perfectly reasonable. But I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying that we need to cut off funding for the science, and calling me a hypocrite for not agreeing (because not "even one more solitary dime" should be wasted).

I'm not the one playing 'intarweb climatologist' tie. We're investing billions of dollars in global climate research tie. You want more spending on global climate research and I suspect you're in favor of some action regarding what it is we're already certain of right? I mean, honestly what the hell do you want?

When science is indicating such a serious problem -- and, frankly, it is common sense that hugely increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause serious problems; the role of science is to quantify it all -- it behooves us to investigate further and insure ourselves.

So their model indicates dire consequences and we should learn more about the dire consequences?

ebuddy supported the war on Iraq, by the way. I don't think it is irrelevant to point out that he has poor judgement in evaluating evidence and evaluating risks.

You wanna talk about Iraq tie? Do you really think Uncle Skeleton is so thick that he's going to relent on his viewpoint here because he may share some sentiment with you on the Iraq issue? This is desparate, even for you.

I'm sure he thought the chances of no WMD turning up were about the same as of a "giant purple spaghetti monster landing on [his] roof and eating [his] children."

*does not compute

Perhaps, but they've been hugely successful over the last few years. Or at least, they've managed to convince a few other people (e.g., Gore) who themselves have. I think it's been about as good as can be expected. A large proportion of those they haven't convinced are the same people who argue against teaching evolution in schools. No amount of science will ever convince this kind of person.

Strawman. I fully support the teaching of evolution in school. It is as important as the teaching of biology itself. You wanna try again?
You're saying "no amount of science will ever convince this kind of person", but your repeat call for more funding tells me you're not even convinced of the science tie. What kind of person are you again?

[Sky Captain]

Here's some interesting information.

You can check this out on Snopes.com under "The Story of Two Houses"

House #1: A 20 room mansion, not including 8 bathrooms, (the top attachment below)) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.

House #2 (the second attachement below): Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national