[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 university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States,George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".

[Buckaroo]

Now we know the real truth. It ain't coming out of Al Gores mouth.

Originally Posted by 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 university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States,George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".

[Sky Captain]

Yet this will be ignored by the "let's all fellitiate Gore camp".

[Dakarʒ]

Personally, I'm more impressed by Bush. Who knew?

[Sky Captain]

I'm really no big fan of GW Bush and I didn't know either.
And I'm somewhat of an enviromentalist.

[besson3c]

I ask my same question I've asked several times: who cares? What does it really matter anyway whether Gore or GW Bush is green? Why must we insist on putting everybody who wants to make a statement under the microscope before we listen to what they have to say? Why not base our opinions on what is actually said, what level of expertise is demonstrated, and how these statements are refuted by other experts?

Gore may or may not be an environmental expert in the scientific community, but he isn't expressing ideas that are his alone. He is simply a spokesperson. Why waste our energy worrying about the spokesperson? Is it because Gore is a celebrity?

[Sky Captain]

It's like having a pedophile do a child safety commercial.
There in lies the problem.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

It's like having a pedophile do a child safety commercial.
There in lies the problem.

So, if you really have this level of difficulty with Gore, forget about him. There are plenty of others saying the exact same stuff.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by tie 

Perhaps, but they've been hugely successful over the last few years.

I don't think they have. I think they've been preaching to the choir, riling up people who already agreed with them. I know that here in seattle, I'm surrounded by people who buy in to the whole issue. But they've always done so. It's easy to think that everyone I see every day accepts the science and therefore it must be catching on, but it's not because climate scientists have convinced them, it's because I live in an area that's always been enviro-activist enriched. Areas that were opposed to this movement are still opposed.

Or at least, they've managed to convince a few other people (e.g., Gore) who themselves have.

...and further alienated people who don't appreciate all the hype. People like (apparently) sky captain and smacintush and George W Bush, who seem to have been going on a perfectly "green" course, but due to all the politicizing of the issue find themselves working against the climate scientists and their media juggernaut.

We already know that Gore was convinced of this since the 60s. If he's your exemplar of those who were convinced by the climate scientists urging policy, that just proves my point: they've only succeeding in "convincing" people who were already convinced.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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'd hope you wouldn't stop monitoring your roof, or your house in general, just because you had found "the" problem. An analogous analogy (heh) would be if you looked out your window and saw a bear approaching, you'd probably be even more inclined to look out your other windows to see if there were more bears there (or lions or tigers), and to keep looking. After all, escape routes and solutions require investigation too.

[BadKosh]

So, whats the plan then?? Send a few buckets of water to the sun to cool it down to stop this terrible Global warming...for a while, until the next ice age.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I read a cool article last week about that:
A sunshade for the planet - earth - 21 July 2007 - New Scientist Environment

Basically they go into detail about the pros and cons of either adding sulfite particles to the atmosphere, or microsatellite reflectors in orbit, to block 1% of the sunshine from reaching earth's surface. Spoiler: they're both do-able, the first is a lot cheaper, but neither one will save ocean life from death by acidification, a side effect of CO2 unrelated to warming.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Now we know the real truth. It ain't coming out of Al Gores mouth.

T'was already hashed over back around page 4. And the usual apologists already tried to spin their way past it, as usual, and proved (once more) that this whole subject is really more about political beliefs and hating Bush, than any real desire to "saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave the planet".

That's the trouble with these threads that just won't die- the same bullcrap just keeps recycling again and again and again...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

An analogous analogy (heh) would be if you looked out your window and saw a bear approaching, you'd probably be even more inclined to look out your other windows to see if there were more bears there (or lions or tigers), and to keep looking.

On what planet would that be? Wally World?

That's just a straaaaaange analogy. No, if most people looked out their window and saw a bear approaching, their first thought wouldn't run to "I wonder if animals from different parts of the globe are by some amazing un-freakin' naturual and IMPOSSIBLE coincidence approaching from other directions. Hell, maybe an elephant is in my bedroom, and a flock of platypus are slithering down the chimney?"

[Uncle Skeleton]

Is your a key stuck? Throw some oil on there, it'll clear up that problem.

Usually when you've found a danger you don't conclude that it is mutually exclusive with other dangers of the same type. Maybe you'll get this one better: if terrorists blow up your planes do you stop studying terrorists and dump all your money into fixing your planes?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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?

That's because I knew the answer, and I didn't really care. It wasn't relevant, but I let you play at being clever. So you proudly gave your stats, which actually supported my point, that Bush was cutting the research money. Then eventually you were willing to give your sources.

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.

Yes, I think we should act now. I also think we should spend more on research. Is it that hard to grasp that I think we should do more than one thing? For example, this is a global problem. Even if the US did suddenly start building lots of nuclear reactors, that wouldn't be enough, unless we could convince the rest of the world to make changes. What's the best way of doing that? I think scientific research. Again, I repeat: It is extremely illogical to suggest that we can or should only do one thing at a time. (And yet you call me a hypocrite for this?)

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?

You didn't go into exhaustive detail about why my position is fallacious. You talked about spaghetti monsters and roof leaks, and how you'll never believe "hack scientists" (which I guess means any scientist with whom you don't already agree). My evolution point wasn't a straw man at all.

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.

No, my point wasn't that Uncle Skeleton is thick.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

...and further alienated people who don't appreciate all the hype. People like (apparently) sky captain and smacintush and George W Bush, who seem to have been going on a perfectly "green" course, but due to all the politicizing of the issue find themselves working against the climate scientists and their media juggernaut.

Addressing climate change is going to create political problems. That's inevitable. Someone like George W Bush would never go on a "green" course, because of his strong connections to the oil industry. (I don't know anything about sky captain or smacintush.)

Areas that were opposed to this movement are still opposed.

I don't think so. They've convinced a lot of people in business, for example. I don't think these people were part of the choir. E.g., Doerr's talk here: TED | Theme | A Greener Future?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Is your a key stuck? Throw some oil on there, it'll clear up that problem.

Usually when you've found a danger you don't conclude that it is mutually exclusive with other dangers of the same type.

Do you live next to a zoo with a drunk caretaker or something?

I've actually been in a tent with a bear right outside it, practically sticking its nose in. Believe me, the first thought that goes though your mind in such a situation isn't, "Gee, wonder if there's also another bear on the other side of the tent!" Or even funnier, "Gee, maybe a FREAKIN' lion or tiger...!"

Inside a house, it wouldn't be all that much of a danger. You'd simply watch the bear and enjoy the rare fact that you got to see one so close.

No biggie, just saying it was a really weird analogy, but then heck, this thread is now 15 pages of weird bullcrap.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'd hope you wouldn't stop monitoring your roof, or your house in general, just because you had found "the" problem. An analogous analogy (heh) would be if you looked out your window and saw a bear approaching, you'd probably be even more inclined to look out your other windows to see if there were more bears there (or lions or tigers), and to keep looking. After all, escape routes and solutions require investigation too.

Here's the deal Uncle; much research has been conducted. From tie's assessment, he's convinced. There is no uncertainty. In fact, he's gone so far as to label people like myself who are "unconvinced" as, "those who oppose teaching evolution in school." This is how convinced he is. To use your analogy, he's no longer in need of research. He's in need of the solution. The "escape routes" of which you speak and in accordance with the global climate issue would be the solution. i.e. how to get out of the mess we're in. This is design and engineering. According to tie, we're already aware of what threats loom outside our window so we need not invest more in research, we need to design a strategy out. I've already given him a list of the plausible strategies, but he's not calling for any of this. He's just screaming and can't express what it is he's exactly screaming for. He apparently seems to be screaming against action in Iraq, WMDs, health care spending, and stem-cell research as well as expressing his opposition to the Bush Administration having forgotten that he's supposed to be championing some cause.

In short, I think he's gotten a little lost in all this and really hasn't given any of this very much thought.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

That's because I knew the answer, and I didn't really care. It wasn't relevant, but I let you play at being clever.

Pride'll get'cha every time tie. The funny thing is, I really don't have to be very clever at all. I just let you continue typing.

Yes, I think we should act now. I also think we should spend more on research. Is it that hard to grasp that I think we should do more than one thing?

Your problem tie is that you seem to think resources are somehow infinite. Should we just print more money? Have you read what it is we need to do to get out of the mess you're suggesting we're in? I agree we need more research. Is $1.8B not enough? How much do you think we should use for research and how much do you think we should use for design and engineering? Does this leave enough for health care and all the other pet spending measure's you're calling for in these threads on a daily basis?

For example, this is a global problem. Even if the US did suddenly start building lots of nuclear reactors, that wouldn't be enough, unless we could convince the rest of the world to make changes. What's the best way of doing that? I think scientific research. Again, I repeat: It is extremely illogical to suggest that we can or should only do one thing at a time. (And yet you call me a hypocrite for this?)

Yes I do because your arguments had absolutely nothing to do with a way out of the mess you're certain we're in. You're still talking about the proposed cuts on research. Have there been any increases in funding for alternative fuel sources and research? Does this not make sense? Take your time on this one tie, I'd rather not endure another intellectually lazy response. I have to decide if you're worth three more minute's of my time here.

You didn't go into exhaustive detail about why my position is fallacious. You talked about spaghetti monsters and roof leaks, and how you'll never believe "hack scientists" (which I guess means any scientist with whom you don't already agree). My evolution point wasn't a straw man at all.

Never mentioned "I'll never believe hack scientists". Not once. Intellectual laziness.

No, my point wasn't that Uncle Skeleton is thick.

Intellectual laziness.

Addressing climate change is going to create political problems. That's inevitable. Someone like George W Bush would never go on a "green" course, because of his strong connections to the oil industry. (I don't know anything about sky captain or smacintush.)

I'm not asking you about Sky Captain or smacintush. Stay focused tie. Is George Bush less "green" than Al Gore? All I have to do is espouse talking points you agree with and you're happy with me, no action necessary huh?

Drop the partisan BS and get to a point already. What do you want tie?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

According to tie, we're already aware of what threats loom outside our window so we need not invest more in research, we need to design a strategy out.

What I'm saying is it's not "what threats loom," it's "a threat that looms." You still have to watch out for other threats, all the more so now that we know the climate in general is threatening in a way we can contribute to (still according to tie).

I've already given him a list of the plausible strategies, but he's not calling for any of this. He's just screaming and can't express what it is he's exactly screaming for.

I completely agree. Tie, if you're reading, fess up. What is it you want?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No biggie, just saying it was a really weird analogy, but then heck, this thread is now 15 pages of weird bullcrap.

It's always best to use bears, if you have to use something at random. I guess it didn't strike your funny bone like it did mine.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by tie 

Addressing climate change is going to create political problems. That's inevitable.

What's not inevitable is the scientists being the one's wasting time doing it (the addressing). You know, instead of spending their efforts on science.

Someone like George W Bush would never go on a "green" course, because of his strong connections to the oil industry.

So then, what's your explanation for the houses story?

I don't think so. They've convinced a lot of people in business, for example. I don't think these people were part of the choir. E.g., Doerr's talk here: TED | Theme | A Greener Future?

What's a TED, and what does it have to do with "people in business?" That site design is terrible; I have no idea what it's trying to say.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your problem tie is that you seem to think resources are somehow infinite.

Yeah, that's exactly my problem. Right after foolishly thinking that it might perhaps be possible to do more than one thing at a time. Thanks for setting me straight on both points. In your next post, maybe you can point out how I'm either with you or against you in the war on terror.

I'm not asking you about Sky Captain or smacintush. Stay focused tie.

Uncle Skeleton did. Stay focused ebuddy.

All I have to do is espouse talking points you agree with and you're happy with me, no action necessary huh?

You're an anonymous guy on the Internet -- what more can I ask of you than talking points? I know people on these forums lie, and so no I don't bother asking you what you are doing. I certainly won't beg you, if that's what you're looking for.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

What's a TED, and what does it have to do with "people in business?" That site design is terrible; I have no idea what it's trying to say.

Perhaps the link didn't work? I meant to link to Doerr's talk. (I see it at the top of the page.) Doerr is a partner at Kleiner Perkins, one of the most famous Silicon Valley VC firms. Hence "people in business." He talks about his interactions with other firms regarding climate change.

So then, what's your explanation for the houses story?

When you have a crisis of the commons, government policy is needed. I don't think Bush would ever support proper policies, is what I meant, regardless of how the scientists and environmental advocates had proceeded. (Do you have any evidence otherwise?) One reason I mentioned is his close ties to the oil industry -- switching away from oil will necessarily harm these guys. Again I'll say -- just to annoy ebuddy -- I don't know anything about Sky Captain or smacintush.

What's not inevitable is the scientists being the one's wasting time doing it (the addressing). You know, instead of spending their efforts on science.

Sure, and I think that's what they mostly are doing. But I don't agree that scientific outreach, in any area of science, broadly, is a waste of time. We pay for their research, they are responsible to us, and we have a right to know what they're doing. Do you think that Hawkins's A Brief History of Time was a waste of time? If so, then we'll just have to disagree.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Yeah, that's exactly my problem. Right after foolishly thinking that it might perhaps be possible to do more than one thing at a time. Thanks for setting me straight on both points. In your next post, maybe you can point out how I'm either with you or against you in the war on terror.

Remember you said; "But current science says that 32 years from now will be too late.", then you went on to say; "... more like 20 years."

You said "too late" tie. I would ask for future reference that you not say things you really don't mean. It gives readers the wrong impression. You've railed on those who remain "unconvinced" relegating them to people who oppose the teaching of evolution and you're saying we don't have 32 years. So... in summary; you're convinced that 32 years is too late and you feel people who remain unconvinced are foolish. This implies the need for extremely aggressive SOLUTION policy tie, not more aggressive RESEARCH policy. Is this beginning to make any sense to you at all now? If the science is so convincing to you now, what is it we'd be spending on research when we've only got 32 years (in your words "more like 20 years") to replace all carbon-free energy sources? I told you what we'd need to do to adequately address your source who claims we've got 30 years ("more like 20" in your words) and you didn't want to hear that tie. We're no longer talking "billions" of dollars tie. Priorities. Either you're convinced of the science or you're not.

Uncle Skeleton did. Stay focused ebuddy.

Right and I'm ebuddy. You're all over the place.

You're an anonymous guy on the Internet -- what more can I ask of you than talking points? I know people on these forums lie, and so no I don't bother asking you what you are doing. I certainly won't beg you, if that's what you're looking for.

It is clear what you're against, but I was hoping to hear more about what you're for. Apparently, you haven't considered what you're for. The fact of the matter is that I shouldn't have to pry it out of you. It seems you're more concerned with the political climate than any genuine concern for global climate.

I'll tell you what I'm looking for tie. I'm looking for evidence that the guy who is berating me for foolishness has actually spent more than 5 minute's thought of his own on the issue he's supposedly championing. It is apparent you haven't and your need to espouse political tripe under the guise of some environmental concern is doing those with a genuine concern over the environment a great disservice.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Either you're convinced of the science or you're not.

That's right, and I'm either with you or against you. (Thanks for taking my cue so well!) But Clinton. We don't have infinite resources and can only do at most one thing at a time. I think I gotcha.

Right and I'm ebuddy.

Um, what's this all about? I reply to Uncle Skeleton, and you say I should "stay focused" and not reply to him. And two posts later you are still annoyed about it. Sorry about that, I guess. What's your problem with Uncle Skeleton?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

People like (apparently) sky captain and smacintush and George W Bush, who seem to have been going on a perfectly "green" course, but due to all the politicizing of the issue find themselves working against the climate scientists and their media juggernaut.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It is clear what you're against, but I was hoping to hear more about what you're for. Apparently, you haven't considered what you're for. The fact of the matter is that I shouldn't have to pry it out of you.

Of course I've considered what I'm for. But since I've had to beg you for answers, welcome to reciprocity. You know what I've got on my list?

 

More than one thing!

Sorry if that blew your mind. I know already that you think doing that is completely impossible, so decided not to waste my time. Maybe you can think of a good "But Clinton" for it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

That's right, and I'm either with you or against you. (Thanks for taking my cue so well!) But Clinton. We don't have infinite resources and can only do at most one thing at a time. I think I gotcha.

Never said; "but Clinton". I'm trying to give you some perspective and to pry from you (as are others) what it is you want here? 15 pages later and you've yet to make a point.

Um, what's this all about? I reply to Uncle Skeleton, and you say I should "stay focused" and not reply to him. And two posts later you are still annoyed about it. Sorry about that, I guess. What's your problem with Uncle Skeleton?

I have no problem with Uncle Skeleton. I'm not going to speak for him, but it seems we're both trying to figure out if there's a point anywhere in your posts. My annoyance is your inability to address the numerous points I've made when responding to me instead of the intellectually lazy practice of addressing everyone at once with absolutely nothing.

Of course I've considered what I'm for. But since I've had to beg you for answers, welcome to reciprocity. You know what I've got on my list?

Yep. This...

 

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

Sorry if that blew your mind.

That blew my mind alright. I've never once met anyone thicker or more prideful in all my life. You really thought you were prepared to come online and tell folks what they should do except, you forgot to bring your list eh?

I know already that you think doing that is completely impossible, so decided not to waste my time. Maybe you can think of a good "But Clinton" for it.

Do what? (*hint, check your spoiler for me) Go online to berate others with your obvious lack of knowledge on an issue you're supposedly championing? You want answers from me? On what? You've not asked me anything. So far, all you've done is indicate to this forum that you've spent less than 5 minutes' time on this issue and showing more concern for political climate than any concern at all for global climate. I don't have to say; "but Clinton". I just ask you questions and watch you slobber on yourself post after post. You're the one invoking political parties and Presidents. I'm just challenging you on your information and you've come up again with absolutely nothing.

[BadKosh]

Well, it seems obvious then.. We must use biological means to kill 95% of the worlds humans. Where should we start?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Never said; "but Clinton".

You pulled a "But Clinton" on the climate science funding. Go back a page. :-)

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I don't understand. Is this administration doing less for climate science than the last administration?

What do you think a But Clinton is? Of course the classic is, But Clinton lied about That Woman, but I know you save that one for the really important rebuttals.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Does this leave enough for health care and all the other pet spending measure's you're calling for in these threads on a daily basis?

Feel free to post some examples, if you can find even one.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You pulled a "But Clinton" on the climate science funding. Go back a page. :-)

Went back a page. Saw the first mention of Clinton made by you just above a statement contrasting what you feel Bush is doing wrong with the issue.

What do you think a But Clinton is?

I'm guessing a sore spot with you?

Of course the classic is, But Clinton lied about That Woman, but I know you save that one for the really important rebuttals.

Not as classic as your denial of the holocaust. See how stupid this is tie?

Feel free to post some examples, if you can find even one.

Easy. View all posts by peeb starting with any health care thread of choice. Just because you've put him away for now doesn't mean your alter-ego doesn't express your views for you when you feel you've run "tie" through the mud like you've managed to do in this thread.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You guys are boring now. Talk about the issues again. Tie, start it off by giving a position so ebuddy has something to nit pick besides your personality.

PS:

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What do you think a Butt Clinton is?

I'm guessing a sore spot with you?

I snickered.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You guys are boring now. Talk about the issues again. Tie, start it off by giving a position so ebuddy has something to nit pick besides your personality.

PS:

I snickered.

eBuddy?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You guys are boring now. Talk about the issues again. Tie, start it off by giving a position so ebuddy has something to nit pick besides your personality.

I think tie is sufficiently annoyed with me by now. If he gives the position I think he will, the only thing I'll be nit picking is his butt Clinton.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Easy. View all posts by peeb starting with any health care thread of choice. Just because you've put him away for now doesn't mean your alter-ego doesn't express your views for you when you feel you've run "tie" through the mud like you've managed to do in this thread.

Are you serious? LOL! You caught me! (I guess that means you couldn't find a single example where "tie" advocated huge spending increases?) I did find it quite an ironic accusation from a big Bush supporter. (We all know your alter ego is Buckaroo.)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You guys are boring now. Talk about the issues again. Tie, start it off by giving a position so ebuddy has something to nit pick besides your personality.

Ebuddy doesn't want a serious conversation. He started off by saying we should "urge scientists" by cutting their funding, then went through the litany of dumb arguments and personal attacks. It turns out he thinks I'm also peeb, which I guess explains a lot of the personal attacks! (Not that I have anything against my alter ego peeb .)

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Not as classic as your denial of the holocaust. See how stupid this is tie?

Well, I think you topped us both (tie and pǝǝb, not to mention my other alter ego BadKosh) when you accused "eGore" of wanting to wipe humanity off this earth. Maybe peeb will drop by on cue, just about now...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Are you serious? LOL! You caught me! (I guess that means you couldn't find a single example where "tie" advocated huge spending increases?)

I was trying to decide if you were worth more than 3 minute's time tie, remember? Besides, you're not aware of what government programs you support? You want my help there too?

I did find it quite an ironic accusation from a big Bush supporter. (We all know your alter ego is Buckaroo.)

Yippeekyay!

Well, I think you topped us both (tie and pǝǝb, not to mention my other alter ego BadKosh) when you accused "eGore" of wanting to wipe humanity off this earth. Maybe peeb will drop by on cue, just about now...

Silly law students. Maybe the problem is y'all think alike. We were looking for you to give a position tie. Doggystyle doesn't count.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by tie 

He started off by saying we should "urge scientists" by cutting their funding

I know this might just be a strawman of yours, but I read what he said as "scientists should urge scientists, rather than scientists urging government" (ebuddy please confirm?)