IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

[Oddball]

Okay lets say the entire economy is banked on the drug company.

The argument doesn't change.

It's fundamentally dishonest to argue something is safe just because you think that will make an economic argument is easier. If you are worried about the economic impact of CO2 reductions then have the balls to actually go with that and not hide behind arguing the CO2 rise will be safe.

Repeating an irrelevant non sequitur doesn't suddenly turn it into sound logic.

What's fundamentally dishonest is trying to make others prove a negative.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dark Matter is Converting into CO2 and Dark Energy is melting the ice caps and causing Killer Tornados

 

[Oddball]

Where's Theodoric of York when we need him?

 

[RWatt]

Okay lets say the entire economy is banked on the drug company.

The argument doesn't change.

It's fundamentally dishonest to argue something is safe just because you think that will make an economic argument is easier. If you are worried about the economic impact of CO2 reductions then have the balls to actually go with that and not hide behind arguing the CO2 rise will be safe.

Repeating an irrelevant non sequitur doesn't suddenly turn it into sound logic.

What's fundamentally dishonest is trying to make others prove a negative.

So drug companies having to test drugs before they can be considered safe represents them being forced to prove a negative? Of course not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global warming is about the destruction of wealth. You 'Conservatives' had better take a look at the cost of the weather disasters in the last 11 months. And what is happening right now.

"Global warming is about the destruction of wealth" -- Old Rocks

may be in my sig line soon

 

[RWatt]

I haven't described any results. Quite the contrary I am arguing that there are insufficient results to conclude the CO2 rise is safe.

Lab conditions don't mirror the real world, so such a test would be inconclusive. It's like injecting an ant with the drug and claiming the results prove it's safe for human consumption.

You haven't claimed that CO2 raises temperatures????????????

Do you know what the word "warming" means?

It's a given that CO2 raises temperatures. How much is uncertain. Untested.

I am sure the drug companies have some idea what parts of the human body their new drug affects. But until they test it they can't at any level guarantee it will be safe or not have other adverse side effects.

 

[Oddball]

It's a given that CO2 raises temperatures. How much is uncertain. Untested.

If you cannot quantify it, you cannot claim it to be a "given"....Basic proof geometry.

 

[RWatt]

It's a given that CO2 raises temperatures. How much is uncertain. Untested.

If you cannot quantify it, you cannot claim it to be a "given"....Basic proof geometry.

So if ancient man can't quantify the amount of solar energy being absorbed by the Earth, therefore ancient man can't conclude the Earth is warmed by the Sun?

Interesting argument.

 

[Oddball]

Okay lets say the entire economy is banked on the drug company.

The argument doesn't change.

It's fundamentally dishonest to argue something is safe just because you think that will make an economic argument is easier. If you are worried about the economic impact of CO2 reductions then have the balls to actually go with that and not hide behind arguing the CO2 rise will be safe.

Repeating an irrelevant non sequitur doesn't suddenly turn it into sound logic.

What's fundamentally dishonest is trying to make others prove a negative.

So drug companies having to test drugs before they can be considered safe represents them being forced to prove a negative? Of course not.

An irrelevant non sequitur doesn't suddenly become sound logic through repetition.

Need we introduce the likes of Phen-fen, Vioxx and Thalidomide into your hopelessly flawed analogy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where's Theodoric of York when we need him?

LOL

or

"This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You haven't claimed that CO2 raises temperatures????????????

Do you know what the word "warming" means?

It's a given that CO2 raises temperatures. How much is uncertain. Untested.

I am sure the drug companies have some idea what parts of the human body their new drug affects. But until they test it they can't at any level guarantee it will be safe or not have other adverse side effects.

So you're agreeing with lab experiment showing that a 60PPM increase may have no effect at all on temperature

 

[Oddball]

It's a given that CO2 raises temperatures. How much is uncertain. Untested.

If you cannot quantify it, you cannot claim it to be a "given"....Basic proof geometry.

So if ancient man can't quantify the amount of solar energy being absorbed by the Earth, therefore ancient man can't conclude the Earth is warmed by the Sun?

Interesting argument.

But solar energy HAS been measured and quantified.

Shifting the paradigm to ancient man, who had no concept for scientific method, is pretty amateurish.....Are you even in high school yet?

 

[RWatt]

Repeating an irrelevant non sequitur doesn't suddenly turn it into sound logic.

What's fundamentally dishonest is trying to make others prove a negative.

So drug companies having to test drugs before they can be considered safe represents them being forced to prove a negative? Of course not.

An irrelevant non sequitur doesn't suddenly become sound logic through repetition.

We make drug companies test their drugs before release to ensure they are safe. Is that forcing them to prove a negative? You think not.

But making scientists test the CO2 rise "before release" to ensure it's safe, well you think that is forcing them to prove a negative and is therefore dishonest.

Explain your inconsistency clearly. If you can.

 

[RWatt]

If you cannot quantify it, you cannot claim it to be a "given"....Basic proof geometry.

So if ancient man can't quantify the amount of solar energy being absorbed by the Earth, therefore ancient man can't conclude the Earth is warmed by the Sun?

Interesting argument.

But solar energy HAS been measured and quantified.

Shifting the paradigm to ancient man, who had no concept for scientific method, is pretty amateurish.....Are you even in high school yet?

Has nothing to do with the scientific method. You even cited geometry.

You wrongly claimed that the sign of the effect of something can only be known if it's been quantified. That's completely wrong.

 

[RWatt]

It's a given that CO2 raises temperatures. How much is uncertain. Untested.

I am sure the drug companies have some idea what parts of the human body their new drug affects. But until they test it they can't at any level guarantee it will be safe or not have other adverse side effects.

So you're agreeing with lab experiment showing that a 60PPM increase may have no effect at all on temperature

There is no such lab experiment.

 

[Oddball]

We make drug companies test their drugs before release to ensure they are safe. Is that forcing them to prove a negative? You think not.

But making scientists test the CO2 rise "before release" to ensure it's safe, well you think that is forcing them to prove a negative and is therefore dishonest.

Explain your inconsistency clearly. If you can.

It's forcing them to prove that the medication does what it claims to do, without deleterious side-effects (as defined by the approving agency)....That's proving a positive.

Your non-sequitur continues to lose, Buckwheat.

 

[Big Fitz]

We make drug companies test their drugs before release to ensure they are safe. Is that forcing them to prove a negative? You think not.

But making scientists test the CO2 rise "before release" to ensure it's safe, well you think that is forcing them to prove a negative and is therefore dishonest.

Explain your inconsistency clearly. If you can.

It's forcing them to prove that the medication does what it claims to do, without deleterious side-effects (as defined by the approving agency)....That's proving a positive.

Your non-sequitur continues to lose, Buckwheat.

I said just that 40 posts before. He doesn't get it. That screws up his entire dogma so it must not be true.

 

[RWatt]

It's forcing them to prove that the medication does what it claims to do, without deleterious side-effects....That's proving a positive.

You lose, Buckwheat.

Yet you think forcing them to prove that CO2 emissions produce cheap energy without deleterious side-effects is proving a negative.

As I said your position is completely inconsistent.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's forcing them to prove that the medication does what it claims to do, without deleterious side-effects....That's proving a positive.

You lose, Buckwheat.

Yet you think forcing them to prove that CO2 emissions produce cheap energy without deleterious side-effects is proving a negative.

As I said your position is completely inconsistent.

[flush]But you cannot prove your assertion! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!

Now to toss your dumbfuckery in the ignore bin with the rest of the chicken littles.

[/Flush]

 

[RWatt]

Any lurkers wanting to learn ways to tackle the skeptics take note. The great thing about analogies is they pin these guys down.

The fact is that climate skeptics generally put the climate subject in a special box where they invent their own special rules and logic to address it. They are often sensible people in other walks of life, but become raving buffoons when they go into climate skeptic mode, pulling out the oddest and weirdest logical contortions known to man.

The way to expose them is to break the confines of that box so they (and others) are forced to see their illogical arguments in light of subjects outside the box. In this case none of the skeptics are so mad as to dismiss the need for testing drugs before they are released. And therefore this is a fine anchor to compare their claims about CO2 against.