A Question about Global Warming:

[Modbert]

so you would be perfectly willing to go out day after day and work your sane ass off, come home, and hand mr. tax man 90% of what you've earned and you would NOT view yourself as a slave? And you want to call my ass crazy?

You are using the number from 1929, not 2009. Further proving you truly are stuck in the past and crazy.

39% of what I earned (if I do not donate anything to charity, have any writeoffs, etc) would be going to programs that are funded directly by my taxes.

 

[WillowTree]

There is as much evidence to back the outright "denying" as there is to back supporting global warming. As to those theorizing that this is about government control... well... let's see, the federal government just classified the breath you exhale as a poison. How far a reach do you think THAT gives the government over you in the public domain. Think second hand smoke.

I see where you're getting at. I offer this argument (the Libertarian one):

While I am all for you being able to smoke and kill yourself slowly. I'd rather not have the same done to me. Second hand smoke exists and it kills. (It's been proven). So, when you smoke around me in public places such as restaurants and slowly take away from my life, you are violating my rights as a human being.

Therefore, you should have to move to a new area of the restaurant, perhaps a smoker area where you all can smoke together and not breach my rights.

The Government although considered to be evil by many, it is necessary. We need them to step in and make such measures at points in order to protect our rights.

Also, the situation you are talking about already exists among the states that border the mexican border.

You didn't hear that Whooooooooooooooshing sound did ya Roberto?

 

[Modbert]

Let's see if I can follow your 'logic': 'Deniers' deny the existence of something (anthropogenic global warming). If they don't know if that something exists or not, then they are not a 'denier'?

Now, my second question: Who do you think these deniers are?


Disclaimer: Now, I'm just asking to be sure, so don't get in a tizzy.

They would still be a denier. This is something that can not be outright denied as there is no "smoking gun" that proves such. Hence, they are a denier.

And as for who the deniers are? You think I'm going to play into your game?

Silly Modo. I'm not going to walk into that one. If I answered your question, you would cry how I'm picking out certain people. Try again.

 

[Modbert]

You didn't hear that Whooooooooooooooshing sound did ya Roberto?

I know exactly where she's getting at.

 

[WillowTree]

so you would be perfectly willing to go out day after day and work your sane ass off, come home, and hand mr. tax man 90% of what you've earned and you would NOT view yourself as a slave? And you want to call my ass crazy?

You are using the number from 1929, not 2009. Further proving you truly are stuck in the past and crazy.

39% of what I earned (if I do not donate anything to charity, have any writeoffs, etc) would be going to programs that are funded directly by my taxes.

okay,, so let's get the record straight.. As it is in America today,, about 50% of the citizens pay Federal Income Tax. The other 50% do not. Now who is the closest to being a slave? The one who works and gets to keep his money,, or the one who works and hands over 30, 40 or 50%.

 

[WillowTree]

You didn't hear that Whooooooooooooooshing sound did ya Roberto?

I know exactly where she's getting at.

The US. government just declared your exhaled breath poison! That's fucking awsome innit?

 

[xsited1]

Why is it a right wing/left wing thing?

I am always amazed when somebody asks this question. On the surface, it seems perfectly logical. However, in order to ask this question sincerely, you would've had to been living under a rock for the past 10 years.

How sweet of you to say!

No, it was a sincere question. Just look at the turn this thread took from my simple question.

Science and politics have always been inextricably linked. In the case of global warming, Scientists and politicians found a common cause that gave the Scientists more funding and the politicians more power. It's rare to meet a scientist who isn't driven by politics, power and money.

 

[Si modo]

Let's see if I can follow your 'logic': 'Deniers' deny the existence of something (anthropogenic global warming). If they don't know if that something exists or not, then they are not a 'denier'?

Now, my second question: Who do you think these deniers are?


Disclaimer: Now, I'm just asking to be sure, so don't get in a tizzy.

They would still be a denier. This is something that can not be outright denied as there is no "smoking gun" that proves such. Hence, they are a denier. ....

[Emphasis added] Then you are a denier when you said, "Although manmade Global Warming may or may not be essentially proven ...." ?

.... And as for who the deniers are? You think I'm going to play into your game?


Silly Modo. I'm not going to walk into that one. If I answered your question, you would cry how I'm picking out certain people. Try again.

Not a game. It was an honest question.

 

[Modbert]

okay,, so let's get the record straight.. As it is in America today,, about 50% of the citizens pay Federal Income Tax. The other 50% do not. Now who is the closest to being a slave? The one who works and gets to keep his money,, or the one who works and hands over 30, 40 or 50%.

Considering the people who do not pay any federal income tax do not even meet the required level due to making so little, I would say the people who do not pay taxes.

Also, who pays 40-50%? Link?

 

[random3434]

I am always amazed when somebody asks this question. On the surface, it seems perfectly logical. However, in order to ask this question sincerely, you would've had to been living under a rock for the past 10 years.

How sweet of you to say!

No, it was a sincere question. Just look at the turn this thread took from my simple question.

Science and politics have always been inextricably linked. In the case of global warming, Scientists and politicians found a common cause that gave the Scientists more funding and the politicians more power. It's rare to meet a scientist who isn't driven by politics, power and money.

Well THAT'S a scary thought!

 

[WillowTree]

I am always amazed when somebody asks this question. On the surface, it seems perfectly logical. However, in order to ask this question sincerely, you would've had to been living under a rock for the past 10 years.

How sweet of you to say!

No, it was a sincere question. Just look at the turn this thread took from my simple question.

Science and politics have always been inextricably linked. In the case of global warming, Scientists and politicians found a common cause that gave the Scientists more funding and the politicians more power. It's rare to meet a scientist who isn't driven by politics, power and money.

The whole thing started in the UN.

 

[Modbert]

Again Modo, there is a difference between waiting for conclusive evidence and or not being 100% sure and being an outright denier with outlandish theories.

 

[Si modo]

I am always amazed when somebody asks this question. On the surface, it seems perfectly logical. However, in order to ask this question sincerely, you would've had to been living under a rock for the past 10 years.

How sweet of you to say!

No, it was a sincere question. Just look at the turn this thread took from my simple question.

Science and politics have always been inextricably linked. In the case of global warming, Scientists and politicians found a common cause that gave the Scientists more funding and the politicians more power. It's rare to meet a scientist who isn't driven by politics, power and money.

[Emphasis added] This is not my experience (at least the politics and money part) with scientists devoted to research.

 

[WillowTree]

Again Modo, there is a difference between waiting for conclusive evidence and or not being 100% sure and being an outright denier with outlandish theories.

so this is the second time you have been asked to show why one has nothing to do with the other. we are still waiting.

 

[Si modo]

Again Modo, there is a difference between waiting for conclusive evidence and or not being 100% sure and being an outright denier with outlandish theories.

So when you answered, "They would still be a denier", to my question, "'Deniers' deny the existence of something (anthropogenic global warming). If they don't know if that something exists or not, then they are not a 'denier'?" you didn't really mean it?

I'm not following your apparent contradictions.

 

[Modbert]

The US. government just declared your exhaled breath poison! That's fucking awsome innit?

Again, illogical theory with no evidence to support it. How lovely.

Anything else you'd like to come up with there McCarthy?

 

[xsited1]

How sweet of you to say!

No, it was a sincere question. Just look at the turn this thread took from my simple question.

Science and politics have always been inextricably linked. In the case of global warming, Scientists and politicians found a common cause that gave the Scientists more funding and the politicians more power. It's rare to meet a scientist who isn't driven by politics, power and money.

[Emphasis added] This is not my experience (at least the politics and money part) with scientists devoted to research.

My experience has been mainly in the semiconductor business, either Physicists or Chemists. I'm trying to think of one who didn't fit my summary. Still thinking...

 

[Vel]

There is as much evidence to back the outright "denying" as there is to back supporting global warming. As to those theorizing that this is about government control... well... let's see, the federal government just classified the breath you exhale as a poison. How far a reach do you think THAT gives the government over you in the public domain. Think second hand smoke.

I see where you're getting at. I offer this argument (the Libertarian one):

While I am all for you being able to smoke and kill yourself slowly. I'd rather not have the same done to me. Second hand smoke exists and it kills. (It's been proven). So, when you smoke around me in public places such as restaurants and slowly take away from my life, you are violating my rights as a human being.

Therefore, you should have to move to a new area of the restaurant, perhaps a smoker area where you all can smoke together and not breach my rights.

The Government although considered to be evil by many, it is necessary. We need them to step in and make such measures at points in order to protect our rights.

Also, the situation you are talking about already exists among the states that border the mexican border.

You missed the point entirely. Try this.. replace the word "smoker" with the word "breather" in your above post and then get back to me.

 

[WillowTree]

The US. government just declared your exhaled breath poison! That's fucking awsome innit?

Again, illogical theory with no evidence to support it. How lovely.

Anything else you'd like to come up with there McCarthy?

what is an illogical theory?

 

[Si modo]

Science and politics have always been inextricably linked. In the case of global warming, Scientists and politicians found a common cause that gave the Scientists more funding and the politicians more power. It's rare to meet a scientist who isn't driven by politics, power and money.

[Emphasis added] This is not my experience (at least the politics and money part) with scientists devoted to research.

My experience has been mainly in the semiconductor business, either Physicists or Chemists. I'm trying to think of one who didn't fit my summary. Still thinking...

My experience has been over twelve years with chemists doing mostly basic (and some applied) research (academic and government), and I have yet to meet one who is driven by politics and money with respect to their research. Power, yes - and that's a big yes.