Where is the confession?

[CrusaderFrank]

For many years, astrophysicists and astronomers were absolutely certain that the expansion of the universe was slowing. With a single finding by two different groups, they all abandoned that view and accepted the new one: for the last 8 billion years, the expansion of the universe has been accelerating.

For many years, geologists were absolutely certain that the configuration of the Earth's surface wrt continents and ocean basins was completely static. Then, practically overnight, plate tectonics became the new paradigm.

For many years, doctors were absolutely certain that the cause of peptic ulcers was gastric acidosis. Overnight, their minds were changed as a bacterial cause came to light.

Yo, Mr Self-Proclaimed Skeptic, welcome to the wonderful world of science.

So plate tectonics explains why you suddenly and magically added in the "excess heat" trapped by the oceans.

Hmmmmkay

 

[Crick]

It's all about Degrowth. This is the phrase coined by Mark Levin in his new book "Plunder and Deceit". The term "Degrowth Movement" describes what the environmentalist movement has become, or perhaps always was about.

If you want to critique Mark Levin, have at it. But if you want to accuse the entire environmental movement of Mark Levin's 'crimes' you first need to demonstrate that Levin is their recognized leader. You've not even made the attempt, thus this comment is worthless.

For example,, in a recent interview fanatical anticapitalist and climate activist Naomi Klein proclaimed that "Capitalism increasingly is a discredited system because it is seen as a system that venerates greed above all else.

And again, where is the demonstration that Naomi Klein is a recognized leader of the environmental movement and that some majority of environmentally concerned individuals agree with her views on capitalism? Again, your comments are worthless.

Even though these "Progressives" are really "Regressive" in their pursuit to send society back to the days of horse and buggy, they are still referred to as Progressives.

That would seem to be due to your inferior grasp of the meaning of the term:
PROGRESSIVE (Dictionary.com)
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocatingmore enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
(initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties inpolitics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

In fact, they define their agenda as follows: "Sustainable degrowth is a downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet. It calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. It is an essential economic strategy to pursue in overdeveloped country like the US, for well being of the planet, of underdeveloped pupulations, and yes, even of the sick, stressed, and overweight consumer populations of overdeveloped countries."

This is actually a quote from the website www.degrowth.org, whose subtitle reads “Research & Degrowth, (R&D) is an academic association dedicated to research, training, awareness raising and events organization around degrowth.” and says not one ******* thing about being progressive.

French economist and leading degrowther Serge Latouche...

Whose significance to environmentalists or progressives you have failed to even suggest. Again, worthless.

So there you have it. Climate change activists are not so much concerned about the environment as they are embracing Marxism.

A completely unsubstantiated assertion.

This post's content regarding environmentalism and progressivism is a marvelous demonstration of false arguments.

 

[Votto]

It's all about Degrowth. This is the phrase coined by Mark Levin in his new book "Plunder and Deceit". The term "Degrowth Movement" describes what the environmentalist movement has become, or perhaps always was about.

If you want to critique Mark Levin, have at it. But if you want to accuse the entire environmental movement of Mark Levin's 'crimes' you first need to demonstrate that Levin is their recognized leader. You've not even made the attempt, thus this comment is worthless.

For example,, in a recent interview fanatical anticapitalist and climate activist Naomi Klein proclaimed that "Capitalism increasingly is a discredited system because it is seen as a system that venerates greed above all else.

And again, where is the demonstration that Naomi Klein is a recognized leader of the environmental movement and that some majority of environmentally concerned individuals agree with her views on capitalism? Again, your comments are worthless.

Even though these "Progressives" are really "Regressive" in their pursuit to send society back to the days of horse and buggy, they are still referred to as Progressives.

That would seem to be due to your inferior grasp of the meaning of the term:
PROGRESSIVE (Dictionary.com)
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocatingmore enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
(initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties inpolitics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

In fact, they define their agenda as follows: "Sustainable degrowth is a downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet. It calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. It is an essential economic strategy to pursue in overdeveloped country like the US, for well being of the planet, of underdeveloped pupulations, and yes, even of the sick, stressed, and overweight consumer populations of overdeveloped countries."

This is actually a quote from the website www.degrowth.org, whose subtitle reads “Research & Degrowth, (R&D) is an academic association dedicated to research, training, awareness raising and events organization around degrowth.” and says not one ******* thing about being progressive.

French economist and leading degrowther Serge Latouche...

Whose significance to environmentalists or progressives you have failed to even suggest. Again, worthless.

So there you have it. Climate change activists are not so much concerned about the environment as they are embracing Marxism.

A completely unsubstantiated assertion.

This post's content regarding environmentalism and progressivism is a marvelous demonstration of false arguments.

Dud, I don't know what you want from us. You wanted a confession showing that cap and trade is full of poo and we have shown confessions to that end. Another confession is below


Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

Cap and trade is nothing but a climate tax. It does virtually nothing other than making energy more expensive, as costs are passed down to the poor and middle class. It is a drag on the economy and a death sentence for free trade. After all, a booming economy will cause more carbon emissions, so the only way to attack these carbon emissions is to kill the eonomy.

The idea is to tell people just to use less. It's like telling people not to drink so much water, even though you must drink some to survive. Of course, you have all of these promises of renewable energy that will replace fossil fuels. To me it is akin to promises that a substitute for water will be found. I might even buy into such notions if environmentalists would embrace nuclear power, but they don't. Here we have a viable form of energy that does not emit carbon, yet it is opposed by people like you.

 

[Votto]

PROGRESSIVE (Dictionary.com)
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocatingmore enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
(initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties inpolitics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

This is the definition of Progressive? Why did they leave out being handsome and full of wit?

So how are Progressives reforming the government today I wonder? What is being reformed? Is corruption being rooted out? Are they being held accountable for how they are spending our money? Who was arrested for the credit crisis? Who was arrested for the VA scandal? Who was arrested for the IRS scandal? In fact, no one was.

The poor continue to become poorer, and the rich keep getting richer. The government passes about 40,000 new regulations and laws every single day as it gets harder and harder to start a new business. The President now goes to war when he feels like it and without declaring war. The President now signs Executive Orders even though they may conflict with existing laws. The President now creates Treaties and renames it an Executive Agreement, all in an effort to bypass Congress. We have a king, not a President

In fact, look at Congress. They continually delegate their Constitutional obligations to the Executive Branch so that now nonelected bureaucrats are essentially writing our laws now via regulations.

With a Congress having an approval rating hovering about 10% for decades, for the life of me, I don't understand how this is Progress or even democracy. This is America being held hostage.

 

[Crick]

Dud, I don't know what you want from us.

Go to the lead post. It is quite clearly explained there. You, apparently failed to read it or failed to understand.

You wanted a confession showing that cap and trade is full of poo and we have shown confessions to that end.

I asked for no such thing and no one here has provided anything like it.

Another confession is below

Let's have a look at a less out of context quotation from Edenoher's interview.

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
****************************************************************************************************************************

And now a little education for the unwashed masses. The IPCC does not set policy for ANYONE. The Cancun conference to which he refers is a meeting of sovereign states. No one is forcing those states to do anything. Those nations are modifying their joint policies in an attempt to prevent anthropogenic global warming from reaching levels that would produce the ruinous effects projected to occur. Edenhofer's statement is a description of how the nations of the world are dealing with global warming. How, as he states, they can convince the owners of the world's coal and petroleum to leave it in the ground. That is the redistribution of wealth.

And, again, the OP of this thread asks for a confession from one or more of the thousands of climate scientists involved in the processing and maintenance of the world's temperature records that they have modified those data without real justification but in order to make global warming appear worse than it is. Edenhofer's statement does nothing of the kind.

Cap and trade is nothing but a climate tax.

You don't think very hard before choosing your words, do you. What is "climate tax" supposed to mean? Cap and trade can be considered a carbon tax but it is one that allows the flexibility of those sources (industries) capable of making rapid change to offset the pain that those unable to do so would otherwise experience.

It does virtually nothing other than making energy more expensive, as costs are passed down to the poor and middle class.

Wrong. It makes fossil-fuel based energies more expensive and costs are passed down to all consumers. And, guess what, the largest consumer is industry, not the poor and the middle class. I will certainly admit the poor are less able to cope with increases in their costs. That's why we have subsidies, tax breaks and a strenuous move to alternative energy sources.

It is a drag on the economy and a death sentence for free trade.

Bullshit. And you call us "alarmists".

After all, a booming economy will cause more carbon emissions, so the only way to attack these carbon emissions is to kill the eonomy.

Are you really that shallow? New technologies are what drive modern economies. Besides which, if you'd like to kill the world's economy, do nothing and then figure out where you're going to get the hundreds of trillions of dollars required to deal with rising sea level, disappearing water supplies and failing crops. I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence that moving starving people from their homes to tent cities increases their industrial productivity.

The idea is to tell people just to use less.

You mean, like, conserve energy, conserve natural resources? Yes, that is something you should be doing. And it's something you should be doing no matter your opinion on AGW.

It's like telling people not to drink so much water, even though you must drink some to survive.

Conserving energy and natural resources does not threaten your survival. It lowers your bills.

Of course, you have all of these promises of renewable energy that will replace fossil fuels.

Why is it you seem to think you're completely free to select your facts?

To me it is akin to promises that a substitute for water will be found.

Don't be an idiot. We can and do produce electricity using non-fossil-fuel methods. It's not a ******* fantasy. There's a very good chance that a significant portion of the energy your using in your home right now came from alternative sources.

I might even buy into such notions if environmentalists would embrace nuclear power, but they don't. Here we have a viable form of energy that does not emit carbon, yet it is opposed by people like you.

What? What does my opinion on nuclear power have to do with it? Nothing, that's what. And, take a guess. I support nuclear power and always have.

Let's see... did you get anything right? Hmm... no.

 

[Votto]

Wrong. It makes fossil-fuel based energies more expensive and costs are passed down to all consumers. And, guess what, the largest consumer is industry, not the poor and the middle class. I will certainly admit the poor are less able to cope with increases in their costs. That's why we have subsidies, tax breaks and a strenuous move to alternative energy sources.

I'm not sure how you think economies work, but industry will only pass down increased costs to the consumer. It's not like the rich government sponsored corporations will decide to eat the costs themselves.

And to think that the increased costs will not have a negative impact on the economy is beyond retarded. So yes, they want to destroy free market economies because this is just one of thousands of nails in it's coffin.

Progs are a hoot. They preach things like sex between two consenting adults is no ones business, however, if they start getting paid for sex then all of sudden they wish to impose things like a minimum wage and mandatory health care. It appears people are free to do anything aside from a free economy. But if we are all held prisoner by our wallets, then what is all that freedom really good for, especially when we slave away most of our time trying to pay off your ridiculous carbon taxes?

 

[Votto]

Unless you are a child, you know that money is the reason behind everything.

The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore's Carbon Crusade | Human Events

Here is my favorite quote from the article.

To critics on both the free-market right and the environmentalist left, carbon offsets are no more than a marketing gimmick. Some describe the fanciful device as akin to medieval indulgences that were sold in a cleric-run market to regulate the remission of sin.

Hilarious.

Climate taxation will only create huge pots of money, and we all know how government just loves huge pots of money, and people like Al Gore have positioned themselves to become insanely rich, no doubt while preaching to us about income equality.

This same gimmick will then be sold to governments around the world. What politician does not want to become rich? I can't think of any.

 

[Crick]

PROGRESSIVE (Dictionary.com)
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocatingmore enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
(initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties inpolitics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

This is the definition of Progressive?

Yes

Why did they leave out being handsome and full of wit?

Because it's an actual definition from an actual dictionary.

So how are Progressives reforming the government today I wonder?

Are you presuming progressives are in control?

What is being reformed? Is corruption being rooted out?
Are they being held accountable for how they are spending our money? Who was arrested for the credit crisis? Who was arrested for the VA scandal? Who was arrested for the IRS scandal? In fact, no one was.

The financial crisis of 2007-2008 was most certainly not the work of progressives. It was caused by deregulation of the financial industry by those perfect friends of business and profits, the Republican Party.

On the VA Scandal:
Dr. Robert Petzel, retired early at the request of Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki.[9][10]On May 30, 2014, Secretary Shinseki resigned from office amid the fallout from the controversy.[11][12]
...
An internal VA audit released June 9, 2014 found that more than 120,000 veterans were left waiting or never got care and that schedulers were pressured to use unofficial lists or engage in inappropriate practices to make waiting times appear more favorable.[18]

On June 11, 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened a criminal investigation of the VA.[19]

President Barack Obama ordered a White House investigation. On June 27, 2014, Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff, Rob Nabors, reported "significant and chronic system failures" and a "corrosive culture" inside the Veterans Health Administration.[20]

In August 2014, Obama signed Congressional legislation regarding funding and reform of the Veterans Health Administration. [Wikipedia]

The poor continue to become poorer, and the rich keep getting richer.

The gap between rich and poor has grown dramatically, but most of the change was on the high side.

The government passes about 40,000 new regulations and laws every single day as it gets harder and harder to start a new business.

Bullshit. Let's see your source for that nonsense.

The President now goes to war when he feels like it and without declaring war.

Did you realize the last time the United States formally declared war was 11 December 1941? So, don't try to suggest this is something Obama or progressives have brought about.

The President now signs Executive Orders even though they may conflict with existing laws.

Wrong.

The President now creates Treaties and renames it an Executive Agreement, all in an effort to bypass Congress. We have a king, not a President

Presidents have been making executive agreements since the US Constitution was ratified. Again, your suggestion that this is something that has happened recently (ie, under Obama) is a falsehood. The predominance of executive agreements over Senate-approved treaties began before WWII.

In fact, look at Congress. They continually delegate their Constitutional obligations to the Executive Branch so that now nonelected bureaucrats are essentially writing our laws now via regulations.

You really need some lessons in American Government. The unelected bureaucrats currently most involved in writing our laws are the staff of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). That IS a scandal. Look them up. If is NOT a result of progressive action or the work of the Obama administration.

With a Congress having an approval rating hovering about 10% for decades, for the life of me, I don't understand how this is Progress or even democracy.

Because it is not.

This is America being held hostage.

By the moneyed interests of capitalism.

 

[Old Rocks]

Votto, you are more and more coming off as another dumb ****. Solar and wind are right now cheaper to install and maintain than even dirty coal or natural gas. And, with the grid scale batteries now being manufactured, they will cease to be intermittant power source. We have yet to really start developing geo-thermal resources, but that will happen also. And, yes, that will redistribute wealth. Like it has for the wheat farmers in the Colombia Gorge. As it will for the third world nations rich in wind, solar, or geo-thermal potential. Energy is a very important commodity in modern manufacturing. But the re-distribution will be done by market forces, not governments. And that is what the fossil fuel people fear the most. As for the 'Conservatives', they just fear anything at all that they don't understand, which is most of the world.

 

[Votto]

PROGRESSIVE (Dictionary.com)
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocatingmore enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
(initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties inpolitics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

This is the definition of Progressive?

Yes

Why did they leave out being handsome and full of wit?

Because it's an actual definition from an actual dictionary.

So how are Progressives reforming the government today I wonder?

Are you presuming progressives are in control?

What is being reformed? Is corruption being rooted out?
Are they being held accountable for how they are spending our money? Who was arrested for the credit crisis? Who was arrested for the VA scandal? Who was arrested for the IRS scandal? In fact, no one was.

The financial crisis of 2007-2008 was most certainly not the work of progressives. It was caused by deregulation of the financial industry by those perfect friends of business and profits, the Republican Party.

On the VA Scandal:
Dr. Robert Petzel, retired early at the request of Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki.[9][10]On May 30, 2014, Secretary Shinseki resigned from office amid the fallout from the controversy.[11][12]
...
An internal VA audit released June 9, 2014 found that more than 120,000 veterans were left waiting or never got care and that schedulers were pressured to use unofficial lists or engage in inappropriate practices to make waiting times appear more favorable.[18]

On June 11, 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened a criminal investigation of the VA.[19]

President Barack Obama ordered a White House investigation. On June 27, 2014, Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff, Rob Nabors, reported "significant and chronic system failures" and a "corrosive culture" inside the Veterans Health Administration.[20]

In August 2014, Obama signed Congressional legislation regarding funding and reform of the Veterans Health Administration. [Wikipedia]

The poor continue to become poorer, and the rich keep getting richer.

The gap between rich and poor has grown dramatically, but most of the change was on the high side.

The government passes about 40,000 new regulations and laws every single day as it gets harder and harder to start a new business.

Bullshit. Let's see your source for that nonsense.

The President now goes to war when he feels like it and without declaring war.

Did you realize the last time the United States formally declared war was 11 December 1941? So, don't try to suggest this is something Obama or progressives have brought about.

The President now signs Executive Orders even though they may conflict with existing laws.

Wrong.

The President now creates Treaties and renames it an Executive Agreement, all in an effort to bypass Congress. We have a king, not a President

Presidents have been making executive agreements since the US Constitution was ratified. Again, your suggestion that this is something that has happened recently (ie, under Obama) is a falsehood. The predominance of executive agreements over Senate-approved treaties began before WWII.

In fact, look at Congress. They continually delegate their Constitutional obligations to the Executive Branch so that now nonelected bureaucrats are essentially writing our laws now via regulations.

You really need some lessons in American Government. The unelected bureaucrats currently most involved in writing our laws are the staff of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). That IS a scandal. Look them up. If is NOT a result of progressive action or the work of the Obama administration.

With a Congress having an approval rating hovering about 10% for decades, for the life of me, I don't understand how this is Progress or even democracy.

Because it is not.

This is America being held hostage.

By the moneyed interests of capitalism.

Your child like partisan talking points is precious, but tiresome.

The deregulation you speak of was signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton, something you fail to want to divulge.

Also, with the VA scandal, doctors approached none other than Senator John McCain of Arizona. Now you would think that John would be a champion of veterans, especially since he is a former veteran and because those in the military seem to favor the GOP. However, once McCain was notified the VA then was informed he was notified and the doctors were subsequently fired. If it were not for an obscure Congressman from Florida none of the scandal would probably have come to light.

And that is the chilling part of all this. We are almost to the point where not only are people not held accountable for these scandals, eventually they will not even come to light. The government reign supreme with no checks and balances and in full control of deciding who lives and dies when it comes to health care.

So no, I don't play these child like partisan games like yourself. John McCain is just as much a Progressive as Hillary Clinton.

I really don't even give a damn what they want to call themselves. First they were socialists, then when they ruined that name they became liberals, then when they ruined that name the moved onto Progressives.

I grow weary of the psychology of words. It's time to actually look at their actions and hold them accountable instead of this infantile finger pointing that holds neither Progressive party to any accountable standard of conduct. In fact, they even talked about doing away with the Ethics Committee in Congress because nothing of substance is ever accomplished there. It's all one big "good old boys" club where neither party holds the other accountable. Instead, all they do is sling poo like you do.

 

[Votto]

Votto, you are more and more coming off as another dumb ****. Solar and wind are right now cheaper to install and maintain than even dirty coal or natural gas. And, with the grid scale batteries now being manufactured, they will cease to be intermittant power source. We have yet to really start developing geo-thermal resources, but that will happen also. And, yes, that will redistribute wealth. Like it has for the wheat farmers in the Colombia Gorge. As it will for the third world nations rich in wind, solar, or geo-thermal potential. Energy is a very important commodity in modern manufacturing. But the re-distribution will be done by market forces, not governments. And that is what the fossil fuel people fear the most. As for the 'Conservatives', they just fear anything at all that they don't understand, which is most of the world.

So I'm the big dummy, eh?

If solar and wind are cheaper then there would be no need to enact cap and trade. Cap and trade merely makes fossil fuels more expensive so that it is then more palatable to look for other sources of energy.

Obama was the one that said that energy prices would need to skyrocket. Why? It is so things will be so expensive to heat and cool and drive around that people will be forced into living in smaller homes, driving smaller cars, and living more like slaves on a plantation that has easy public transportation to and from work.

 

[Votto]

If you all like, I will stop using the term Progressive and simply talk about those in power now and have been in power since the turn of the 20th century.

It is philosophy of degrowth. Let's start with abortion where over 50 million lives have been snuffed out via Roe. vs. Wade. I read about one left winged wacko who had an abortion so as to reduce the number of carbon footprints on mother earth. It is a philosophy which champions gay sex so that fewer people will try to have offspring. It is a philosophy which embraces murderers by opposing the death penalty but favoring euthanasia. They really want more murderers wondering the streets, which is why they are attempting to bring terrorists over from IS and continue to let Mexican gangs run rampant across the border. It is a philosophy of redistribution that ensure a death spiral regarding a free market. Less and less people are going to want to have children as they see their quality of life go down year after year. It is a philosophy which continues to see the rich get richer, while preaching we need more income equality. It is a philosophy which has maintained a Congressional approval rating of only 10% for decades. It is a philosophy which now sees the GOP being dominated by nonpoliticians because people are fed up and desperate for more hope and change.

Sad.

 

[Crick]

Wrong. It makes fossil-fuel based energies more expensive and costs are passed down to all consumers. And, guess what, the largest consumer is industry, not the poor and the middle class. I will certainly admit the poor are less able to cope with increases in their costs. That's why we have subsidies, tax breaks and a strenuous move to alternative energy sources.

I'm not sure how you think economies work, but industry will only pass down increased costs to the consumer. It's not like the rich government sponsored corporations will decide to eat the costs themselves.

I never even suggested they wouldn't pass down costs. You don't seem to read what I write. Or understand it. Government subsidies or tax breaks are attempts by the government to assist the less capable of it citizens to deal with changes mandated by external forces (in this instance, global warming).

And to think that the increased costs will not have a negative impact on the economy is beyond retarded. So yes, they want to destroy free market economies because this is just one of thousands of nails in it's coffin.

What they want is to save us from the disaster than unchecked anthropogenic global warming will bring about. By every reasonable measure, the economy in enormously improved now over the mess Obama inherited from Bush. If Obama's trying to destroy the economy, he's doing a piss poor job of it.

Progs are a hoot.

When you choose to make prejudicial generalizations of that nature, it shows us that you are a bigot.

They preach things like sex between two consenting adults is no ones business, however, if they start getting paid for sex then all of sudden they wish to impose things like a minimum wage and mandatory health care.

Do you believe that sex between consenting adults is anyone else's business? There's only one place in this nation where prostitution is legal, like any other legal profession, labor laws fully apply. Do you think they shouldn't? What point you're attempting to make here eludes me.

It appears people are free to do anything aside from a free economy.

So you do oppose minimum wages and healthcare. Got it.

But if we are all held prisoner by our wallets, then what is all that freedom really good for, especially when we slave away most of our time trying to pay off your ridiculous carbon taxes?

How much money are you currently paying to cover carbon taxes dude? Now what do you pay for in income taxes to finance our nuclear stockpile? What portion of your tax bill goes to cover the cost of the invasion of Iraq? How much of your medical costs once went to pay for the care of the uninsured? Give us a ******* break. No one has even sniffed a carbon tax yet.

 

[Votto]

Wrong. It makes fossil-fuel based energies more expensive and costs are passed down to all consumers. And, guess what, the largest consumer is industry, not the poor and the middle class. I will certainly admit the poor are less able to cope with increases in their costs. That's why we have subsidies, tax breaks and a strenuous move to alternative energy sources.

I'm not sure how you think economies work, but industry will only pass down increased costs to the consumer. It's not like the rich government sponsored corporations will decide to eat the costs themselves.

I never even suggested they wouldn't pass down costs. You don't seem to read what I write. Or understand it. Government subsidies or tax breaks are attempts by the government to assist the less capable of it citizens to deal with changes mandated by external forces (in this instance, global warming).

And to think that the increased costs will not have a negative impact on the economy is beyond retarded. So yes, they want to destroy free market economies because this is just one of thousands of nails in it's coffin.

What they want is to save us from the disaster than unchecked anthropogenic global warming will bring about. By every reasonable measure, the economy in enormously improved now over the mess Obama inherited from Bush. If Obama's trying to destroy the economy, he's doing a piss poor job of it.

Progs are a hoot.

When you choose to make prejudicial generalizations of that nature, it shows us that you are a bigot.

They preach things like sex between two consenting adults is no ones business, however, if they start getting paid for sex then all of sudden they wish to impose things like a minimum wage and mandatory health care.

Do you believe that sex between consenting adults is anyone else's business? There's only one place in this nation where prostitution is legal, like any other legal profession, labor laws fully apply. Do you think they shouldn't? What point you're attempting to make here eludes me.

It appears people are free to do anything aside from a free economy.

So you do oppose minimum wages and healthcare. Got it.

But if we are all held prisoner by our wallets, then what is all that freedom really good for, especially when we slave away most of our time trying to pay off your ridiculous carbon taxes?

How much money are you currently paying to cover carbon taxes dude? Now what do you pay for in income taxes to finance our nuclear stockpile? What portion of your tax bill goes to cover the cost of the invasion of Iraq? How much of your medical costs once went to pay for the care of the uninsured? Give us a ******* break. No one has even sniffed a carbon tax yet.

More government subsidies, eh? Yep, just keep on printing money and continue to inflate away what money the poor actually have. There are about a 100 ways to continue to make the poor poorer, this is but one of many.

I guess this means that the Middle Class will simply go away completely, which is what Karl Marx wanted anyway.

So I now oppose health care? LOL. I oppose people like you preaching to me that I can't work to do a job because I'm not making enough money at it. It is YOU who are the nanny fascist here. If someone does work for a job less than what you think they should be making, who gets harmed by it dolt?

As for prostitution goes, why is it that prostitution is still illegal and porn is legal? It's because the US judicial system is insane and run by people like you.

As for the cost of health care, everyone I know is paying a lot more and for less coverage even though they were promised by people like you the exact opposite.

And once the climate Nazis continue to enact their legislation through the EPA, because they can't get it shoved through the democratic process of Congress, then our energy prices will continue to rise.

 

[Crick]

This conversation has wandered a great long ways from the thread or even the forum topic. If you have an example of climate scientists confessing to having manipulated data to falsify the threat of anthropogenic global warming, let's hear it. If not, you might consider moving further comments like these to the politics board.

 

[Votto]

This conversation has wandered a great long ways from the thread or even the forum topic. If you have an example of climate scientists confessing to having manipulated data to falsify the threat of anthropogenic global warming, let's hear it. If not, you might consider moving further comments like these to the politics board.

Hilarious!

And to think these greedy pieces of shit are not coming out in droves exposing their motives.

They could only convict Al Capone on tax evasion charges even though everyone knew he was guilty as sin for a vast number of other crimes.

 

[Crick]

So, you don't have a confession either. Got it.

 

[jc456]

This conversation has wandered a great long ways from the thread or even the forum topic. If you have an example of climate scientists confessing to having manipulated data to falsify the threat of anthropogenic global warming, let's hear it. If not, you might consider moving further comments like these to the politics board.

The deniers on this board have claimed over and over and over again that climate scientists have manipulated data - falsified the numbers - with the aim of creating or exaggerating global warming. If this were true, someone would have spilled the beans long ago. It is simply not realistic to think that hundreds if not thousands of individuals could have carried on a deception of this magnitude and duration without either fumbling their work and giving it away or simply choosing to confess.

Yet, they have NOTHING. The only evidence deniers can provide to support their charges is that the data has been adjusted and SOME (the minority) of those adjustment have made global warming look worse than before. That's it. They have no evidence whatsoever indicating from a scientific perspective that any adjustment made by the major data holders was unjustified and, even more tellling, NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER ADMITTED HAVING FALSIFIED THE DATA AS THEY CLAIM. Not a single ******* soul.

What are the odds?

One simple answer to this OP and one option to shut us up. Give the raw data sets to the list of scientist who are skeptics and let them do their tests and see if the same warming pattern is achieved.

So, crickster, the one piece of evidence is the refusal to turn over raw data sets when asked for. And answer me this, is that really science? And why would they need to hold the raw data if the posted data sets aren't faked? It's frikn obvious bubba.

Dude I posted this to answer your OP. Not sure what you're talking about.

 

[Crick]

Okay, c'mon folks, this is the place. Show us what you've got. It can't be that hard to find. Thousands and thousands of climate scientists and technicians and secretaries and data entry clerks and the whole kit and caboodle involved in putting those gazillions of temperature readings into someone's computer. SOMEBODY must be willing to cough up the truth! How could a scam be that pernicious? Do you think they kill anyone that squeals? WHERE IS A CONFESSION BY AN INDIVIDUAL ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN MANIPULATING CLIMATE DATA FOR ALARMISM'S SAKE? WHERE?

 

[SSDD]

Okay, c'mon folks, this is the place. Show us what you've got. It can't be that hard to find. Thousands and thousands of climate scientists and technicians and secretaries and data entry clerks and the whole kit and caboodle involved in putting those gazillions of temperature readings into someone's computer. SOMEBODY must be willing to cough up the truth! How could a scam be that pernicious? Do you think they kill anyone that squeals? WHERE IS A CONFESSION BY AN INDIVIDUAL ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN MANIPULATING CLIMATE DATA FOR ALARMISM'S SAKE? WHERE?

I already gave you a blatant admission to fabricating data....what did you do?....attempted (hilariously I might add) to defend the indefensible. You are so full of shit that I am surprised that you can look at yourself in the mirror...Here is the admission again to help you with that selective memory of yours....

On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones,

“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls

By the way...I am still waiting for that empirical evidence that you claimed existed and had been posted that prove that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in increasing temperatures...you have been dodging the question on the other thread and now have resorted to blatantly lying about what I asked you even when you were provided with the direct quotes....again...you are nothing but a lying sack. Admit that you don't have any such data...it can not be found because it does not exist...