Global Warming backdown

Michael Hardner · February 20, 2010

Nope...some of us just don't care either way, until you make a move for my wallet.

Earth laughs at our puny arguments.

Do you use this criterion for all survival based decisions ?

"You want ME to buy a smoke detector ? Heh heh... nice try pallie, nice try..."

Oleg Bach · February 20, 2010

Do you use this criterion for all survival based decisions ?

"You want ME to buy a smoke detector ? Heh heh... nice try pallie, nice try..."

He's honest and understand about human beings and money _ In Canada you can not even talk about money - If you are rich - you hide - and if you are poor you dare not mention it in fear of being booted down even further - BCs criterion is base but effective...at this point as I walk down the street I keep it fairly secret that I am in poverty _ But I have notices as of late many other are also faking being afloat.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2010

Do you use this criterion for all survival based decisions ?

AGW is not a "survival decision"....I will surely die from something else. The sky is not falling.

Oleg Bach · February 20, 2010

What a marketeer...he will surely die -----------------------------------of something else. Brilliant .

Michael Hardner · February 20, 2010

AGW is not a "survival decision"....I will surely die from something else. The sky is not falling.

It could be, though. You are thinking of your wallet first, which doesn't bode well for your future. No matter what you do, you will likely have money when you die.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2010

It could be, though. You are thinking of your wallet first, which doesn't bode well for your future. No matter what you do, you will likely have money when you die.

...that's the main idea. So far...so good.

Oleg Bach · February 20, 2010

It could be, though. You are thinking of your wallet first, which doesn't bode well for your future. No matter what you do, you will likely have money when you die.

PROMISE....? That should make us all very happy at the end of the line _ just found out that where we have our family plots - they are now demanding that you have a concrete vault to stick the casket in..was not expecting the extra expense..damn - nothing goes my way!

Michael Hardner · February 20, 2010

...that's the main idea. So far...so good.

The main idea should be to stay alive, though... ah... ok... forget it.... there's no telling a man what his priorities should be.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2010

The main idea should be to stay alive, though... ah... ok... forget it.... there's no telling a man what his priorities should be.

Correct....you have no right to so. Save the whales on your own time/dime...not mine.

Michael Hardner · February 20, 2010

Correct....you have no right to so. Save the whales on your own time/dime...not mine.

I'm talking about saving YOU, my friend. Just be sure to stay safe, is all.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2010

I'm talking about saving YOU, my friend. Just be sure to stay safe, is all.

You're joking, right? "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Bonam · February 20, 2010

Heh yeah the ultimate sign of someone profoundly dangerous is someone that professes their intention to "save" you.

Wild Bill · February 20, 2010

I'm talking about saving YOU, my friend. Just be sure to stay safe, is all.

Michael, you seem to have missed BC's point. Your premise about saving him is only justified if you're correct about climate change. If you're wrong then it's a money grab, plain and simple.

Some folks disagree with the climate change argument. That's WHY they resent being forced to contribute money!

Before you can expect a man to smile as you pick his pocket you have to convince him that it's to his benefit.

To arbitrarily up and grab it is simple fascism, nothing more.

Keepitsimple · February 20, 2010

coming from an idgit moran like yourself... I'm crushed. Hey Einstein... check your tabloid sources concerning the head of the IPCC resigning... in shame, no less

hey bush_cheney... don't be shy... I know you take a serious rubbin each time you presume to jump in and showcase your merkin prominence, but don't let that dissuade you from actually trying.

Waldo, with every post, you demonstrate everything that's wrong with the AGW alarmist crowd. Keep posting - your blind worshipping at the IPCC altar does more to promote the skeptic side of the debate that the critiques of skeptics thenselves. You just don't seem to see how silly you sound. The motto on your teeshirt surely reads "Everybody's Entitled to My Opinion".

Edited February 20, 2010 by Keepitsimple

waldo · February 20, 2010

Simple... why do you bother with your charade? You are by no means a skeptic - you're a flat-out denier... as I've said, you're a DD (denying your denial)... you're a Concern Troll. You prowl your denier blogs for any little nugget you think casts doubt... casts uncertainty - you distort... you fabricate. A bonafide skeptic offers a balanced opinion - a measured viewpoint... you do not. A bonafide skeptic offers legitimate challenge to the science - you do not. A bonafide skeptic doesn't arbitrarily dismiss the science - you do. You can't be bothered to actually attempt to bring forward legitimate challenges to the science; instead... you bury your head in the inconsequential, the trivial. You're the embodiment of everything that's wrong with the so-called debate; that is to say, you won't... you can't... actually debate the science. So you take the lazy easy way forward - you parrot the denialsphere.

Michael Hardner · February 21, 2010

Michael, you seem to have missed BC's point. Your premise about saving him is only justified if you're correct about climate change. If you're wrong then it's a money grab, plain and simple.

Some folks disagree with the climate change argument. That's WHY they resent being forced to contribute money!

Before you can expect a man to smile as you pick his pocket you have to convince him that it's to his benefit.

To arbitrarily up and grab it is simple fascism, nothing more.

I got his point, but came back with my own - basically his hypersensitivity about getting robbed.

It's kind of sad that as rich as we are, money seems even more important than in the past.

bush_cheney2004 · February 21, 2010

I got his point, but came back with my own - basically his hypersensitivity about getting robbed.

Yes...I deplore "getting robbed", particularly by AGW zealots. At least Pat Robertson makes tithing voluntary.

It's kind of sad that as rich as we are, money seems even more important than in the past.

Why is it "sad"....compared to what? I have never understood this woe and lament besides the smug superiority it implies.

Please send me all of your money at once if you are so inclined.

Edited February 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

Michael Hardner · February 21, 2010

Why is it "sad"....compared to what? I have never understood this woe and lament besides the smug superiority it implies.

Please send me all of your money at once if you are so inclined.

Because the spectre of materialism reflects a decline in values, as much as hedonism does. You're the one who feels inferior, I'm not making you feel that way. Maybe there is higher power calling out to you.

bush_cheney2004 · February 21, 2010

Because the spectre of materialism reflects a decline in values, as much as hedonism does. You're the one who feels inferior, I'm not making you feel that way. Maybe there is higher power calling out to you.

Whose values? Yours? Surely you are misguided at best, or delusional at worst. Why are you using the tools of hedonism?

Pray to your god(s) if you wish, but you shall not force me from mine.

Wild Bill · February 21, 2010

I got his point, but came back with my own - basically his hypersensitivity about getting robbed.

It's kind of sad that as rich as we are, money seems even more important than in the past.

Michael, it's been my experience that those who make such statements have never been hurting for money!

If you've always been comfortable it's easy to say that money is not so important. What if you're poor? I remember when I was a very young lad, at my first job. I got a speeding ticket. My own fault, of course. That's not the issue. It was for $65. At the time, that was an entire week's pay for me! Smartened me up in a hurry. Still, I couldn't help but think that for most other folks, the penalty was not nearly so severe. I had to live on KD for a month! My father was a steel worker. He would hardly have missed it. Most business executives would have considered it a trivial piece of "road tax".

If some juvenile delinquent robs your home, it's easy to say that "it's only money" and give him a light sentence. To the judge and all the officers of the court paid to work there it's likely a true statement. What about if the home owner is an old lady pensioner on a fixed income? It's forgotten that while insurance might cover most of the theft or damages there is always a deductible of at least several hundred dollars, if not more.

That old lady pensioner might have been forced to live on tuna cat food for a year because of that young JD! Where's the justice in his sentence? I have relatives on the police force. They tell me that the average number of times a young offender faces a judge for such a crime (which is only the number of times he is charged, NOT the number of times he's committed the offence or even the number of times he was caught!) is somewhere in the 30's! Even then, rarely does he receive anything more than probation after probation.

We could add many more examples. Politicians in various ministries all seem to think they can get away with small increases to our tax burdens, never considering or caring how much they will all total!

It's always the details that matter. From our position of historical hindsight, the old frontier times sentence of hanging for a horse thief seems excessive. What we don't understand is that out on the range in those times, if someone stole your horse the chances were very good that you would die! There was no gas station with a variety store close at hand, or a cell phone. You were limited to the clothes on your back and how far you could walk on a diet of gophers and buffalo droppings. So horse thievery was equivalent to murder, or at least manslaughter.

My point is that for some, the loss of even a little money can be a SEVERE hardship! To such a victim, cavalierly dismissing their loss as "only money" can incite a VERY negative reaction!

Edited February 21, 2010 by Wild Bill

Michael Hardner · February 21, 2010

Whose values? Yours? Surely you are misguided at best, or delusional at worst. Why are you using the tools of hedonism?

Pray to your god(s) if you wish, but you shall not force me from mine.

Societal values. What tools of hedonism do you refer to ?

Don't be confused, B_C, I urge you to lean a clean life - because I care - but I do not force you to.

Michael Hardner · February 21, 2010

Michael, it's been my experience that those who make such statements have never been hurting for money!

And it's my experience that those who wreck their lives in the pursuit of money are the ones who need it the least.

If you've always been comfortable it's easy to say that money is not so important. What if you're poor? I remember when I was a very young lad, at my first job. I got a speeding ticket. My own fault, of course. That's not the issue. It was for $65. At the time, that was an entire week's pay for me! Smartened me up in a hurry. Still, I couldn't help but think that for most other folks, the penalty was not nearly so severe. I had to live on KD for a month! My father was a steel worker. He would hardly have missed it. Most business executives would have considered it a trivial piece of "road tax".

That's a good story, but not exactly what I'm talking about.

If some juvenile delinquent robs your home, it's easy to say that "it's only money" and give him a light sentence. To the judge and all the officers of the court paid to work there it's likely a true statement. What about if the home owner is an old lady pensioner on a fixed income? It's forgotten that while insurance might cover most of the theft or damages there is always a deductible of at least several hundred dollars, if not more.

That old lady pensioner might have been forced to live on tuna cat food for a year because of that young JD! Where's the justice in his sentence? I have relatives on the police force. They tell me that the average number of times a young offender faces a judge for such a crime (which is only the number of times he is charged, NOT the number of times he's committed the offence or even the number of times he was caught!) is somewhere in the 30's! Even then, rarely does he receive anything more than probation after probation.

We could add many more examples. Politicians in various ministries all seem to think they can get away with small increases to our tax burdens, never considering or caring how much they will all total!

It's always the details that matter. From our position of historical hindsight, the old frontier times sentence of hanging for a horse thief seems excessive. What we don't understand is that out on the range in those times, if someone stole your horse the chances were very good that you would die! There was no gas station with a variety store close at hand, or a cell phone. You were limited to the clothes on your back and how far you could walk on a diet of gophers and buffalo droppings. So horse thievery was equivalent to murder, or at least manslaughter.

My point is that for some, the loss of even a little money can be a SEVERE hardship! To such a victim, cavalierly dismissing their loss as "only money" can incite a VERY negative reaction!

All good stories, but they're not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those who fritter away their lives for money they don't need.

It's materialism, and it's not supposed to be part of our societal values as far as I can tell.

bush_cheney2004 · February 21, 2010

All good stories, but they're not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those who fritter away their lives for money they don't need.

As opposed to those who fritter away their lives telling others what to do?

It's materialism, and it's not supposed to be part of our societal values as far as I can tell.

That's your opinion...not societal values at all based on choices made to date. Please reconcile your fantasy with reality.

Michael Hardner · February 21, 2010

As opposed to those who fritter away their lives telling others what to do?

Again, my intentions are good.

That's your opinion...not societal values at all based on choices made to date. Please reconcile your fantasy with reality.

What ?

bush_cheney2004 · February 21, 2010

Again, my intentions are good.

Again, it's not all about you....including your intentions.

What ?

Look around you and assess the collective "societal" choices made to date....then reconcile with your "manifesto". Looks like free will wins every time.