How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[bush_cheney2004]

We used to have a lot of '011 truth threads' too... they died their natural death IMO, much as the anti-warming arguments should. Seriously, we don't need to explain the science over and over again to people who never listen, do we ?

Yes...there are always new members and the discussion is not "settled" at many levels.

Oh, absolutely not ! I would never insist on a poster having a logical and well-supported point of view in order to open a discussion with me. However, I wouldn't want to engage with them for very long without one. Who would ?

Then don't engage....nobody forces you to do so.

Actually, I am - for myself. I will respond to such posts until they start to 'go south' (no offense !).

And, again, I don't see why you bother to wade into the pond to help with the plankton. You have plenty of allies on your side without having to prop up posters with no cites.

OMG! You are quite the elitist....the reason is simple...I am an American...free speech and all that jazz.

I'm not silencing them. This is my discussion with them - nothing to do with facilitating. If Saipan doesn't provide cites when asked (this appears to have happened twice in the last little while today) then is it bullying or is it just being discriminating on picking your debate partners?

You can ask all you please and we are left to draw our own conclusions. The "Cite please" attack is well known around here, but not the end-all to discussions.

I think it's the latter. I would rather have them back up their claims, and if they can't then their posts can hang out their in the wind. Of course they have 'free speech' rights, but just like the boorish dinner party guest nobody has to talk to them.

Great....that is still better than somebody trying to shut them up.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure. I have opinions that I can't back up, but I can't expect anybody to pay any attention either. Why would I bother spending energy to convince others that they're true.

This is progress...tolerating others doing the same would help a lot.

Why do you think the discussions are good ? Isn't it because people have points of view that they're able to discuss and defend ?

Of course not..the discussions are "good" precisely because of conflicting views, supported or not. That is the interest and passion (for me).

Your life support system works against nature more than my ignoring does.

That's fine by me....nobody gets out of here alive. May as well be comfortable until then.

[Michael Hardner]

OMG! You are quite the elitist....the reason is simple...I am an American...free speech and all that jazz.

No. I'm more American in that I don't want to subsidize the weak... they can succeed or fail on their own just like in the USA.

You can ask all you please and we are left to draw our own conclusions. The "Cite please" attack is well known around here, but not the end-all to discussions.

Great....that is still better than somebody trying to shut them up.

Cite Please isn't an attack, rather it's a call out to practice forum behavior outlined in the guidelines !

That's a rather unAmerican idea of free speech. Asking them to back something up is shutting them up ? Really ? Well... I don't see it that way.

[Michael Hardner]

This is progress...tolerating others doing the same would help a lot.

Progress ? That's what I did when I said 'let's move on': effectively, let's just move past it. I don't have different rules from others than myself, and I wouldn't stand on a fact that I can't prove. I would retract it or at lest remove that point from the argument.

Of course not..the discussions are "good" precisely because of conflicting views, supported or not. That is the interest and passion (for me).

Well, conflicting views happen on all boards so that's not indicative of MLW.

That's fine by me....nobody gets out of here alive. May as well be comfortable until then.

Don't know what that means, but your socialist-style helping hand ... forum welfare ... or whatever it is keeps unsupported arguments floating out there longer than need be. Supported arguments are much more conducive to a good board, IMO.

[bush_cheney2004]

No. I'm more American in that I don't want to subsidize the weak... they can succeed or fail on their own just like in the USA.

Then let them do so without your smarmy pronouncements, or if you must do so, be more consistent in "enforcing" forum rules for all topics instead of your pet "climate change" threads.

Cite Please isn't an attack, rather it's a call out to practice forum behavior outlined in the guidelines !

That's a rather unAmerican idea of free speech. Asking them to back something up is shutting them up ? Really ? Well... I don't see it that way.

All posts are not "backed up" by external references. And even when they are (around here), I have noted that American references seem to be provided even for "Canadian content". It's not consistent at all, and neither could be "enforcement".

[Michael Hardner]

Then let them do so without your smarmy pronouncements, or if you must do so, be more consistent in "enforcing" forum rules for all topics instead of your pet "climate change" threads.

Again - it has nothing to do with forum rules or enforcement. It's about MY discussions, in which I waste MY time. I don't see you participating in a lot of threads where the respondent justifies their views with "just because", nor would I intervene and insist that you discuss with them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again - it has nothing to do with forum rules or enforcement. It's about MY discussions, in which I waste MY time. I don't see you participating in a lot of threads where the respondent justifies their views with "just because", nor would I intervene and insist that you discuss with them.

This comes down to your desire that "we" instead of just you move along. We will "move along" at our own pace thank you very much, and if that means resurrecting old climate change debate then so be it. Ignore it as you please....

This forum is interesting to me because of the many points of view, well founded or not. That is the "action", and I contribute to the mix.

Edited August 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

This comes down to your desire that "we" instead of just you move along. We will "move along" at our own pace thank you very much, and if that means resurrecting old climate change debate then so be it. Ignore it as you please....

The "we" was ME and Saipan - not you. I was responding to his post before you intervened to tell us how we should discuss the topic. I'm not being big government on this thread, so why would you be ?

I'm glad that you care about the quality of the forum, but again I defer to the Rules and Guidelines...

[bush_cheney2004]

The "we" was ME and Saipan - not you. I was responding to his post before you intervened to tell us how we should discuss the topic. I'm not being big government on this thread, so why would you be ?

Doesn't matter....member Saipan is a contributor just like the rest of us. Bully Saipan and you bully us all!

I'm glad that you care about the quality of the forum, but again I defer to the Rules and Guidelines...

But unlike you, I do not attempt to define what "quality" is. It's all good....

[Michael Hardner]

Doesn't matter....member Saipan is a contributor just like the rest of us. Bully Saipan and you bully us all!

I admire the fact that you stand up against bullying, but in my discussion with him I asked him for a cite as per guidelines... not bullying by any stretch.. and Saipan may actually be embarrassed by the fact that you feel it necessary to step in for him.

But, well, I'm learning a lot about you in this thread. Ok, well Solidarity Forever then...

But unlike you, I do not attempt to define what "quality" is. It's all good....

Remind me to never let you take me to a restaurant then.

[bush_cheney2004]

I admire the fact that you stand up against bullying, but in my discussion with him I asked him for a cite as per guidelines... not bullying by any stretch.. and Saipan may actually be embarrassed by the fact that you feel it necessary to step in for him.

You know better than this....every post does not require a reference. Guidelines are not mandatory requirements, or this forum would have died long ago.

But, well, I'm learning a lot about you in this thread. Ok, well Solidarity Forever then...

Likewise I'm sure...."Climate Change" forever!

Remind me to never let you take me to a restaurant then.

Your choice....I would never insist on a reference for one that you would recommend.

[Michael Hardner]

You know better than this....every post does not require a reference. Guidelines are not mandatory requirements, or this forum would have died long ago.

That being what it may be, the fact that it is in the guidelines means it's not bullying.

Likewise I'm sure...."Climate Change" forever!

Wow, you ARE changing ! The Canadians are affecting you more than you know.

Your choice....I would never insist on a reference for one that you would recommend.

Unwise. Very unwise.

[bush_cheney2004]

That being what it may be, the fact that it is in the guidelines means it's not bullying.

So shall we all begin doing this when trying to "win" an argument? No matter what the topic? And insist that Canadian content not be supported by American references? Is that the game we should play....I think not.

There is something "special" about climate change for you...and it shows.

[dpwozney]

do you assert that warming and climate change are occurring...

I neither assert nor deny that any long-term climate warming trend is occurring.

this... is a legitimate point. There is uncertainty as to where all the absorbed carbon... is going. Recent scientific papers are targeting a much greater influence in tropical forests. Of course, the significant ongoing tropical deforestation is simply compounding the existing imbalance...

Ongoing tropical deforestation would have no effect on the certain extra mechanisms, that I am referring to, that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which results in the so-called “missing carbon sink”, and that have not yet been described publicly.

... an imbalance that most certainly has been shown to result from atmospheric carbon remaining in the atmosphere, as attributed to emissions related to mankind's burning of fossil fuels.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries A.D., many direct measurements in the atmosphere of the concentration of carbon dioxide were higher than present-day carbon dioxide measurements.

Relatively soon after carbon dioxide is released by man near ground level, it is removed from the atmosphere.

if you're going to front the debunked Beck paper, as you did, ...

I did not “front the debunked Beck paper”, rather I fronted the “carbon dioxide measurements before 1958”, as shown by the red dots in the graph displayed here.

=> Contradiction 1 - your own words expressed a global attachment to those measurements.

There appears to be a misunderstanding, or a misinterpretation, of my words. By “direct measurements of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide”, I was referring to direct measurements in the atmosphere of the concentration of carbon dioxide, not that those measurements are necessarily representative of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a whole. By using the adjective “atmospheric”, I was distinguishing the measurements from other measurements not of, or not in, the natural atmosphere, such as those that might be made in a lab or in a power plant stack, etc.

=> Contradiction 2 - more pointedly, if you're going to proffer the debunked Beck paper, as you did, ...

I did not “proffer the debunked Beck paper”, rather I proffered the “carbon dioxide measurements before 1958”, as shown by the red dots in the graph displayed here.

There is a difference between the “Beck paper” and the “carbon dioxide measurements before 1958”, as shown by the red dots in the graph displayed here.

... surprising... indeed! So... which is it... local/regional or global impacting?

Like I already stated, the carbon dioxide measurements before 1958 are very local measurements, at various specific times, and not measurements that should necessarily be extrapolated to the entire biosphere.

Does your being a self-styled, self-described "skeptic", allow you to pick and choose from within your own offered source's conclusions?

I did not “offer” this “source’s conclusions”, rather I offered “carbon dioxide measurements before 1958”, as shown by the red dots in the graph displayed here.

I am not necessarily defending anything Beck may have stated or concluded. I am not necessarily defending any of his various interpretations, extrapolations, interpolations, etc., of carbon dioxide measurements made before 1958. I was simply referring to the carbon dioxide measurements made before 1958.

Edited August 21, 2011 by dpwozney

[Michael Hardner]

There is something "special" about climate change for you...and it shows.

Well, I'm interested in it so I post about it. I've explained to you previously why I'm interested in it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I'm interested in it so I post about it. I've explained to you previously why I'm interested in it.

Agreed...you are interested in the "settled science" and will not suffer challenges to same. I am tempted to start a thread to test your patience in this regard. Something like...."Global Warming....Still Crazy After All These Years".

[Michael Hardner]

Agreed...you are interested in the "settled science" and will not suffer challenges to same.

Not exactly right. It's the fringe folks that I won't suffer. There are mainstream arguments to be made, but they're not really brought out very often at all. TimG is the best advancer of these here.

[Saipan]

Trolls and one-way discussers don't really enjoy it here from what I've seen.

I.e. people who disagree with you

[Saipan]

There are mainstream arguments to be made, but they're not really brought out very often at all.

Is that your "mainstream argument"?

[Michael Hardner]

I.e. people who disagree with you

Not at all.

[Saipan]

Well, I'm interested in it so I post about it.

So where's the global warm up?

[Michael Hardner]

So where's the global warm up?

You answered that in your very question.

[Wild Bill]

Ok, well... my request for a cite still stands so if you'd like to prod Saipan for it, go right ahead and we can continue discussion after we get it.

Do you really expect there to be a lot of cites from nearly 40 years ago, pre-Internet? My experience was the same as BC's and Saipan's in that the cry of triggering an Ice Age was EVERYWHERE! YOU claim that it was only a fringe idea! The only place I've heard that is from modern GW advocates that are extremely biased. The claim 100% contradicts my personal experience of that time and for that reason I consider it false! It would be on a par with me trying to convince you that you never had a childhood accident with a train, as you hop around with only one leg!

Frankly, I don't think that YOU have ever effectively proven your claim that fears of Man triggering an Ice Age was just a tiny fringe view in the early 1970's! A Wiki article likely written by some young activist who wasn't even a gleam in his or her daddy's eye back in 1970 just doesn't cut it.

No, you keep making the claim Michael but it's gotten to the point I truly am not going to be persuaded to your POV. Next you'll be telling me that Man never landed on the Moon or that the Beatles never existed.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you really expect there to be a lot of cites from nearly 40 years ago, pre-Internet? My experience was the same as BC's and Saipan's in that the cry of triggering an Ice Age was EVERYWHERE!

I already explained to you once that the science is reflected by published studies in academic journals.

YOU claim that it was only a fringe idea! The only place I've heard that is from modern GW advocates that are extremely biased. The claim 100% contradicts my personal experience of that time and for that reason I consider it false! It would be on a par with me trying to convince you that you never had a childhood accident with a train, as you hop around with only one leg!

We already went down that path and you abandoned the discussion.

Let me point out again: OMNI and Scientific American are popular science magazines, not scientific journals. The Wiki page that was provided earlier had one example of a paper saying that cooling was happening at that time.

The mainstream media can't be counted on to get this right, which is why you don't catch me citing Al Gore or popular TV shows on here.

Frankly, I don't think that YOU have ever effectively proven your claim that fears of Man triggering an Ice Age was just a tiny fringe view in the early 1970's!

Proof lies with the positive claimant. He made the claim of the Ice Age theory and declined to back it up.

A Wiki article likely written by some young activist who wasn't even a gleam in his or her daddy's eye back in 1970 just doesn't cut it.

It's more than Saipan or you have offered though, isn't it ?

No, you keep making the claim Michael but it's gotten to the point I truly am not going to be persuaded to your POV. Next you'll be telling me that Man never landed on the Moon or that the Beatles never existed.

You are the one who walked away from our last discussion on this. The last claim I remember you making was that you read OMNI back in the day.

If I find a cite that counts the number of papers in the 1970s that postulated Global Warming versus Global Cooling would you believe it ?

The issue seems to be that if you find something that disagrees with you, you discount the source.

[bush_cheney2004]

...If I find a cite that counts the number of papers in the 1970s that postulated Global Warming versus Global Cooling would you believe it ?

Counting papers that you can/cannot find is not the point....this is not a football game! (heh heh)