Reality is that you can't give an example of emissions controls causing any significant damage to an economy.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Yes, the last decade saw global cooling, not warming
- Thread starter bugscoe
- Start date
Reality is that you can't give an example of emissions controls causing any significant damage to an economy.
Quote from bugscoe:
You claim to be a cheerleader for science, yet you refuse to look at any science that challenges your bias. That is the definition of a junkster politcal hack.
So the answer is no, you can't provide any examples to back up your accusation about scientists.
For some reason you're hung up on NASA, an agency who for the last two years has refused to provide information to show how it shaped its climate data and to also explain why they've had to repeatedly correct their data going back to the 1930's.
False. In fact the data is publicly available and any data you wish to have I can provide links to. Corrections are normal in science and have not changed the underlying results.
Just like how the Anglia boys 'lost' the very data their entire lives work was built upon when questions began to surface.
Rather than maligning others, why don't you tell us specifically what data you want. I'll provide it for you and you can post your analysis of it.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Reality is that you can't give an example of emissions controls causing any significant damage to an economy.
I don't need to give an example, it's called common sense.
A 21st century system of indulgence taxation dooms us all to decreased productivity and wealth.
Quote from Index piker:
I don't need to give an example, it's called common sense.
Yes, you do need to give an example. The word "common" means that it's typical, common knowledge. Ie. knowledge of something that has happened before.
A 21st century system of indulgence taxation dooms us all to decreased productivity and wealth.
Emissions trading is not taxation any more than trading government bonds is taxation.
Quote from Index piker:
You really are a moron, trading of bonds is a negative sum game and yes govt bonds are taxation promises.
Keep on running.
Here's the essential problem -- there's a large group of people, you included, who feel that they understand how economics works based on a simplistic, incomplete and outdated model of economics that was overturned decades ago.
When asked to give examples to support this Randroid model of reality, they are utterly unable to do so.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Keep on running.
Here's the essential problem -- there's a large group of people, you included, who feel that they understand how economics works based on a simplistic, incomplete and outdated model of economics that was overturned decades ago.
When asked to give examples to support this Randroid model of reality, they are utterly unable to do so.
The problem is you believe in tooth fairy economics.
Tell me the terms of the emissions contract value say per ton of co2 or the penalty for producing co2 without permission.
Quote from Index piker:
The problem is you believe in tooth fairy economics.
Actually I believe in Nobel prize-winning economics.
Tell me the terms of the emissions contract value say per ton of co2 or the penalty for producing co2 without permission.
Tell me the terms of a typical CBOE options contract.
Quote from bigdavediode:
So the answer is no, you can't provide any examples to back up your accusation about scientists.
False. In fact the data is publicly available and any data you wish to have I can provide links to. Corrections are normal in science and have not changed the underlying results.
Rather than maligning others, why don't you tell us specifically what data you want. I'll provide it for you and you can post your analysis of it.
Index said it, common sense.
Just like my trading systems numbers are 'publically' available on my website. It's true, it's true!
Lol. You don't get it. It's not the end data, it's the means to calculating and arriving at the end data that is in question!
But that is the part you choose to see as 'false' and don't give a crap about because the 'publicly available' data confirms your bias. And I guess in your world if it's publicly available, it's the holy grail of truth.
As to your 'false' claim, why would Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center, which runs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) laboratory say this:
"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive."
That request is nearing the three year mark. You should tell Hess the data is publicly available because it appears he's having a tough time finding it!
Also, I'd like the science to show me how it's possible that over the past 5000 years, there were 3 periods where it was warmer than today and the world didn't blow up.
Perhaps the SUV's weren't too big back then and people weren't eating as much meat...