EPA's own research expert 'shut up' on climate change

red55

Did you sing the little "Nyah, nyah" song?

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

i dont know what that is. i just said i was happy for you guys. you need an ally, everyone else is on my side.

__________________
thanks for reading.

martin

another entity on my side is the conservative smear rag, the wall street journal:

Strassel: The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com

__________________
thanks for reading.

martin

when folks disagree with red, he accuses them of being limbaugh puppets (which he did to tirk in this thread). lsu i like is more a of a fan of accusing folks of being fox news/hannity slaves. and yet you guys are hi fiving about how we shouldnt apply preconcieved notions to people.

accusing me of being a fox news republican is truly absurd. i regularly do performance art where i wrap jesus in an american flag and poop on him. i am a pompous new york atheist that thinks he is better than the flyover state idiots. when churches burn down, i laugh and cheer. while hicks with fox news bumper stickers wave american flags at tractor pulls, i smugly ride my hipster fixed gear bike to the mapplethorpe exhibit.

but we need them to do something, right?

why?


The Cost of Doing Something

Declaiming the price of "inaction" is a perennial argument for big government and bad law

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

Answering the same post twice, eh? Something hit close to home, mahtin?

Typical martin misrepresentation of someone else's remarks. I never called anyone a puppet of Limbaugh. I simply asked tirk, was his source the bill or someone's commentary on it (like Limbaugh). I later said he could substitute the source of his choice. You're just upset because the crafty tirk found a specific issue to challenge the bill with when you couldn't.

Actually, we are high-fiving about just how dishonest and inept a debater you have become. I though he said it very well.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

In turning every discussion into a boast about yourself or a ridicule of someone else, you've become an amusing sidekick. Comic relief. It's very fortunate that you do have wit. We laugh.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

gumborue

i think you lost a few here. watch richard lewis much?

__________________
"Tough love."---Jesus

martin

thats true. my research actually indicated that cap and trade is a good idea and will save the planet. tirk had to dig deep to find a flaw with the messiah's plan. i was too lazy.

dishonesty is my middle name.

i would like to think there was never a time when i wasnt an amusing sidekick.

it is particularly easy to get off track from the "debate" when everyone here is nodding agreement with me except for two who have not decided. i have nothing to oppose.

__________________
thanks for reading.

lsu-i-like

Wha? I'm slamming "Republicans" here for bagging on Obama when they were eerily defensive or mute about similar subjects when Bush was in charge. I expect many of these people would continue that route had McCain been elected. I'm asking for intellectual honesty and this is based not on preconceived notions but on time spent reading Free Speech Alley.

Martin's arguments seem to regularly attack straw men of his own crazed imagination rather than what is actually being argued. Thus I begrudge his servitude to preconceived notions.

BTW, I am a registered Republican, I just don't follow the line.

So typical of Hannity-swilling Republocrats, blame liberals for everything.

Fug it. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em. If we spoil the earth our grandkids won't have sht, but why would we want to take the time to worry about anything other than what benefits us now, in the short term... I think the human relationship with our environment should be researched and taken seriously.

It doesn't matter to you. I understand. You feel you can stand alone on your own two feet without relying on anyone else. I disagree and appreciate intellectual honesty in a person. I don't think I know everything and look for others whose point of view I can trust, relatively speaking.

Heh, coming from you that is funny. I do call people out here, probably more than I should. I don't know everything, don't think that I do, but I do try to understand things fundamentally when I can. I do think I usually back up my statements when challenged and quite often you avoid large swaths of the points I've made. I respect the people here who speak with intellectual honesty, but I guess you're one of those internet dorks who thrives in yanking people's chains and doesn't take any online conversation seriously.

I oppose big government and am not a pupil of Fox News. Everytime I wake up I'm reminded, so don't give yourself any credit on that score.

martin

assuming they are total hypocrites, would that make their accusations about obama any less true? why are you changing the topic to the person and not what they are saying?

again, "bush/mccain are terrible too" is not a valid defense of obama policy. can you speak to the current policy without worrying about who is a hypocrite?


why dont you disagree about whether the liberals are in fact to blame for whatever you are discussing? why are you so obsessed with hannity? who cares about that guy? why is he the topic?


the dude mentioned in this original post on this thread agreed with you. he wanted more research and less action. he wanted to reserve judgment before acting in ways that might be worse than doing nothing.


yes i am a a dork and a ****ing embarassment. now back to the topic. have you decided on the climate bill yet? still not sure?

that statement is clearly not true if you do not violently oppose this climate bill.

__________________
thanks for reading.

SabanFan

Bingo!

__________________
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism", they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Anon

lsu-i-like

I just wish they'd speak up for their country when the Republocrats are fkn things up. Then I'd believe the opposition to Obama has more to do with merit and less to do with his party. Which I've kinda explained before and you just keep on missing it, jumping to some preconceived argument instead because it is easier.

Hannity typifies the mindset that irks me.

I just wanted to see that again.

Having not read the bill and because I am not planning to read it, the strongest statement I can make is that I would probably disagree with it.

The thing is, a lot of research has been done and I don't believe it should be ignored because there weren't enough Republican scientists doing the research. Does that mean we should micromanage something that can not be effectively micromanaged? Not in my opinion. But it doesn't mean we should just ignore it or twiddle our thumbs.

You can say you violently oppose this bill without reading it. That's just the kind of guy you are. But politics is about compromise in some essence, and always sticking to your guns in opposition with no compromise will ensure that no progress is made. If half the country (or more) wants something done, insisting on doing nothing is a tenuous position. Especially when you defend your position with arguments that are barely supported by science.

BTW, you do know that one can believe that some things should be done, not just all or none. As none of us had a part in crafting this bill, nor will any of us directly vote on it, it makes more sense to talk about the subject and less sense to simply say yay or neigh.

martin

you cant analyze things on thier own? you cant determine if a criticism has merit without checking back to make sure the person saying it was consistent and critical of the previous administration?


have you ever, in your entire life, read an entire bill ?

if a bill to send american jews to concentration camps came up, would you refuse a decision on that until you read all thousand pages laying out the specifics of which kinds of poison gas would be used? until you read it would you say you "probably" opposed it?

you just said nothing.

you have almost surely never read a bill in your life and i am positive you violently oppose some as well.

yeah, compromise. so if someone brought out a pro-nazi bill, we should oppose it, but maybe grant the nazis a little compromise. they can kill jews, but only at half the rate they asked for.

you should not compromise on principles that are correct.


i dont want "progress" towards big government.


i am talking about it. i am telling you it is a big government boondoggle. i am telling you it will accomplish nothing. it will punish americans and hurt the economy. it will be abused and corrupted. warren buffet calls it a huge regressive tax that we cannot afford right now. if wwill filter money to the corporations the politicians favor and crush the ordinary taxpayer.

again, lsu-i-like, you claim you oppose big intrusive government. that is not true.

__________________
thanks for reading.

PURPLE TIGER

That's funny!...and even someone like you knows how silly that is. There are more than a few bad Republicans out there but they would have to practice for the next 10,000 years to get half as good at hypocrisy as your beloved Democrats.

Even so...I enjoyed your humor.

__________________

PURPLE TIGER

Keep the opinions coming! Regardless of who agrees/disagrees, this is what made America great and can keep us there. When people are quiet and allow the government to rule (what Obama wants) then we can kiss this country goodbye.

__________________

lsu-i-like

As I said before I am not an expert on everything and appreciate the opinion of others when they have shown the ability to be fair-minded and consistent. I can come to my own opinions but it helps to have the trustworthy opinion of those with more experience than oneself. That is one reason I come here, though I sometimes have to wade through some bs.

I don't think I have.

I don't think this is a valid comparison. Of course, if >50% of the country wants to send Jews to concentration camps, it is either time to move or start a revolution. Are you keen on either?

And you said less than I.

I disagree with concepts, but I can't say I disagree with a bill without reading it.

Not quite the same thing. But again, if Jew-hating Nazis make up >50% of the country, drastic action should be taken.

As you are never wrong you are never willing to compromise. That's pretty easy.

Neither do I, and I wouldn't consider that progress. But somethings rotten and finding some remedy to that blight is necessary. Some remedy that both sides can agree on. Requires out of the box thinking, not simply beating the same drum.

You are demanding a yes or no vote and using an unwillingness to vote for the bill as your key argument in some cases.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I am willing to listen to Red's argument that cap and trade has worked in other cases. I am willing to listen to the other side. You are uncompromising and would get nothing accomplished.

I am not into big federal government, but more than half the country is.

How much less damage did you think McCain would have done? I think the difference would have been small. I think McCain would be stuck with the same sagging economy and would have looked to government to fix it. His health care proposal may have been "better", but I really don't think it would have been a true step in the right direction and there are a lot of poor folks who would have hated it.

Bush's administration frustrated a lot of people and I think a lot of poor decisions were made. Now Obama is bringing a completely different mindset to the White House, and if nothing else, Republicans are feeling some of the frustration that Democrats felt during Bush's run. I am very concerned about Obama's idea about the federal government, but I think most Republican candidates felt very similar - the difference seemed incremental.

Obama didn't start that practice, but that doesn't make it right.

I can't agree that he is much better, but I hear ya.

I can understand being suspicious of the politicians pushing this legislation, but do you really think the majority of scientists are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public?

Let's throw Bush and most Republicans in and I can agree with you for the most part.

You too.

martin

that is an excuse for you to be petty and call people hypocrites.


of course. i told you a million times i have no special love for america and would be happy to leave. why are you even asking that? try to stay on topic.


and you have never read a bill in your life, so you presumably have never disagreed with anything.


getting nothing accomplished is a grand success most of the time when you are talking about legislation, most of which is terrible and not necessary.

again, this statement is not true if you do not oppose the climate bill, which is about as big as anything ever.


agreed, we both favor mccain over obama.


do you bore yourself when you talk about which parties feel frustrated? who cares?

scientists are not politicians, they should have nothing to do with bills and policy.

__________________
thanks for reading.

lsu-i-like

I've reduced you to one-liners. I win.

I'm trying to follow the chaotic path of your conversation.

I suppose I can't say for certain how I stand on any bill that I haven't read. Being that I am not in the position to vote for or against I can afford to think more abstractly.

I don't disagree that most legislation seems pretty full of sht. But I think it is obvious we don't live in utopia right now and government could make serious improvements on the way it conducts itself.

What have I said about the climate bill? I think all I've said definitively is that I probably wouldn't vote for it.

Perhaps on some issues.

Good stuff. If I've bored you I consider it a success.

What do you mean by nothing?

martin

then you are not qualified to say you are against big intrusive government.

i mean science should be removed from public policy. when scientists think they can change policy, they become politicians with agendas.

think of, for example, string theory. it has come on hard times. at one time folks thought it was a good idea, maybe a path towards merging quantum theory and regular einsteinian physics. it might be the universal theory that explains everything. but now people think it may be nonsense, supported by nothing. and thats all fine and good, i dont care, nobody does, we are not making laws about it or getting elected over it. and the scientists working on it, they were removed from political influence. you can trust their motives. they had no reason to try to convince policy makers of anything, or try to get grants that could help save humanity, or make themselves feel like heroes saving the world from polluting and bad humankind.

so with string theory, it was pure science. there were no real political implications. and that is how science should work.

climate science is the opposite. there is a "moral" and "right" side, and a mean and wrong side that is evil and hates nother earth. and politicians have to take a side and deal with the baggage, because it isnt just about science.

science, like art, should not be subject to political influence. the united nations should not be paying off scientists for research. the UN is a political body, their job is to make the world peaceful, (which they are terrible at).

and of course the other part of my theory is that we humans have a special love for stories that cast us as evil and ruining the environment. these stories are a constant through human history. humans are born guilty. look into how religions work if you dont believe me.

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

There are few scientists in elected office, how can they change policy? I wish lawyers could be removed from public policy. As usual you confuse politics ans science. Politicians like Al Gore are influencing public policy. Scientists publish in journals that only other scientists bother to read. They influence other scientists.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I challenge you to document this.

What nonsense. I don't suppose you can back up this particularly reckless wild-ass claim either?

Evidence? Anything at all?

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

and i challenged you to take a stand on a massively important and current piece of legislation, but you wont.

you ask for a lot of explaining for a guy with no position. you take a position on the climate bill, then we will talk.

__________________
thanks for reading.

lsu-i-like

This doesn't make any sense. Because I don't make assumptions I am for big government. Because I like to be informed before I say something definitive I am for big government. Keep up with this argument, I'd like to see how long you can argue against a shadow.

You aren't saying that public policy shouldn't be informed by science, are you? String theory and studying global warming don't really work in comparison for this argument.

But your argument is that the global warming scientists are corrupt and aren't really scientists at all. You are arguing that scientists that are concerned about global warming all have an agenda. Or is it that you are arguing that politicians have taken the concerns of the scientists and are exaggerating the danger so that we won't focus on other important things? Or to keep the public in a state of alert and concern?

I'm not real trusting when it comes to politicians, but I don't think scientists are pulling a fast one on us. The bill being proposed probably sucks, but I don't feel convinced nothing should be done. You haven't made a convincing argument that global warming doesn't deserve any attention.

red55

Typical martin ridicule of his opponent. We see it a lot when you offer no valid argument, no logical explanations, and no corroborating evidence.

I ask for explanations because you make stuff up and expect us to believe it. My "position" clearly has nothing to do with backing up your own false claims or your inability to document them. I'll shine a spotlight on every one of them.

I've already told you my position on the climate bill. have you forgotten already.

First of all there is Post 29 in which I repeated my postition on the subject from other threads. I'll not list those again, go back and look on page 2. But I'll repreat my reiterations since then . . . just for you with your apparently short attention span.

Quote:

Post 46 -- "Try to understand. You don't get to tell me what my options are. It's not a black and white world. Your inability to ever discern any shades of gray is your limiting factor, mahtin. "Principles" based on ideology and misperception are not virtues, can you possibly grok this? I can have mixed feeling on complex, 1200-page documents that I haven't read. Is that so hard to understand? I can agree on certain provisions of the cap and trade concept and disagree with others. I explained all of this in detail. Your refusal to accept this is not my problem."

Quote:

Post 52 -- "I can pragmatically favor the cap-and-trade concept without wholesale approval of the poisonous amendments that tirk refers to. tirk is smarter than martin and is trying to raise a real issue that deserves a closer look, something that I have been imploring martin to do. I want to see this "California" amendment now and it could be a bill-killer. It still wouldn't stop my general approval of the cap-and-trade concept to reduce emissions at the lowest cost possible while respecting private industry decisions."

Quote:

Post 59 -- "Although I think cap and trade is a good plan, it is entirely possible that the bill has enough faults to outweigh its virtues. Before supporting or rejecting it, pragmatic people want to know these things. What it will take to diminish support is for people to find issues within the bill that run counter to the main intention and shine a light on them. tirk made the effort to try to find such an issue. "

Quote:

Post 76 -- "And for the last time, I neither favor nor oppose the new bill until I know more about it and I'm finding more out every day. None of it from you, of course."

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

hey thats great. yes or no on the bill from you, then we talk.

__________________
thanks for reading.

martin

you too. yes or no on the climate bill, then we will talk. i dont understand why you guys are so afraid of addressing issues. you babble about nonsense without taking a position. i dont see the point.

__________________
thanks for reading.

lsu-i-like

I'm not pretend voting on a bill I haven't read. I'd probably vote against it if I were a senator in martinland. Heh, I wonder what martinland would be like. A bleak place?