Conservative Argument on Climate Change

[Grisu]

Firstly, why on Earth would I be trying to justify pollution or profits for a company I don't own? Secondly, what makes you think that I favor gasoline as a fuel? And thirdly, who is really profiting off of gasoline?

(broken image removed)
Again, you're going through the typical true believer's handbook and making zero sense.

I do not know where you get that image from but it is nonsense. First, as shown it would already be wrong as it compares profit with revenue. Those two are not the same. Second, the Exxon number forgets the earnings made through producing, refining and selling the crude oil. I cite:"Exxon alone made more than $41 billion (in profit in 2011). By contrast, the federal gas tax generated $24 billion in revenue for the Highway Trust Fund in 2011." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/03/wsj-op-ed-uses-debunked-exxon-talking-point-to/189117
With record profits during the last years we certainly do not need to pity the "poor" oil companies.

 

[jharkin]

Right Mouse- > view image.

You can see the source for it is (broken link removed) , which is a right wing blog just like the site he used for a bunch of his other pieces of evidence from http://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

[woodgeek]

And yet, having heard the actual scientific facts before, you're still a true believer? Common sense or blind faith? You're following the typical theist handbook. I could just as easily be arguing with a Christian about the existence of God. I often win those arguments too. Even when they gang up on me and seem unrelenting, I check back months or years later and find that some of them are atheists (or some equivalent but less stigmatized moniker). Likewise, I may not convince a holier-than-thou adherent like you since you're not making any rational arguments and apparently not absorbing mine, there are dozens reading this who take my points and jump off the AGW bandwagon, which is why there are fewer and fewer faithful every year...

Cool. If you're a hard-core atheist, at least we agree on something!

Seriously, do let me know when you have 'won' an 'argument'.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Cool. If you're a hard-core atheist, at least we agree on something!

Seriously, do let me know when you have 'won' an 'argument'.

Doing it right now.

 

[oldspark]

Doing it right now.

My my someone thinks a lot of themselves, stating you are winning is not the same as winning.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

I do not know where you get that image from but it is nonsense. First, as shown it would already be wrong as it compares profit with revenue. Those two are not the same. Second, the Exxon number forgets the earnings made through producing, refining and selling the crude oil. I cite:"Exxon alone made more than $41 billion (in profit in 2011). By contrast, the federal gas tax generated $24 billion in revenue for the Highway Trust Fund in 2011." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/03/wsj-op-ed-uses-debunked-exxon-talking-point-to/189117
With record profits during the last years we certainly do not need to pity the "poor" oil companies.

Somehow you equate "federal gas tax" with "state gas tax". That's your first error. Reading mediamatters or the WSJ op-ed is your next error. Confusing taxes with anything but profit is your third error. Other than showing your disdain for ethical commerce and your propensity for racking up logical errors, your post has no coherent purpose.

 

[Grisu]

1. The revenue in state gas tax was 37 billion in 2009 ((broken link removed to http://www.gaspricewatch.com/webas_taxes.php)) still just barely even with the profits of one major oil company.

2. If you cannot refute the date you rather refute the source?

3. Since those revenues are used to build the infrastructure that support our car addiction they are earnings not profits. Profits would go to investors which you do not have in a government.

What please is "ethical commerce" and why do I show disdain for it?

 

[Thomas Anderson]

My my someone thinks a lot of themselves, stating you are winning is not the same as winning.

Do you know how I know I'm winning? A bunch of trolls jumped on the thread trying to push my relevant, fact-filled posts out of view and throw the whole thread into the can. You wouldn't want people to actually be influenced by truth, would you? Typical true believer tactics. Instead of making a rational argument, you post a bunch of useless insults in order to stain the whole affair.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Profits would go to investors which you do not have in a government.

LOL! Do you truly believe that? How naive!

What please is "ethical commerce" and why do I show disdain for it?

Ethical commerce is when a willing buyer and a willing seller come to a mutually voluntary arrangement to trade goods or services. What is unethical is using force of government to coerce people to do things against their will. You disdain ethical commerce and promote unethical government force.

 

[oldspark]

Do you know how I know I'm winning? A bunch of trolls jumped on the thread trying to push my relevant, fact-filled posts out of view and throw the whole thread into the can. You wouldn't want people to actually be influenced by truth, would you? Typical true believer tactics. Instead of making a rational argument, you post a bunch of useless insults in order to stain the whole affair.

I'm insulting you, not sure about that, I do not think you are winning the argument is all I am saying have heard it all before on both sides, like I said common sense tells me other wise.

 

[oldspark]

Here's what the clowns from Yale think.
(broken link removed to http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-warming-real-has-consequences-part-i)

 

[jharkin]

Do you know how I know I'm winning? A bunch of trolls jumped on the thread trying to push my relevant, fact-filled posts out of view and throw the whole thread into the can. You wouldn't want people to actually be influenced by truth, would you? Typical true believer tactics. Instead of making a rational argument, you post a bunch of useless insults in order to stain the whole affair.

A few comments back you stated that you where positive your positions in this thread have pushed many people out of the AGW camp.

Im still waiting for just ONE of these converts them to come on here and state so.

crickets.....


Or maybe you could answer the question we asked the n-th time for the background on your statement about no "farming in Canada." among others....

crickets....

 

[woodgeek]

Do you know how I know I'm winning? A bunch of trolls jumped on the thread trying to push my relevant, fact-filled posts out of view and throw the whole thread into the can. You wouldn't want people to actually be influenced by truth, would you? Typical true believer tactics. Instead of making a rational argument, you post a bunch of useless insults in order to stain the whole affair.

This troll is very sorry for his incredible trolly trolliness. I have learned my lesson. Now, back to your regularly scheduled confirmation bias.

 

[jharkin]

Somehow you equate "federal gas tax" with "state gas tax". That's your first error. Reading mediamatters or the WSJ op-ed is your next error. Confusing taxes with anything but profit is your third error. Other than showing your disdain for ethical commerce and your propensity for racking up logical errors, your post has no coherent purpose.

Id say it was the other way around. Earlier in the thread you stated that AGW believe was a conspiracy created to let government and big business control us. But if you follow the money its obvious that today there is far more at stake for fossil fuel companies to LOOSE a lot of money if we move away from FF than there is for anyone to make any money on renewables quite yet. So the idea that anyone is giong to become wealthy and powerful faking climate research just to make a case for getting off oil is just silly.

That was the point I was trying to make when I stated that AGW denialism is in the vested interest of those trying to protect fossil fuel profits. There is simply no case to be made for any kind of personal gain to be made from AGW research.

(If you want to get rich doing scientific research you go into biomed and work for a pharma developing the next viagra. Not climatology.)


Apparently you cant refute that so instead you drum up some phony statistic trying to prove that gas taxes are a government conspiracy to control us through fossil fuels.


I'm confused - which is it? Is the AGW/anti-fossil fuel camp a government conspiracy or is it the fossil fuel camp is a government tax conspiracy ??

There are more twists in this thread than a bad mystery novel....

 

[oldspark]

They have backed off on their funding from the 40%( did not look good) but that's what Exxon had invested in the anti globing warming campaign at one time.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

I suppose the Roman Catholic Church had no vested interest in promoting the flat-Earth, geocentric theories against the evil profit-making telescope makers, right? What has Exxon got to do with anything? There's nobody from Exxon here. We're trying to discuss facts, not assign blame and ulterior motives. If you think that carbon is a threat, then prove it. Otherwise, all you've got is your faith in a religion. And that's OK, you can have a religious faith in AGW if you like. But you're fooling yourself if you think it's anything other than that and you certainly have no basis for forcing others into your belief. I will no more pray to your God than any other.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

This troll is very sorry for his incredible trolly trolliness. I have learned my lesson. Now, back to your regularly scheduled confirmation bias.

Woodgeek, you've actually been one of the few trying to make a case rather than preach a gospel. Where we left off before all the trolls jumped in was my comparison of global warming to insulation in your home. Do you have a rebuttal to that?

 

[oldspark]

Prove to me that its not man made, there is all sorts of information, charts and BS for both sides, any thing you posted has not proven its not man made.

 

[oldspark]

Woodgeek, you've actually been one of the few trying to make a case rather than preach a gospel. Where we left off before all the trolls jumped in was my comparison of global warming to insulation in your home. Do you have a rebuttal to that?

So sorry to have wasted your time (and mine), by the way I hope you are right, not for me but for my grandkids.

 

[jeffoc]

Do you know how I know I'm winning? A bunch of trolls jumped on the thread trying to push my relevant, fact-filled posts out of view and throw the whole thread into the can. You wouldn't want people to actually be influenced by truth, would you? Typical true believer tactics. Instead of making a rational argument, you post a bunch of useless insults in order to stain the whole affair.

I had sworn off posting because I've seen your type before, I have a BS in environmental science, although I left the field a few years ago, but was enjoying some of the other points that were being made so I've kept reading. Reading and catching up today, I've seen you get more and more rude and dismissive of people. Usually everyone on here is very polite.

So you post on a public forum and complain and call people names when they respond to you! You have got to be kidding me.
The crap you have posted as fact is either out of date or sketchy at best. Do you have any idea how much more precise equipment is since 1998?

The fact that you ask for definative proof or dismiss the theory shows me that you really don't understand the way science works.

I too, would love to hear from one person that you have "converted" as you put it.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

I had sworn off posting because I've seen your type before, I have a BS in environmental science, although I left the field a few years ago, but was enjoying some of the other points that were being made so I've kept reading. Reading and catching up today, I've seen you get more and more rude and dismissive of people. Usually everyone on here is very polite.

So you post on a public forum and complain and call people names when they respond to you! You have got to be kidding me.
The crap you have posted as fact is either out of date or sketchy at best. Do you have any idea how much more precise equipment is since 1998?

The fact that you ask for definative proof or dismiss the theory shows me that you really don't understand the way science works.

I too, would love to hear from one person that you have "converted" as you put it.

What a perfect specimen of a troll post. I'm quite informed about how science works, and it starts with universal skepticism and requiring proof of every positive claim. If you don't have any, then what you're saying is that your claim is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

 

[begreen]

Firstly, why on Earth would I be trying to justify pollution or profits for a company I don't own? Secondly, what makes you think that I favor gasoline as a fuel? And thirdly, who is really profiting off of gasoline?

(broken image removed)
Again, you're going through the typical true believer's handbook and making zero sense.

This is cherry picking stats from an unstated source and is off by a few hundred percent. Often libertarians like to use this exaggeration to make a point. The actual stated profit by Exxon is 7.4 cents, however that completely ignores the much bigger profits on crude oil sales.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/playing-politics-with-gasoline-prices/

Also, without govt. investment in roads, bridges and infrastructure, oil companies wouldn't be making diddly on gasoline.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

I too, would love to hear from one person that you have "converted" as you put it.

Deprogrammed would be a better term. Don't imagine for a second that they would subject themselves to your scorn. It also generally takes awhile before they realize they've been deprogrammed. You don't just go from diehard adherent to enlightened skeptic overnight. You mull things over and in time find that you no longer believe. Quite a few of my social media friends are previous opponents who were brainwashed into silly cults like AGW, socialism, Scientology, neoconservatism, Christianity, etc. They didn't even realize they were being deprogrammed. I've done a lot of that in the Tea Party as well, deprogramming neoconservatives who one day wake up and find that they're now libertarians (and always were but for a few brainwashed ideas put in their heads). But you have to be willing to even listen, and many are not. Those who live in a self-imposed echo chamber cannot be reached. Cults like AGW are the polar opposite of science, but they like to use the term to support themselves like scientologists or creationists do. Real scientists are inherently skeptical and easily deprogrammed through rational argument. I have some optimism for Woodgeek; most of the others in here, not so much.

 

[jeffoc]

What a perfect specimen of a troll post. I'm quite informed about how science works, and it starts with universal skepticism and requiring proof of every positive claim. If you don't have any, then what you're saying is that your claim is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD

: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Truly, in science nothing can ever be proven 100%. That is either 101 or more than likely high school.

Asking for proof that climate change is caused by humans while ignoring all the information that has been presented is about as far from your own definition as I think you can get.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD

: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Truly, in science nothing can ever be proven 100%. That is either 101 or more than likely high school.

Asking for proof that climate change is caused by humans while ignoring all the information that has been presented is about as far from your own definition as I think you can get.

Congrats on your Google-foo. I'm not going to teach a Philosophy of Science course on this thread. Suffice it to say though that science starts way before application of the scientific method. I'm attaching a 9-page document that does a pretty decent job at introducing the basic essentials. Maybe you'll surprise me and actually read it.