Kyoto Protocol

[ralis]

I think this attitude about having more than others puts you even further from any spiritual truths. That can be a lot of structure built on a perceived reality that equates to but a single aspect of actuality.

 

I can't see why Joe comes to a spiritual forum to preach materialism?

 

Joe has been challenged on that by a few of us and as usual has some skewed answer. He rambles about the Tao being out of balance.

[ralis]

What is even more perturbing to me is that he seems to know about some spiritual work yet seems to have a gaping hole in his heart.

 

There is a phenomenon called "Zen Sickness" in which one's ego becomes overinflated. This occurs as a result of partial awakenings that are filtered through the ego or a grandiose sense of an absolute separate self. There is no separate self. We are all in this together.

Edited January 3, 2012 by ralis

[Informer]

I don't think you can have true balance without recognizing the heart. That would be really lopsided imo.

[joeblast]

Just did a little research and found that one of the leading global warming deniers i.e, Dr. Roy Spencer is an advocate of 'intelligent design' and he advocates that ID should be taught in public schools. Further, his published views railing against global warming are published by Encounter Books which is a publisher of conservative books. Encounter Books is funded by the Koch Bros. foundation. Other conservative funding includes; http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin_Foundation, http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation. The Koch bros. father founded the 'John Birch Society' and the Bradley's have ties to the 'John Birch Society'.

 

The 'Heartland Institute' is included as funding the global warming deniers along with an ideology of antiregulation.

 

http://66.39.128.35/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

 

"Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this affiliation on his website."

 

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

 

This is where Joe finds all his propaganda.

There ya go ralis, keep attacking the messenger, stay off topic. When I asked you to rebut, I didnt say "did the koch brothers fund anything at all?"

 

 

The deniers cherry pick data i.e, temperature variations and fail to include all phenomena in the biosphere.

But keep refusing to say exactly what, and then say "its the weatherman!" when I post up links like this that outline very significant assumptions adopted by a ton of "warmist papers" that basically render the entire premises of the papers false - like declaring an upward trend because your bad equations and statistical manipulations led you there!

 

 

Go ahead, click, read...and rebut...if you can! (yeah, I dont think you can, or will.) Its too bad its a real pain to paste these entire articles, otherwise more people would probably read them. But I'll leave that to the individual reader, if they are indeed interested "in both sides of the argument"...one may only be interested in one side, as you clearly are, and refuse to even consider an alternative viewpoint even when those hypotheses you espouse are shot full of holes.

 

Dont forget, I've already seen the other side, and I've found it quite lacking in rigor, predictability, and honesty. All you've got is disparagement of anything that disagrees, you cant back it up with anything other than name calling. TTBs can basically place bets on that behavior of yours.

 

btw, you havent challenged jack crap aside from challenging me to do a calculation on the last page or two! But feel free to continue disparaging me anyway, its about all you seem capable of at this point.

 

I think this attitude about having more than others puts you even further from any spiritual truths. That can be a lot of structure built on a perceived reality that equates to but a single aspect of actuality.

 

I can't see why Joe comes to a spiritual forum to preach materialism?

I'm preaching materialism? All I've done in this thread is point out way...after way...after way...after way...after way...that AGW "science" is naught but flawed statistical contrivances.

 

Ah, so you're that accomplished you can see what's in my heart, now?

[Informer]

I'm transparent.

 

[joeblast]

I've still yet to see anyone in this thread actually stick up for AGW in a remotely technical manner. That pretty much speaks for itself.

[Informer]

I've still yet to see anyone in this thread actually stick up for AGW in a remotely technical manner. That pretty much speaks for itself.

 

I wouldn't consider copy/pasting to be technical. Comprehending it all on the other hand, which have have really failed to do. Your failed attempt at denying acid rain being expressed with carbon is telling in and of itself that you are pretending.

[joeblast]

I wouldn't consider copy/pasting to be technical. Comprehending it all on the other hand, which have have really failed to do. Your failed attempt at denying acid rain being expressed with carbon is telling in and of itself that you are pretending.

Sorry man, if it were as pervasive as the single college professor you found asserting that, then more sources would assert it. When even the EPA, who at present is more than willing to go along with just about any and every CO2 conspiracy theory out there, is unwilling to state such on their website, and every single other link that made references to the major players, CO2 was not even mentioned. Curious why your professor's link gave graphs for how much acid rain was affected by the compound, yet CO2 was not even graphed? (that's shorthand for too small to even show up.)

 

 

"You dont consider copy/paste technical" well, that action in and of itself isnt technical, but if one is copying and pasting technical things, then sorry, your Venn diagram collapses.

Edited January 3, 2012 by joeblast

[ralis]

I am not attacking the messenger and only exposing the source as to what said sources truly represent! Whether it is the Koch bros. or Dr. Spencer with his ID anti evolution agenda, their motives need to be seen for what they are. Religion and science don't mix and neither does money from right wing organizations such as the Heartland Institute.

 

Why do I not debate with your cut/paste agenda? One reason and one reason only, is that you do nothing but fight with people and make everyone wrong except yourself! That is your agenda. If you want to fight, then take it elsewhere!! You have derailed this thread long enough!

Edited January 3, 2012 by ralis

[Informer]

I wasn't trying to pin it on any one thing, I was presenting it in rebuttal to your assumption that co2 is not expressed within the formula for acid rain, H2O(l) + CO2(g) <==> H2CO3(aq), which is the base of the formulation.

 

Not until later do the other gases bind with the "substrate"

[Informer]

 

"You dont consider copy/paste technical" well, that action in and of itself isnt technical, but if one is copying and pasting technical things, then sorry, your Venn diagram collapses.

 

 

You can prob just make another circle.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

Just in case you haven't made the correlation yet, more substrate = more places to bind.

[Informer]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q770n6mr786260u1/

 

Check the nice little graph on 266.

[ralis]

There ya go ralis, keep attacking the messenger, stay off topic. When I asked you to rebut, I didnt say "did the koch brothers fund anything at all?"

 

 

 

But keep refusing to say exactly what, and then say "its the weatherman!" when I post up links like this that outline very significant assumptions adopted by a ton of "warmist papers" that basically render the entire premises of the papers false - like declaring an upward trend because your bad equations and statistical manipulations led you there!

 

 

Go ahead, click, read...and rebut...if you can! (yeah, I dont think you can, or will.) Its too bad its a real pain to paste these entire articles, otherwise more people would probably read them. But I'll leave that to the individual reader, if they are indeed interested "in both sides of the argument"...one may only be interested in one side, as you clearly are, and refuse to even consider an alternative viewpoint even when those hypotheses you espouse are shot full of holes.

 

Dont forget, I've already seen the other side, and I've found it quite lacking in rigor, predictability, and honesty. All you've got is disparagement of anything that disagrees, you cant back it up with anything other than name calling. TTBs can basically place bets on that behavior of yours.

 

btw, you havent challenged jack crap aside from challenging me to do a calculation on the last page or two! But feel free to continue disparaging me anyway, its about all you seem capable of at this point.

 

 

I'm preaching materialism? All I've done in this thread is point out way...after way...after way...after way...after way...that AGW "science" is naught but flawed statistical contrivances.

 

Ah, so you're that accomplished you can see what's in my heart, now?

 

What is your point in being here? Why not go to a forum dedicated to debating global warming? Or are you just trying to posture yourself as better and smarter than others who are participating in this discourse? Further, why are you so attached to your narrative without questioning your preconceptions? So far you have convinced no one here to your point of view.

[Informer]

Joe,

 

So wtf happened? You got completely owned and cry to mod to move thread? Such a child. Or are you really a puppet of a MOD?

[joeblast]

I wasn't trying to pin it on any one thing, I was presenting it in rebuttal to your assumption that co2 is not expressed within the formula for acid rain, H2O(l) + CO2(g) <==> H2CO3(aq), which is the base of the formulation.

 

you missed what I said on this portion - I didnt deny this chemical reaction exists.

[Dreamingawake]

Ralis I hate to break it to you but you haven't contributed a single argument to the entire thread. My first post in here was just joking around but every post you've written in here has contained only ad hominem attacks and weasle-words. It seems your only (very pointed) goal is to shut up anyone who disagrees with your point of view not by reasoned debate but merely by discouraging them from even speaking.

 

Honestly I think you can do better.

[Informer]

Ralis I hate to break it to you but you haven't contributed a single argument to the entire thread. My first post in here was just joking around but every post you've written in here has contained only ad hominem attacks and weasle-words. It seems your only (very pointed) goal is to shut up anyone who disagrees with your point of view not by reasoned debate but merely by discouraging them from even speaking.

 

Honestly I think you can do better.

 

He probably made more points than you did cheerleading. You are a good cheerleader tho.

[Dreamingawake]

He probably made more points than you did cheerleading. You are a good cheerleader tho.

 

Actually neither ralis or I have attempted to make any points relevant to the debate so we're about even

 

You've tried but you don't seem to be actually listening to the other sides points and that costs you big time when you try to make your own arguments because you can't really counter what you never actually heard.

 

There aren't enough facts available to prove one side or the other totally right so now it's just a matter of debate skills

 

edit: hold that thought! I have to go grab the popcorn

Edited January 4, 2012 by Dreamingawake

[joeblast]

[ralis]

Ralis I hate to break it to you but you haven't contributed a single argument to the entire thread. My first post in here was just joking around but every post you've written in here has contained only ad hominem attacks and weasle-words. It seems your only (very pointed) goal is to shut up anyone who disagrees with your point of view not by reasoned debate but merely by discouraging them from even speaking.

 

Honestly I think you can do better.

 

Exposing the religious ideology of Dr. Roy Spencer and the funding of the denier group is vitally important. Money and religious ideology don't mix with scientific inquiry.

[Dreamingawake]

Exposing the religious ideology of Dr. Roy Spencer and the funding of the denier group is vitally important. Money and religious ideology don't mix with scientific inquiry.

 

Well first you've latched onto one man who might be a loon to discredit everyone who he might agree with on one issue.

 

Then you keep using the word 'denier' which aside from having the connotation of being already proven wrong (which would be an outright lie) is also a weasel-word often used to unconsciously associate someone with the 'Holocaust deniers' to further discredit and impugn their reputation without seeming to attack them directly.

 

Then your last sentence there is strung together to imply that YOUR view is based on science while any other view is based on anything but.

 

So in summery: STRAW MAN -> WEASLE-WORD -> INNUENDO Wrapped in AD HOMINEM

 

You accuse others of using NLP maliciously while you yourself use it (and huge logical fallacies I might add) to attack and malign people who disagree with a point of view you seem unable to explain or debate.

[joeblast]

[joeblast]

[joeblast]

http://scienceline.org/2012/01/enter-at-your-own-risk/

 

This is part of what I'm talking about with entities and situations not being treated in similar fashions. Ok, so NYC has a sewer capacity problem - if this were a private entity making this decision, the EPA would all over them so fast it wouldnt even be funny - but since this is the government doing it?

 

*crickets*

 

 

Yet an alarmist with influence in the agency can prevent people from utilizing a key water source because it might affect some small fishes. Alarmists with influence in the agencies can have our breath declared a pollutant - doesnt need to be any hard science there, just the same "impression of impropriety" and that is also plenty good enough to get a political candidate disqualified.

Laws not being applied evenly, diverting focus from real environmental efforts and catastrophes. But since its a politically correct institution performing the transgression, somehow these transgressions go unaddressed and nobody makes a "stink."

 

 

(since nobody seems to want to talk about global warming now that things move on from name calling to actual technical matters...)

Edited January 14, 2012 by joeblast