The kids at school must really pick on you a lot about that
I only expected as much that’d you reply with my request of common decency with a taunt, even though it was a pathetic one, because my actual name is NOT Dirl, so kids DONT call me that.
and then back off saying you fail to see the insult in the comment,
However I fail to see that it’s derogatory
Girlie, Dirlie....You are calling me a girly, wimpy, whatever is synonymous with the word. Let’s not be shy about it. Don’t be a pale criminal, live up to your deeds.
and then finally ending in the common decency I requested.
But I’ll respect your wishes for whatever reasons you have.
“Americans are odd in that they do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else”
~Winston Churchill.
dirl126 - 05:05pm on 05/11/2008
It’s fine Whistler, I’m done for the night.
dirl126 - 05:05pm on 05/11/2008
Whistler:
But the warm-up prior to WW2 could not have been caused by man. At least that’s the way I understand it.
As I understand the facts this is exactly true. But the reason that the CO2 effect doesn’t show up is because it’s being masked by other human activity, not because it isn’t there. And that statement remains true from 1850 until roughly 1980.
I was just trying to make it clear the reason that no effect was being seen was not that there wasn’t something happening, but because other things were happening too.
That link you gave is to the 2003 Lieberman-McCain bill, which was admittedly flawed policy. Do you have something on his current proposal?
Carrick - 05:05pm on 05/11/2008
Carrick: It’s still trying to solve a “problem” that is not yet a “problem”, and shows no evidence of ever being one.
robert108 - 05:05pm on 05/11/2008
What proposal? I was on his website this morning looking at the issues. He’s for everything/nothing. Not that that is surprising for a politician, but what do we judge him by, what he says or what he’s done?
I’m for the latter.
The Whistler - 05:05pm on 05/11/2008
But the reason that the CO2 effect doesn’t show up is because it’s being masked by other human activity, not because it isn’t there.
This is the latest guesswork from the global warming propagandists. It’s not there because it’s not there.
Occam’s razor.
robert108 - 05:05pm on 05/11/2008
Nunez, perhaps you would be shocked to learn that Exxon-Mobile actually funds global warming advocates at about 10-to-1 what they fund denialists?
For example what about the 225 million dollars that Stanford University received in 2003 to study global warming?
This is awkward for global warming advocates for several reasons. The first is it exposes the lie that industry is opposed to solutions to address global warming. They aren’t, they stand to profit from it just as Al Gore has personally accumulated roughly $100,000,000 from his involvement in the green industries.
They put forward that lie because it furthers their anti-capitalism agenda: How much juicier can you make it than the narrative that suggests that industry is going to destroy the world, and is actively opposing efforts to save it because of industry’s greed?
Third, the solution this group proposes as the only solution involves tampering with the free market.
This is why you find so much angst over the involvement of Exxon-Mobile and other major companies in supporting research looking for solutions to the global warming crisis (to the extent that this is a crisis that is). They undermine the narrative that industry is evil and uninterested in the common good, and further are undermining their main motivation for getting involved in this global warming “hoax” (as they probably view it) to start with.
If you don’t believe me, just type “social justice global warming” and see how intricately linked “global warming solutions” are with “righting social inequity” in which the US is consuming 25% of the worlds resource usage in a year (never mind they are equally productive).
Carrick - 05:05pm on 05/11/2008
All you have produced so far to refute what is a mathematical principle is hand waving rhetoric.
Since economics is the study of human behavior, a hypothetical mathematical model is not applicable. You have proved nothing to support your assertion in the real world. If all you have is a textbook mathematical principle to support your contention about economic activity, you have nothing.
Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, govt is not motivated by any sort of short term behavior beyond political advantage at the ballot box, and any apparent success in the economic long term is due to market domination and control, not any sort of economic viability. Your contention just doesn’t hold water in real world terms.
robert108 - 05:05pm on 05/11/2008
Robert108:
This is the latest guesswork from the global warming propagandists.
Actually, iIt’s been understood since the early 80s. You may not have been aware of it until recently, but that’s another issue.
It’s not there because it’s not there. Occam’s razor.
One should make a explanation as simple as possible, but no simpler.
We know we emit suffates in addition to CO2. It would be plain stupid to ignore the influence of the former and including only the influence of the later.
Carrick - 05:05pm on 05/11/2008
Robert108:
Since economics is the study of human behavior, a hypothetical mathematical model is not applicable.
You should know perfectly well that calculus-based economic theories exist. You are denying the scientific basis of your own claimed field of study.
Even other aspects of human nature can be explored using game theory, one of the most demanding branches of mathematics.
In any case, we know that economic activity can be approximated by a nonlinear system with feedback. Study of such nonlinear systems then tell us what types of behavior are possible.
If you want to shrug off rational argument and say “I believed this way, GD the facts” go to it.
I only expected as much that’d you reply with my request of common decency with a taunt, even though it was a pathetic one, because my actual name is NOT Dirl, so kids DONT call me that.
and then back off saying you fail to see the insult in the comment,
Girlie, Dirlie....You are calling me a girly, wimpy, whatever is synonymous with the word. Let’s not be shy about it. Don’t be a pale criminal, live up to your deeds.
and then finally ending in the common decency I requested.
“Americans are odd in that they do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else”
~Winston Churchill.
It’s fine Whistler, I’m done for the night.
Whistler:
As I understand the facts this is exactly true. But the reason that the CO2 effect doesn’t show up is because it’s being masked by other human activity, not because it isn’t there. And that statement remains true from 1850 until roughly 1980.
I was just trying to make it clear the reason that no effect was being seen was not that there wasn’t something happening, but because other things were happening too.
That link you gave is to the 2003 Lieberman-McCain bill, which was admittedly flawed policy. Do you have something on his current proposal?
Carrick: It’s still trying to solve a “problem” that is not yet a “problem”, and shows no evidence of ever being one.
What proposal? I was on his website this morning looking at the issues. He’s for everything/nothing. Not that that is surprising for a politician, but what do we judge him by, what he says or what he’s done?
I’m for the latter.
This is the latest guesswork from the global warming propagandists. It’s not there because it’s not there.
Occam’s razor.
Nunez, perhaps you would be shocked to learn that Exxon-Mobile actually funds global warming advocates at about 10-to-1 what they fund denialists?
For example what about the 225 million dollars that Stanford University received in 2003 to study global warming?
This is awkward for global warming advocates for several reasons. The first is it exposes the lie that industry is opposed to solutions to address global warming. They aren’t, they stand to profit from it just as Al Gore has personally accumulated roughly $100,000,000 from his involvement in the green industries.
They put forward that lie because it furthers their anti-capitalism agenda: How much juicier can you make it than the narrative that suggests that industry is going to destroy the world, and is actively opposing efforts to save it because of industry’s greed?
Third, the solution this group proposes as the only solution involves tampering with the free market.
This is why you find so much angst over the involvement of Exxon-Mobile and other major companies in supporting research looking for solutions to the global warming crisis (to the extent that this is a crisis that is). They undermine the narrative that industry is evil and uninterested in the common good, and further are undermining their main motivation for getting involved in this global warming “hoax” (as they probably view it) to start with.
If you don’t believe me, just type “social justice global warming” and see how intricately linked “global warming solutions” are with “righting social inequity” in which the US is consuming 25% of the worlds resource usage in a year (never mind they are equally productive).
Since economics is the study of human behavior, a hypothetical mathematical model is not applicable. You have proved nothing to support your assertion in the real world. If all you have is a textbook mathematical principle to support your contention about economic activity, you have nothing.
Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, govt is not motivated by any sort of short term behavior beyond political advantage at the ballot box, and any apparent success in the economic long term is due to market domination and control, not any sort of economic viability. Your contention just doesn’t hold water in real world terms.
Robert108:
Actually, iIt’s been understood since the early 80s. You may not have been aware of it until recently, but that’s another issue.
One should make a explanation as simple as possible, but no simpler.
We know we emit suffates in addition to CO2. It would be plain stupid to ignore the influence of the former and including only the influence of the later.
Robert108:
You should know perfectly well that calculus-based economic theories exist. You are denying the scientific basis of your own claimed field of study.
Even other aspects of human nature can be explored using game theory, one of the most demanding branches of mathematics.
In any case, we know that economic activity can be approximated by a nonlinear system with feedback. Study of such nonlinear systems then tell us what types of behavior are possible.
If you want to shrug off rational argument and say “I believed this way, GD the facts” go to it.