chasteh 0 #526 July 23, 2009 >And just who the fuck do you think you are, No idea >that you deserve to be the arbiter of who can discuss what? 1) I never said I would dictate, in any way, "who can discuss what" 2) I said I was "working to eliminate some of the biggest providers of rocks, rushmc." That is best performed by showing him where he (you) use "rocks," and compelling you to not use them anymore. 3) Calm down. It is obvious how emotional you get when someone tags you. 4) Stop saying arbiter. It doesn't add much to your statements. Lawrocket uses "arbiter" really well. I actually enjoy reading his posts, because he has some really solid information, in most cases, to add to the discussion. edit: And he does his damndest to corner me. He makes for quite the logic opponent. Wait... that is his job... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #527 July 23, 2009 QuoteI said I was "working to eliminate some of the biggest providers of rocks, rushmc." That is best performed by showing him where he (you) use "rocks," and compelling you to not use them anymore. While you may have MEANT that statement to read something else, that is NOT how a plain reading of it sounds. Be more clear, next time. As for "compelling" someone - that is for the EVIDENCE to do, not you. QuoteStop saying arbiter. It doesn't add much to your statements. I find myself surprisingly unmoved about your opinion of my word choices. Deal with it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #528 July 23, 2009 >While you may have MEANT that statement to read something else, that is NOT how a plain reading of it sounds. Be more clear, next time. And you are the "arbiter" of how such a statement is meant to sound? Hah! >As for "compelling" someone - that is for the EVIDENCE to do, not you. Bullshit. Evidence and the person can both compell someone to change their mind. The person can also use evidence to "compell" someone to change their mind. "Bullshit right back, dude" (your next response) Oh mnealtx. >I find myself surprisingly unmoved about your opinion of my word choices. Deal with it. Likewise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #529 August 5, 2009 Quote Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. I'm seeing this in several critiques of the IPCC report. Any comments here on this statement?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #530 August 5, 2009 >I'm seeing this in several critiques of the IPCC report. Any comments >here on this statement? It is correct. That's why we've increased the concentration of CO2 by 50%, but the forcing has only increased by approx 1.5% - because the IR bands that CO2 absorbs are indeed almost saturated. Any additional CO2 has a small effect. That's fortunate; if a 50% increase in CO2 resulted in an increase of IR re-absorption by 50% we'd all be dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #531 August 7, 2009 Read this article today: 'Cloud ship' scheme to deflect the sun's rays is favourite to cut global warming http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/5987229/Cloud-ship-scheme-to-deflect-the-suns-rays-is-favourite-to-cut-global-warming.html Quote The project, which is being worked on by rival US and UK scientists, would see 1,900 wind-powered ships ply the oceans sucking up seawater and spraying minuscule droplets of it out through tall funnels to create large white clouds. These clouds, it is predicted, would reflect around one or two per cent of the sunlight that would otherwise warm the ocean, thereby cancelling out the greenhouse effect caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions. Considering any impact we may have will be negated by India and China, our govt should not be advocating a huge tax on our economy for their utopian vision. The more I read about this, the more I'm convinced cap-n-trade is simply insane. It'll become another fund for the liberal democrats to spend.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #532 August 7, 2009 > The more I read about this, the more I'm convinced cap-n-trade is simply insane. The article you posted has nothing to do with cap and trade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #533 August 7, 2009 My point through out this thread is that a huge govt tax is overkill on this issue. They will likely end up doing far more harm than good. The debate is no longer rational. For nuclear power to be firmly excluded from an energy program is ridiculous.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #534 August 7, 2009 >My point through out this thread is that a huge govt tax is overkill on this issue. Which "huge govt tax" is that? >They will likely end up doing far more harm than good. So you would claim that the EPA Acid Rain program (the first cap and trade program in the US) did more harm than good? >The debate is no longer rational. Agreed. Too many people run screaming in fear from cap and trade, thinking it is a tax or something - never knowing that we do it already and it works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #535 August 7, 2009 Quote EPA Acid Rain program Wasn't aware of this. Thanks for posting it.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #536 August 8, 2009 QuoteRead this article today: 'Cloud ship' scheme to deflect the sun's rays is favourite to cut global warming http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/5987229/Cloud-ship-scheme-to-deflect-the-suns-rays-is-favourite-to-cut-global-warming.html Quote The project, which is being worked on by rival US and UK scientists, would see 1,900 wind-powered ships ply the oceans sucking up seawater and spraying minuscule droplets of it out through tall funnels to create large white clouds. These clouds, it is predicted, would reflect around one or two per cent of the sunlight that would otherwise warm the ocean, thereby cancelling out the greenhouse effect caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions. . Unfortunately this has a different effect on the water cycle than it does on temperature, so although it might, in theory, fix one problem it will cause another one which is probably just as bad, maybe worse.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #537 August 8, 2009 Quote>My point through out this thread is that a huge govt tax is overkill on this issue. Which "huge govt tax" is that? >They will likely end up doing far more harm than good. So you would claim that the EPA Acid Rain program (the first cap and trade program in the US) did more harm than good? >The debate is no longer rational. Agreed. Too many people run screaming in fear from cap and trade, thinking it is a tax or something - never knowing that we do it already and it works. AND it was put in the place by the revered Reagan Administration.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
