[quote who="psychoak" reply="203" id="2542675"]As to your understanding of economics, terribly surprising that you don't know the drawbacks of credit, really... Too much credit is financial suicide, too little stifles growth by denying those worthy candidates of an investment. [/quote] No, I do understand credit. The problem was that everything you just said in that post has nothing to do with what I said in response to your original statement. Credit is n
[quote who="psychoak" reply="176" id="2540716"] The complaint is that people end up with a few hundred thousand in debts they can't pay after they survive. This nonsense that people are dying in the streets because they don't have insurance has always been bogus. Myth. It's the last pathetic excuse the architects of your system make when the numbers come out. That it's not immediately refuted and beat into the ground is something you can blame the media for.
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1231" id="2535894"]The same overly large spike in ice mass appears in both graphs. Yours is on a larger scale, both in change and length of measurements. There is zero difference between the data presented on the two graphs. It's not measuring the volume of the snowfall, it can't. Idiotic wording on the website aside. [/quote] There is a large difference between the data. The difference being that one's unit of measurement is k
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1229" id="2535819"] It's still in mass. It's being measured in volume at a specific density, that of solid ice. The Grace twins can't do anything but measure mass, and only indirectly. They're working off changes in gravity distribution, and may or may not be horribly inaccurate as a result, but they're probably close. That massive spike at the end was the seasonal gain in ice, it had one hell of a cold winter down there in 2005.
[quote who="GenuineD" reply="1227" id="2535661"]Clonmac You posted a graph of data generated from the grace twins. I recall seeing that graph in December doing some research on issues raised by this thread. I could not make head nor tail of what it purported to suggest. The title of the pic, "Antarctic Ice Mass" does not properly correspond to the data displayed which shows a change from about x gigatonnes to -x gigatonnes. The graph seem
When people say that cold winter weather has nothing to do with the global climate, they aren't just blowing smoke up your ass. It is true. Regardless of the cause of global warming (natural or manmade), temperatures during winter months in a localized area have nothing to do with global climate. For example, a little bit ago this winter, a lot of the eastern US received extremely cold weather (ie, Florida reaching sub-freezing temperatures). Cold temperatures like this are s
[quote who="lambdaman" reply="1223" id="2535471"] Actually, if he lives in the southern hemisphere, he probably wants to move north instead. [/quote] Haha, ya I thought about that. But, then again if he lives in the southern hemisphere, in most situations he'd have to leave country! [e digicons]:([/e]
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1218" id="2535365"] Psy - I quoted both poles (as the earth as 2 poles!), and showed where one had lost ice, and gained it mostly back (the north one). Then showed where the other one was not losing ice (static). now I will not argue it has never lost ice, but since we are talking AGW, and since AGW has only been happening (according to the advocates) for the last 30 years, that was the time period that was looked at. And in that time, there h
Ya, I just realized his most recent post he mentioned the Arctic, but every single one of my posts I was talking about the Antarctic and same with most of his previous posts. I got bait and switched without realizing. I should've read that previous one more carefully. At one point we were both talking the Antarctic. Not sure why the previous one he switched to the Arctic. ... [quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1164" id="2527341"] I dont care if antartica is turni
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1210" id="2532042"] DJ - no, the reason I am ignoring him is because he has failed to read or answer the questions and statements I posed to him, and then turned around and tried to play the victim. I will discuss and debate the issue with any honest person, not a mindless sycophant. And then not even reading what I wrote twice? I dont have to beat my head against a wall 3 times to realize that once set, some people will not read anything that
[quote who="djcityscapes" reply="1206" id="2531987"]clonmac, I suspect you don't get a response from Dr Guy because sometimes there is no argument that will change a person's mind. The most futile debate possible is between people entrenched in their views. Your argument about the Antartic is hardly an iron clad showstopper. Antarctica ice may or may not be melting. Big deal. If the ice was growing instead of shrinking would you change your mind and be against the AGW movement? I doubt it.<br
Dr Guy, why is it that you continue to ignore my responses about Antarctic ice loss? As soon as you're proven wrong, you change the topic in hopes that it will get buried. You've ignored the statements about how sea level changes do nothing to show what the Antarctic ice situation looks like. Hell, even Psychoak knows that sea based ice does nothing to sea levels... [quote who="psychoak" reply="879" id="2507656"] Only ice over land can raise sea levels, any ice
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1199" id="2531832"] neither of which prove or disprove AGW. 1: The agenda of some AGW proponents is not altruistic as they belong to the kook fringe that believe that man is outside the eco system and therefore should be erradicated (the most looney of the bunch). 2: Those that have no conception of what they are signing on to will go to bed with anyone to further their religion, ignoring the fact that onc
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1198" id="2531580"] Now that we've established the auto industry, having a laughable record on environmentalism as the worst offender of all, has still reduced emissions on actual pollutants by 95%, we can get over the nonsense. Further support for my theory that AGW is a product of the hippies running out of legitimate shit to bitch about. [/quote] Hmmmm, I could've sworn I wrote this... [quote]You do know that the use of leaded f
[quote who="tetleytea" reply="1196" id="2531239"] Actually, it's true. There are advocates of radical depopulation [/quote] Having a group of advocates of radical depopulation still does not jive with the statement "Kill ALL humans" which is what my reply was to. Yes, our overpopulation is a source for a lot of our problems of today. Yes, there are extremists out there that feel some people should be killed off to fix that problem. But, killing <strong
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1193" id="2531200"] Liar! Look, I gave you the links. I said some had lots of comments. If you dont want to read them, fine, but dont lie! And dont lie about being "reasonable". My attitude changed with your accusation quoted above. Get off your high horse. if you want to have a civil discourse, fine, we can. But then don't go and insult me just because you don't like the message! I can only surmise by
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1191" id="2531118"] And telling you what has been stated is not alarmist, it is an ancient tradition not practiced today, called REPORTING. Check out your funk and wagnals for a definition. And learn english. You may be able to read, but your comprehension as demonstrated in your last 2 posts still sucks. [/quote] I've tried to be reasonable and nice with you and your first response back (#1187) was reasonable as well, but now you
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1188" id="2530990"] Sadly yes, that is what Some Warmists want. Just read some of the comments over at SciAm when the subject arises to see their true nature. [/quote] Seriously?! Wow, I don't even know what to say about that. Even to lay claim that "some" warmists want that is absurd. If someone said that (not jokingly) then that would account for less than a millionth of a percentage of what any environmentalist actually wants. To
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1187" id="2530987"] Wel, that proves you did not even read my response. As I clearly stated: Then we have a Kiwi (who is more knowledgable since he lives on an island) Indicating that one major method of checking the icecaps, sea level, is not rising alarmingly (that would be necessary if the icecaps were melting). Or how about this Oz Fellow that shows the same thing? I said BEFORE YOU RE-POINTED OUT that the next 2 link
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1178" id="2530159"] I'm curious. Let's assume for a moment that human produced CO2 can affect the global temperature. How do you stop it? [/quote] Assuming we are in a situation where the world knows 100% that humans are causing global warming? I'm not going to claim that I would know what to do. But if we were in that type of situation, then I think it would be a no brainer to spend some money to fix it. Where the money would go, IDK.
[quote who="ToughLove" reply="1175" id="2530006"] It's a bloody big bet to spend trillions to try to stop it too. [/quote] Who's asking for trillions to be spent?
[quote]Ah, but again the proof is in the pudding! The constitution does not need fixing (it has a provision for amending). As clearly 3rd parties have been a major factor in American Politics in the past. The republicans and Democrats are a by-product of the Civil War, but before that, they were nothings. All we have to do is SUPPORT 3rd parties (for it is clear with this seesaw we are having that most of Americans don't like either party that much). But we will not have a legitimate one unti
[quote]This I love most of all! When you cant beat them with the facts, create an easily defeatable strawman and then destroy it! Clearly it is you that seems to have the problem. I said the icecaps are not disappearing, not that there is no seasonal change. And clearly (for any with open minds) AGW is not settled science yet, nor is there a causality established between AGW and what the Polar icecaps are doing. What we DO KNOW about the icecaps is they are not static. And what HAS BEEN shown
Haha, I love it. I go and use the same argument that you and others have been using and you in turn say that it is a crap argument. Brilliant. [quote]create an easily defeatable strawman and then destroy it![/quote] Gee, that sounds really familiar. You then go and link to articles that do nothing to prove that the antarctic isn't melting. Two of the articles talk about sea level rise trends (or lack there of). This does nothing to prove that the ice isn
[quote who="Agent of Kharma" reply="162" id="2528001"] You left out the bit about "as long as they don't dick over any of your rights in the process." I'm not confused by it. It's not contradictory. It's called "state's rights." He said he's a strict constructionist (so am I). All powers not specifically granted by the constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states, and to the people. Now, does it actually work that way? O
Sins Forums