|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2007 : 21:21:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave I have answered your assurtion:
"If they raise prices, they will not sell product." |
No, you haven't answered it completely and honestly. For just one example, my assertion related to raising prices in the face of falling demand, and not just raising prices during normal market fluctuations of a necessary commodity like oil. Plus, you've refused to answer so many other questions that trying to make a quid pro quo deal like this was bound to fall flat on its face.| Will you now admit that within a commodity market that the price can be raised without loss of sales? |
And they can lower prices without increasing sales, too. So what? The point is that you have completely failed to support your claim that they will increase the price because of reduced demand due to emissions caps.
You still have not provided a single example from any market that demonstrates that increasing the price allows companies to stay in business when the demand for their product goes down. It'd go a long way towards showing that your assertions are correct. But I suspect you haven't answered that challenge because you know of no such scenario. Perhaps you've been looking for one, and your replies to me are simply stalling tactics. If you manage to find an example, you'll claim victory, of course, but the truth is that you've already lost. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 06:20:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
http://tinyurl.com/3dumeg
"President Bush has sought an increase to $4.2 billion for 2007"
This goes to the original point, this funding comes from taxes and both sides work together to tax. |
HA! Hahahahahah! First off, the article you cited is about spending money on energy technology, not research for climate change!!! In other words, you're using this as a diversion or distraction from the original objective of talking about climate change research. This is TOO RICH!!!
Second-- talk about cherry-picking!!!! Here's the full quote:| President Bush has sought an increase to $4.2 billion for 2007, but that would still be a small fraction of what most climate and energy experts say would be needed. |
Earlier, it says:| In the United States, annual federal spending for all energy research and development — not just the research aimed at climate-friendly technologies — is less than half what it was a quarter-century ago. It has sunk to $3 billion a year in the current budget from an inflation-adjusted peak of $7.7 billion in 1979, according to several different studies. |
In other words, the US has been spending less on energy research and development, particularly for so-called "climate friendly technologies."
So now that you're done obfuscating with red herrings, we can talk about how the Bush administration has tried to suppress climate change data. For instance, in this article (sub. required), titled " Climate expert says NASA tried to silence him," we learn thatThe top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists...
The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth 'a different planet.'...
After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be 'dire consequences' if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews." |
To be fair, the higher-ups deny this, but this is but one example. You can read more about it here.
What we can glean from all this is that the Bush administration tends to suppress information about climate change (among other scientific data) when it can. (But since it has no real control over what university professors say in published scientific journals, the word gets out anyway.) This is counter-intuitive to your claim that people with large ties to oil want the spread climate change fear, in hopes of somehow driving up the price of oil.
Despite that fact that you've been proven wrong time and again, you still assert that emissions caps will lead to greater profits for oil and coal companies. Moreover, you paradoxically argue that people like Al Gore are trying to scare people into believing in global warming so he can get rich off of some small investment in a coal company, but cannot explain how the current President, whose main interests have been in oil, turns a blind eye (indeed, even tries to suppress!) to global warming.
Your arguments crumble under the weight of their own stupidity. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 09:39:31 [Permalink]
|
The article you cited is the red herring to prevent you from seeing that the political parties are moving in the same direction. For someone who is trying to hide climate change facts he sure does devote a lot of monies to research. Please do not give me, but the scientist wanted more money, everybody with their hand out to the government wants more money.
www.climatescience.gov/Library/pressreleases/pressrelease24jul2003.htm
US Climate Change Science Program
Updated 11 October, 2003
BUSH ADMINISTRATION LAUNCHES
HISTORIC FEDERAL CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVES
www.geotimes.org/feb03/WebExtra020403.html
The budget increases funding for the administration's Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) by 355 percent over the fiscal year 2003 proposed budget.
www.ucsusa.org/news/positions/president-bushs-fy-2007-budget.htm
The proposed budget provides $1.7 billion for the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which coordinates federal research on climate change across 13 federal agencies.
www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33817_20070122.pdf
That New York Times quote about spending is a lie, a few million adjusted for inflation does not equal $7.7 billion. That exact quote is repeated in many articles without a single one sourcing those numbers. All I did was find the 1979 spending on climate change to prove it a lie.
Spending on climate change has increased dramatically over the last 25 years and that money comes from taxes; thus again proving my initial point.
In fact in this document Bush proposes an 18% decrease in carbon emissions by 2012. Why would this be his proposal if decreasing emmissons was bad for his Big Oil friends?
You want to believe the red herring, you want a hero and an enemy; this prevents you from seeing the totality of whats going on.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 11:55:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33817_20070122.pdf
That New York Times quote about spending is a lie, a few million adjusted for inflation does not equal $7.7 billion. That exact quote is repeated in many articles without a single one sourcing those numbers. All I did was find the 1979 spending on climate change to prove it a lie. |
No, Jerome, it proves you have reading comprehension problems. The original article you cited (the one you later claimed was a lie), was talking about funding energy technologies. The article you linked above talks about research into clime change. They are two different things.
In any case, no one denies that the government is spending money on climate research, but clearly Bush has some objections to the notion of man-mad global warming. In any event, none of this changes the fact that emissions caps will not result in huge profits for oil and coal companies over and above what they would have otherwise been.
| Spending on climate change has increased dramatically over the last 25 years and that money comes from taxes; thus again proving my initial point. |
What initial point? That global warming is a government-fabricated hoax? How this proves that is beyond me.
| In fact in this document Bush proposes an 18% decrease in carbon emissions by 2012. Why would this be his proposal if decreasing emmissons was bad for his Big Oil friends? |
Who said it was bad? You argument is that it would make them rich because it would somehow lower the supply of oil and thus increase the cost. I argued it wouldn't do any such thing. And of course, Bush can propose all the caps he wants. To date, this country has no mandated CO2 emissions caps.
|
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/27/2007 12:39:39 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 12:38:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why would this be his proposal if decreasing emmissons was bad for his Big Oil friends? |
Because he can no longer deny the science and maintain a popularity level of even a pathetic 28%. He's already being spit on by people in his own party, if confidence in him continues to drop, he'll be an afterthought long before the internal party strife he causes ensures that a Democrat is elected in 2008. Moderate congressional Republicans will vote with the Democrats against the Presidet in veto-proof majorities just to spite him, because even they can only take so-many lies.
If Bush only spoke against man-made global warming because of his "Big Oil friends," then it's obvious that he's decided that the health of the Republican party trumps their personal profits. And he'd be right. But I don't see that conspiracy, either.
Besides, you're now suggesting that decrying global warming was a favor to Big Oil, along with saying that global warming is a hoax which will profit Big Oil. So you've got the two extremes covered, but is there any environmental position from which Big Oil will not profit? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 16:42:04 [Permalink]
|
Is mmgw a scam to tax?
This is the initial post. I have shown, and you agree, that mmgw does cause a great deal of government spending that comes from tax.
Now we can move on to the next point. It the cause stated false?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 16:51:59 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist---
In the link you provided Bush said, there is debate over the cause, but we should do something about it.
Haa Haa; if he really thinks the cause is debatable, why should you tax about something that you don't know the cause. If you do not know the cause you can not know the cure.
Please read all your evidence with a skeptical mind before providing it. Read and listen to the facts, not the desired emotion of the deliverer of the information.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 17:05:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Is mmgw a scam to tax?
This is the initial post. I have shown, and you agree, that mmgw does cause a great deal of government spending that comes from tax.
Now we can move on to the next point. It the cause stated false? |
Any government spending comes from the taxes collected from the people it represents. Perhaps highways are a scam, too? |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 17:10:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cuneiformist---
In the link you provided Bush said, there is debate over the cause, but we should do something about it.
Haa Haa; if he really thinks the cause is debatable, why should you tax about something that you don't know the cause. If you do not know the cause you can not know the cure. |
This might be one of the dumbest things you've argued. Perhaps-- and this might be a stretch-- you might spend money to find the cause, too?
| Please read all your evidence with a skeptical mind before providing it. Read and listen to the facts, not the desired emotion of the deliverer of the information. |
Take you own advice! You quote-mine and cherry pick all the time!!!! Indeed, even if you refuse you admit it, you got OWNED when trying to pass off an article about spending on energy technology as though it were talking about climate change. You're so anxious to show that your giant conspiracy is true that you'll post anything-- no matter how wrong or superficial-- to "prove your point. And when called on it, you're so cowardly that you hardly acknowledge it. You just move on to another line of superficial evidence and-- like a blind man shooting skeet-- hope that one of them hits. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/27/2007 17:10:41 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 17:16:34 [Permalink]
|
Cune, so you agree that tax is spent in a large amount on mmggw research.
Good, now we can discover why despite many disagreements in the scientific community those claiming that the sky is falling receive the funding.
If I came to you and stated that if you gave me money I could prevent your house from freezing, and it did not freeze though no effort of mine. Then ten years later I came to you and needed money to prevent your house from burning , would you keep giving me money?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 17:22:19 [Permalink]
|
I will present mmgw scientist that state in their own words that they must pump up the theory to supply funding.
Then I will present scientist that believe through research that warming is a natural cycle, and their problems with funding because of thier research.
Follow the money my friend.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 17:27:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune, so you agree that tax is spent in a large amount on mmggw research. |
No, I agree that tax money is spend on agencies like NOAA, which do things like climate research. I have no idea if it is a "large amount" or not.
| Good, now we can discover why despite many disagreements in the scientific community those claiming that the sky is falling receive the funding. |
Except we've already established that your assertion that there are "many disagreements" is false.
| If I came to you and stated that if you gave me money I could prevent your house from freezing, and it did not freeze though no effort of mine. Then ten years later I came to you and needed money to prevent your house from burning , would you keep giving me money? |
Prestone. No, make that Quaker State.
But seriously, do you think the NOAA people are just keeping the money they're given for climate research and having big keg-parties? Or buying big houses? And the scientists who review their work-- are they on the take, too?  |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 17:28:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I will present mmgw scientist that state in their own words that they must pump up the theory to supply funding.
Then I will present scientist that believe through research that warming is a natural cycle, and their problems with funding because of thier research.
Follow the money my friend. |
Don't you have some arguments to dodge? |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 17:37:04 [Permalink]
|
Tom M.L. Wigley admits it is necessary to present the data in such a way to find funding.
Steven Snyder wrote about global cooling; now tells us in admitted, intentional scary terms about warming.
By the way did you know the models take no account of the increased cloud cover caused by warming which will reflect the suns radiation and then causes cooling.
Also, Cune I presented much data that showed Bush spends lots of money on warming; thats the point, not what exactly that money is spent on. This is were you need to look at the whole picture,not only looking for the evidence that supports your preconcieved views.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 18:12:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Also, Cune I presented much data that showed Bush spends lots of money on warming; thats the point, not what exactly that money is spent on. This is were you need to look at the whole picture,not only looking for the evidence tjavascript:insertsmilie('')
Yawn hat supports your preconcieved views. |
No, you noted that he spent money. And it's not clear what the point is? Is the goal to line the pockets of NOAA employees? You need to stop whatever it is that makes you think you're looking at the "whole picture" and see that in fact, you're just paranoid. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Global Warming a Scam (part 2)
Topic Locked
