Re: Gore Vindicated, Proof That Carbon Tax Doesn't Cause Destruction of Economy
Fred Weiss
wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 03:51:11 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 31 2009, 7:42 pm, dipsy <dipsydoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:11:12 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Evidence of past economic disasters, including one just two years ago,
> >> >*when there was no carbon tax*!!, clearly demonstrate that a carbon
> >> >tax could not cause an economic downturn.
>
> >> >-tg
>
> >> Did you get an Al Gore dartboard for Christmas? The hot air from Rush,
> >> Hannity and O'Reilly IS causing global swarming in your head!
> >> Don't worry about the worms growing in your brain, they won't hurt you
> >> - they just want to live their and have babies.
>
> >You apparently aren't familiar with the "Earth was warmer once when
> >humans weren't producing CO2, so CO2 can't cause warming" paradigm?
>
> >-tg
>
> A mistatement (obviously intentional on your poart).
> The queation has been asked numerous times; "The earth had been warmer
> before there was MANMADE CO2 so what caused it then?
> Plus you play a little word game by intially saying the same thing
> then falsely presenting a conclusion regarding CO2 in general.
> You may have had a leg to stand on had you said "MANMADE" but since
> there is still no scientific proof that manmade CO2 is causing any
> dramatic increase in temps then your argument would still be a very
> weak one to say the least.
>
> Your assumption that "the earth is now warming and we have more people
> now therefore people are causing the earth to warm" is as stupid of an
> argument as you are trying to make the other appear.
>
> A person of reasonable intelligence would try researching to see what
> is common between the last period of warming and today rather than
> foolishly playing silly little word games in an attempt to appear
> smart.
Nicely put.
Altho' it should be pointed out in fairness to the Hysterics - not
that they'd ever reciprocate - that the fact of previous warming
periods accompanied by high atmospheric CO2 does not in itself debunk
the possibility that man is causing it now.
It's just that they haven't established the linkage. Basically, they
don't understand the difference between causality and correlation -
nor what constitutes a valid scientific proof.
The dishonesty then gets magnified - and their true motives get
revealed - by the social policy positions they advocate. (None of
which - even some of them admit - will make much difference anyway.
Not on the atmosphere. It will of course make a huge difference on our
freedom which they want to eradicate.)
Don't get me wrong. The previous warm periods are not irrelevant. The
evidence for that is the extent to which the ClimateGaters attempted
to erase it from the data and diminish its significance.
Fred Weiss
Last Post
wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 03:51:11 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:11:12 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Evidence of past economic disasters, including one just two years ago,
> >> >*when there was no carbon tax*!!, clearly demonstrate that a carbon
> >> >tax could not cause an economic downturn.
• Bullshit!!!
There is no connection
> >You apparently aren't familiar with the "Earth was warmer once when
> >humans weren't producing CO2, so CO2 can't cause warming" paradigm?
> A mistatement (obviously intentional on your poart).
> The queation has been asked numerous times; "The earth had been warmer
> before there was MANMADE CO2 so what caused it then?
• The Sun.
> You may have had a leg to stand on had you said "MANMADE" but since
> there is still no scientific proof that manmade CO2 is causing any
> dramatic increase in temps then your argument would still be a very
> weak one to say the least.
>
> Your assumption that "the earth is now warming and we have more people
> now therefore people are causing the earth to warm" is as stupid of an
> argument as you are trying to make the other appear.
• Actually population growth requires expanded CO2.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
tg
wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 03:51:11 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 31 2009, 7:42 pm, dipsy <dipsydoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:11:12 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Evidence of past economic disasters, including one just two years ago,
> >> >*when there was no carbon tax*!!, clearly demonstrate that a carbon
> >> >tax could not cause an economic downturn.
>
>
> >> Did you get an Al Gore dartboard for Christmas? The hot air from Rush,
> >> Hannity and O'Reilly IS causing global swarming in your head!
> >> Don't worry about the worms growing in your brain, they won't hurt you
> >> - they just want to live their and have babies.
>
> >humans weren't producing CO2, so CO2 can't cause warming" paradigm?
>
>
> A mistatement (obviously intentional on your poart).
> The queation has been asked numerous times; "The earth had been warmer
> before there was MANMADE CO2 so what caused it then?
> then falsely presenting a conclusion regarding CO2 in general.
So you are saying that CO2 causes warming *except* when it is manmade?
IIRC, you also believe that if demand for oil goes down, the price
will go up, and this will make the oil companies happy.
As those Zany Socialist Swedes would say: Huh?!
-tg
> but since
> there is still no scientific proof that manmade CO2 is causing any
> dramatic increase in temps then your argument would still be a very
> weak one to say the least.
>
> Your assumption that "the earth is now warming and we have more people
> now therefore people are causing the earth to warm" is as stupid of an
> argument as you are trying to make the other appear.
>