It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Because I hold truth in much higher regard than credentials.
Because I hold truth in much higher regard than credentials.
The very fact that he attempted to sue for libel tells me he had a legitimate grievance. God only knows what pressure was put to bear to silence him but I am sure you will not find that on the internet.
Here is another definition for you
arrogant
ˈarəɡ(ə)nt/
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
No, I'm fine thank you.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kennyb72
Because I hold truth in much higher regard than credentials.
Because I hold truth in much higher regard than credentials.
So, you believe in a man who has been documented to have lied about his work history and credentials. That isn't a logical fallacy it is just plain illogical.
The very fact that he attempted to sue for libel tells me he had a legitimate grievance. God only knows what pressure was put to bear to silence him but I am sure you will not find that on the internet.
HAHAHA..so you think anyone who files a lawsuit has a legitimate grievance.
Maybe Ninja's told him to drop the lawsuit. Certainly no one has silenced him because he still spouts nonsense.
Here is another definition for you
arrogant
ˈarəɡ(ə)nt/
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
Are you describing Ball or just making another ad hominem?
No, I'm fine thank you.
You think so?
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Justoneman
I have seen your thread and I am not impressed.I know you didn't get the meaning of this thread at first but in many ways this thread rebbuted your narrative there.
I know you keep going on and on about Phage just like you did there, but it seems to me he grew bored with you. That's just my opinion. Anyway, I don't see any reason Phage would challenge the OP of this thread. I think he would probably agree with it.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Justoneman
It could be that like I am he is just tired of the ad hominems. Then again, he may come back and debate you more when he has time. I am pretty sure you are not the most important thing in his life. Actually from some of his stories it seems he has a pretty interesting life.
Like I said I have seen your thread I was not impressed. I like links and pretty much click on all the links provided to me including the ones in your thread but for the life of me I have no idea why you linked those quotes.
Science Quotes by Richard P. Feynman (32 quotes)
'Conservation' (the conservation law) means this ... that there is a number, which you can calculate, at one moment—and as nature undergoes its multitude of changes, this number doesn't change. That is, if you calculate again, this quantity, it'll be the same as it was before. An example is the conservation of energy: there's a quantity that you can calculate according to a certain rule, and it comes out the same answer after, no matter what happens, happens.
continues
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
For this question, lets assume CO2 is not a 'greenhouse gas' and forget about the temperature and the global warming hype.
We have observed a 40% increase in CO2, do you agree that human activity is responsible for that increase?
originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
I think you still missed the point of that thread a bit. If we’re going to frame this in the context of a Ponzi scheme - our economy as it stands today is already a giant Ponzi scheme.
The system is exploited mainly through unbridled consumerism to produce short-sighted returns that are not realistic or sustainable in the long haul both economically and environmentally. This is what happened in 2008 – everything was exploited to the brink financially and the whole thing almost completely caved.
Similarly, we are leveraging the same out-of-control debt on our environment. And just like certain economists were warning us about the financial consequences of that reckless overconsumption, scientists are warning us about the looming environmental catastrophe.
In both cases, a specific segment of the establishment has continuously attempted to undermine these warnings by labeling it “alarmism” or junk science, and smothering the facts with propaganda (e.g. like fake temperature data scandals). These are the deniers and their agenda is to maintain the status quo (and thus keep the current Ponzi scheme intact), because it’s working just great for them as is. This is why virtually all the global warming skepticism you read about comes not from legitimate scientific organizations, but from “free-market think tanks” that represent the interests of the 1%.
…
The idea that global warming and carbon taxes are somehow part of this Ponzi scheme doesn’t even make any sense. Carbon taxes are designed to reduce consumption and encourage conservation and efficiency. Remember – if you keep a minimal carbon footprint, you don’t actually pay a tax. This idea runs 180 degrees opposite to the plutocrat agenda, which is to have everyone shopping, spending, consuming and wasting as much as possible - because each of these “economic activities” carries a profit margin associated with it.
The only place where a carbon tax fits into this agenda is in the minds of the tinfoil crowd unfortunately, who seem to think the revenues go straight into the pockets of the elite somehow. This is far from reality however – a revenue-neutral carbon tax system actually returns the money directly to the taxpayer, through deductions in other channels such as your income taxes.
This information is all readily available to those willing to just research the facts critically and objectively:
What is a Carbon Tax?
All carbon tax revenue is recycled through tax reductions – The government has a legal requirement to present an annual plan to the legislature demonstrating how all of the carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers through tax reductions. The money will not be used to fund government programs.
But this discussion is constantly hijacked instead by all the deniers and tinfoil sensationalists screaming “eeeep they’re tryin to tax muh air I breathe!!”. All this rhetoric is nothing but ignorant, nonsensical jibberish. It’s just paranoia-fodder for the type of conspiracy theorists who wouldn’t know a real conspiracy if it came and abducted them in the middle of the night. You’re above that kind of tinfoil fluff aren’t you?
originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
I think you still missed the point of that thread a bit. If we’re going to frame this in the context of a Ponzi scheme - our economy as it stands today is already a giant Ponzi scheme.
The system is exploited mainly through unbridled consumerism to produce short-sighted returns that are not realistic or sustainable in the long haul both economically and environmentally. This is what happened in 2008 – everything was exploited to the brink financially and the whole thing almost completely caved.
Similarly, we are leveraging the same out-of-control debt on our environment. And just like certain economists were warning us about the financial consequences of that reckless overconsumption, scientists are warning us about the looming environmental catastrophe.
In both cases, a specific segment of the establishment has continuously attempted to undermine these warnings by labeling it “alarmism” or junk science, and smothering the facts with propaganda (e.g. like fake temperature data scandals). These are the deniers and their agenda is to maintain the status quo (and thus keep the current Ponzi scheme intact), because it’s working just great for them as is. This is why virtually all the global warming skepticism you read about comes not from legitimate scientific organizations, but from “free-market think tanks” that represent the interests of the 1%.
…
The idea that global warming and carbon taxes are somehow part of this Ponzi scheme doesn’t even make any sense. Carbon taxes are designed to reduce consumption and encourage conservation and efficiency. Remember – if you keep a minimal carbon footprint, you don’t actually pay a tax. This idea runs 180 degrees opposite to the plutocrat agenda, which is to have everyone shopping, spending, consuming and wasting as much as possible - because each of these “economic activities” carries a profit margin associated with it.
The only place where a carbon tax fits into this agenda is in the minds of the tinfoil crowd unfortunately, who seem to think the revenues go straight into the pockets of the elite somehow. This is far from reality however – a revenue-neutral carbon tax system actually returns the money directly to the taxpayer, through deductions in other channels such as your income taxes.
This information is all readily available to those willing to just research the facts critically and objectively:
What is a Carbon Tax?
All carbon tax revenue is recycled through tax reductions – The government has a legal requirement to present an annual plan to the legislature demonstrating how all of the carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers through tax reductions. The money will not be used to fund government programs.
But this discussion is constantly hijacked instead by all the deniers and tinfoil sensationalists screaming “eeeep they’re tryin to tax muh air I breathe!!”. All this rhetoric is nothing but ignorant, nonsensical jibberish. It’s just paranoia-fodder for the type of conspiracy theorists who wouldn’t know a real conspiracy if it came and abducted them in the middle of the night. You’re above that kind of tinfoil fluff aren’t you?
Now into its seventh year, the policy is fully implemented. The province has met its targets to cut greenhouse gas pollution and the economy is humming along with another budget surplus this year.
In fact, the provincial finance minister has to take a 15 per cent pay cut if the tax is not revenue neutral in every budget.
originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
If you make something more expensive, people will buy it less and seek out other alternatives. Nothing particularly "idealistic" about that - it's just simple economics.
If you're worried about the implementation and integrity of the tax though...well that part is up to the people to hold their politicians accountable I guess. I was just reading this article today: How to sell a carbon tax to Canadians
Which sums up the lessons learned from BC's initiative. The results are very positive.
Now into its seventh year, the policy is fully implemented. The province has met its targets to cut greenhouse gas pollution and the economy is humming along with another budget surplus this year.
But here's a little extra caveat I was not aware of regarding the revenue neutral part:
In fact, the provincial finance minister has to take a 15 per cent pay cut if the tax is not revenue neutral in every budget.
That's some pretty good incentive for keeping things on the straight and narrow. Just like the tax itself - money talks
On March 2, an email sent out by a Washington state legislator surfaced that indicated that he is in support of a new tax on bicycle sales which acts as a carbon tax for cyclists who pollute the environment through the increased expulsion of carbon dioxide. This new tax, which is part of current tax legislation being proposed in the state to help increase revenues for the budget, is primarily being argued to force cyclists to pay for road construction, but is now being justified as a tax on the citizens of Washington state for simply breathing.
Also, you claim that is is environmentally friendly to ride a bike. But if I am not mistaken a cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That means the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride. - Washington State Representative Ed Orcutt