Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Gore calls for carbon tax
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
big dave wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
The deal is this: does Gore's beach house in Montecito make him a hypocrite who doesn't believe what he preaches?

yes. he's a slimy piece of shit: http://subspecie.edman.ws/2010/05/al-gores-revealed-beliefs.html

the only way you can get by is using his intellectually bankrupt method of claiming sea levels will rise, but not actually affect the coast-line because climate scientists are admitting the ocean basins are getting deeper as the continents shift allowing them to hold more water. this means that sea levels will technically increase as measured from the deepest depths, that's only as measured from the bottom of the sea to the top, without respect for the coastline. of course, this directly contradicts his doomsday scenario where california and florida are underwater.


I don't know where you picked that up from. Climate scientists are predicting that the sea levels will rise (and have risen). Gore claims that sea levels will rise (the 20ft he mentioned in the vid is about right for the amount of water locked up in Greenland ice, or the West Antarctic ice sheet). He does not claim that sea beds will deepen to compensate.

Do you accept the bet? "Gore's Montecito house would not be affected by a 100ft sea level rise." It's a simple wager. There are no tricks.

gore is saying SF will be under water even though SF is 50 ft above sea level. montecito isn't much different.
mcgruff wrote:
So: let's leave Al to sleep it off and zoom out in google maps. You can see we're on the side of a hill about two miles from the ocean. Definitely not in any danger from sea-level rise.

you did see al gore's own video where he said san francisco, many miles in, will be underwater right? montecito IS a coastal basin.

and sorry for not responding the second you responded... please forgive me for not putting my entire life on hold, ignoring all the important things to come argue with YOU of all people on the internet. that's clearly more important than hanging out with my gorgeous wife and being an executive at my company.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ratmonkey
n00b
n00b


Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
dmitchell works for the government? :P


Damn near. He's a researcher at a state university, doing a job that wouldn't exist in his mythical free-market, anarchist, super fun fantasy land, and owes his salary to tax dollars as a direct beneficiary.
_________________
dmitchell wrote:
Note: I am also a tax feeder
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
you did see al gore's own video where he said san francisco, many miles in, will be underwater right? montecito IS a coastal basin.


Come on... You mixed up "sixty seven metres" with "six-to-seven metres". :roll: Also, you were plain wrong about the "beach front house". It's not at risk from 20ft sea rise. It's not even at risk from 100ft. Lucky you were too busy executing to take the bet 'cos you'd have lost.

Now you have to stop calling Gore a hypocrite.


Last edited by McGruff on Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ratmonkey wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
dmitchell works for the government? :P


Damn near. He's a researcher at a state university, doing a job that wouldn't exist in his mythical free-market, anarchist, super fun fantasy land, and owes his salary to tax dollars as a direct beneficiary.


well well well. :P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
ratmonkey wrote:
dmitchell wrote:
Ouch. You gave your seal of approval to nonsense. How embarrassing.

You know what else is embarrassing? Being a wannabe anarchist who works for the government.... Just sayin'.

dmitchell works for the government? :P

I work as a researcher at a public university and some of our research is funded by NSF. I don't really work for the government but I am paid in part through NSF research grants. There are a couple of answers to this criticism.

First, "What about you?" isn't a valid counter argument. No matter what I am guilty of, our friend ratmonkey still embarrassed himself by giving ++ to a ridiculous straw man (sorry juniper, I am very fond of you).

Second, the salary I draw is taken from already dispersed grants. In other words, my employment imposes no additional costs on tax payers--the money was already spent. I'm indirectly taking money from the government in the same way Dell would be if my boss decided to buy a new computer.

Third, the more money the government spends on basic research like ours, the better. This is because the government isn't going to return taxes under any circumstance, therefore the more money is spent on research the less money is available to be spent on e.g. blowing the fuck out of people. I'll take as large a proportion of the federal budget as I can if it means a smaller proportion available to the costumed killers.

And finally, I would still abolish government in a heartbeat if I could, no matter the consequences for my own job. In other words, the government cannot buy my loyalty. So similar to the previous reason, the more money I (and other libertarians) receive, the less money is available for bribing the populace. This is because (a) I will never advocate or vote for higher taxes, for research or any other purpose, and (b) I will never attempt to portray the government in a good light or as necessary for science.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ichbinsisyphos
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 547

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are there any Americans on OTW who not work for the gubbiment? Raise your Hand :lol: :lol: :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1567
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't work for the government, although I once did.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:

Third, the more money the government spends on basic research like ours, the better. This is because the government isn't going to return taxes under any circumstance, therefore the more money is spent on research the less money is available to be spent on e.g. blowing the fuck out of people. I'll take as large a proportion of the federal budget as I can if it means a smaller proportion available to the costumed killers.


It's what government funds are for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ratmonkey
n00b
n00b


Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
No matter what I am guilty of, our friend ratmonkey still embarrassed himself by giving ++ to a ridiculous straw man (sorry juniper, I am very fond of you).


Sorry, not biting. I've learned that debating with you is a fruitless exercise. It's a shame. You're obviously an intelligent person, but you are extremely insular with regards to your ideals. The only way I can ever get you to engage is to lob a turd at you here and there and then you never want to explore anything outside of what you've come to believe. On the few occasions I've gotten you to start playing out what the reality associated with your ideals might be like you shut down and disengage. My training as a younger brother, has taught me, if you can't get them to play, then you need to be a pain in their ass.

That said, I'll let you get back to sucking on your government teat. Seriously... Trying to play off the "only part of our research is funded by the NSF" bit, when you work at a.... *drumroll* PUBLIC university that is also funded with tax dollars? tsk. tsk.
_________________
dmitchell wrote:
Note: I am also a tax feeder
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ratmonkey wrote:
Sorry, not biting. I've learned that debating with you is a fruitless exercise. It's a shame. You're obviously an intelligent person, but you are extremely insular with regards to your ideals. The only way I can ever get you to engage is to lob a turd at you here and there and then you never want to explore anything outside of what you've come to believe. On the few occasions I've gotten you to start playing out what the reality associated with your ideals might be like you shut down and disengage. My training as a younger brother, has taught me, if you can't get them to play, then you need to be a pain in their ass.

Maybe I just got busy with real life. That happens. My impression is that we usually debate for a little while until it gets tiresome and then we agree to disagree. You seem to think I've treated you badly. I'm sorry for that.

Quote:
That said, I'll let you get back to sucking on your government teat. Seriously... Trying to play off the "only part of our research is funded by the NSF" bit, when you work at a.... *drumroll* PUBLIC university that is also funded with tax dollars? tsk. tsk.

It's not a separate issue. It doesn't make any sense to say, "OK the salary you receive doesn't prove you are a hypocrite, but working at a public university does!"
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
big dave wrote:
you did see al gore's own video where he said san francisco, many miles in, will be underwater right? montecito IS a coastal basin.


Come on... You mixed up "sixty seven metres" with "six-to-seven metres". :roll: Also, you were plain wrong about the "beach front house". It's not at risk from 20ft sea rise. It's not even at risk from 100ft. Lucky you were too busy executing to take the bet 'cos you'd have lost.

Now you have to stop calling Gore a hypocrite.

distance inland is irrelevant. altitude is. he's saying florida and california (including SF) will flood multiple miles in. he even used a graphical representation. but his model shows flooding in areas of SF that are well over a hundred feet above sea level. montecito has roughly the same altitude of SF inside the basin. and guess what, he's in the basin. unless you have the exact altitude of his place, anything you say can and will make you sound like a blabbering idiot.

this is the same reason why if you go to the outer banks, houses are on stilts for miles in. flat land doesn't stop flooding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(1) In your video link showing San Fran flooding, Al Gore is talking about a 20ft sea level rise either from the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet or a half-and-half melt along with the West Antarctic ice sheet.

(2) In a convincing bid to take the Climate Howler of the Month prize, you somehow managed to turn this "six to seven" metre rise into a "sixty seven metre" rise.

(3) The bet was crystal clear: Al Gore's Montecito house will not be affected by a 100ft rise in sea level. I've shown you views from the house itself, looking out to sea, where you can clearly see that the ocean is very far away and at a much lower altitude. I've shown you the exact location on google maps: two miles from the shore (not "beach front" as you claimed) on the side of a hill, well above 100ft in altitude. I even walked you along the East Mountain Drive from San Ysidro Ranch (in street view), and then up a steep winding road right to Gore's front gate.

You obviously don't have a clue about climate science, or Al Gore. Despite that, you still won't admit to any error. You still maintain that your feeble-minded prejudices are reasonable and accurate.

The denial is strong in this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
(1) In your video link showing San Fran flooding, Al Gore is talking about a 20ft sea level rise either from the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet or a half-and-half melt along with the West Antarctic ice sheet.

(2) In a convincing bid to take the Climate Howler of the Month prize, you somehow managed to turn this "six to seven" metre rise into a "sixty seven metre" rise.

(3) The bet was crystal clear: Al Gore's Montecito house will not be affected by a 100ft rise in sea level. I've shown you views from the house itself, looking out to sea, where you can clearly see that the ocean is very far away and at a much lower altitude. I've shown you the exact location on google maps: two miles from the shore (not "beach front" as you claimed) on the side of a hill, well above 100ft in altitude. I even walked you along the East Mountain Drive from San Ysidro Ranch (in street view), and then up a steep winding road right to Gore's front gate.

You obviously don't have a clue about climate science, or Al Gore. Despite that, you still won't admit to any error. You still maintain that your feeble-minded prejudices are reasonable and accurate.

The denial is strong in this one.

gore's own video shows SF flooding for miles in. if you watch his video of SF, he's saying potrero and mission will be flooded, even the areas that are 200+ feet above sea level. he stops at roughly ashbury where it's 500+ feet above sea level. he's a sensational hyperbolic douche.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The video is from An Inconvenient Truth. In the film, Gore previously introduced your sea level animation as a 20ft rise which could result from the melting of the whole of the Greenland ice sheet or from a combination of half of this plus half of the West Antarctic ice sheet. It does not show Potrero Hill being flooded. It (correctly) shows a little bite into the east side of the SF peninsula but the scale of the map is far too small to provide the kind of detail you claim - you can't see the trees for the forest.

You're getting desperate now. Can't say I blame you. Your mindless attack on Al Gore, and your thoroughly dishonest attempt to defend it, have been exposed for all to see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1567
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Al Gore is a douchebag.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:

I work as a researcher at a public university and some of our research is funded by NSF. I don't really work for the government but I am paid in part through NSF research grants. There are a couple of answers to this criticism.


gasp :o :lol: Of course, I don't have a problem with this.

dmitchell wrote:

First, "What about you?" isn't a valid counter argument. No matter what I am guilty of, our friend ratmonkey still embarrassed himself by giving ++ to a ridiculous straw man (sorry juniper, I am very fond of you).


No worries. I didn't really present anything serious. It was a quick quip.

I too am fond of you. It's a funny thing about our little online community. Apparently I have been on these forums since 2004. Since than I have moved cities 4 times and countries twice. In my wake I have left various friends, some of whom have been forgotten and others I still know. This place has been a constant presence throughout.

dmitchell wrote:

Second, the salary I draw is taken from already dispersed grants. In other words, my employment imposes no additional costs on tax payers--the money was already spent. I'm indirectly taking money from the government in the same way Dell would be if my boss decided to buy a new computer.

Third, the more money the government spends on basic research like ours, the better. This is because the government isn't going to return taxes under any circumstance, therefore the more money is spent on research the less money is available to be spent on e.g. blowing the fuck out of people. I'll take as large a proportion of the federal budget as I can if it means a smaller proportion available to the costumed killers.

And finally, I would still abolish government in a heartbeat if I could, no matter the consequences for my own job. In other words, the government cannot buy my loyalty. So similar to the previous reason, the more money I (and other libertarians) receive, the less money is available for bribing the populace. This is because (a) I will never advocate or vote for higher taxes, for research or any other purpose, and (b) I will never attempt to portray the government in a good light or as necessary for science.


of course, having such a position puts you in a place where you at least sympathize with the other side (I never thought you would write such words comrade!). you now have an incentive to be pro public research money as you have a personal stake in it.

However, I agree with your rationalization. Not unlike being a libertarian and using the roads, or being a leftist and minimizing your taxes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1567
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
ratmonkey wrote:
dmitchell wrote:
Ouch. You gave your seal of approval to nonsense. How embarrassing.

You know what else is embarrassing? Being a wannabe anarchist who works for the government.... Just sayin'.

dmitchell works for the government? :P

I work as a researcher at a public university and some of our research is funded by NSF. I don't really work for the government but I am paid yada yada yada ...

Yeah, you work for the Government. :P

However, it's not your fault; the Government steals one-third of the GDP. Criticizing you for this is like criticizing the conservatives who accepted stimulus money or libertarians who drive on public roads -- taking back some of what has been stolen from you does not validate the theft or make protests against it hypocritical.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
of course, having such a position puts you in a place where you at least sympathize with the other side (I never thought you would write such words comrade!). you now have an incentive to be pro public research money as you have a personal stake in it.

Well I'm not really for public research money. But for a given level of government spending, I favor spending as much as possible on research and other things that aren't killing, imprisoning, spying, etc. If I could zero out research spending I would, but only if the funds somehow went back to tax payers. If they are going instead to the military industrial complex, or the prison industrial complex, or something like that, then I want to maximize research spending.

Quote:
However, I agree with your rationalization. Not unlike being a libertarian and using the roads, or being a leftist and minimizing your taxes.

I agree. No one should ever pay more to the government than they have to, even bleeding heart liberals. If they want to help the poor, donate to charity instead. Giving money to the government is the worst thing they could do.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1567
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're just rationalizing. Before you worked for the government, you would have classified this as part of grand empire of tax theft. Now you're like, "I'm okay with the parts of the grand empire of theft that are not direct examples of rights being violated, because tax theft is only an indirect violation of people's rights".

Why don't you just be honest with yourself. You had to take the job because it's what was available, and you hate that it's a government-funded job. I 've already provided you with a better rationalization that does not require you to prostitute your values: "Getting back some of what the Government steals neither validates the theft nor makes protests against it hypocritical."
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
Well I'm not really for public research money.


Which brings us back to the question: what actions would a perfectly libertarian society take to avoid catastrophic climate change (>2 celsius)? How would they even know that the climate was changing without the massive (state) investment in basic science which, amongst other things, puts boots on the ground in Antarctica and satellites into orbit?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is this argument about Libertarians and roads? Libertarians pay road, gas, registration, and licence fees, all of which are designated to road construction and upkeep.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
dmitchell wrote:
Well I'm not really for public research money.


Which brings us back to the question: what actions would a perfectly libertarian society take to avoid catastrophic climate change (>2 celsius)? How would they even know that the climate was changing without the massive (state) investment in basic science which, amongst other things, puts boots on the ground in Antarctica and satellites into orbit?

Libertarians would take the commie politics out of UN climate "science," and instead would allow scientists to come to real conclusions. No fudging the data to support a preconceived conclusion as has been occurring.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
You're just rationalizing. Before you worked for the government, you would have classified this as part of grand empire of tax theft. Now you're like, "I'm okay with the parts of the grand empire of theft that are not direct examples of rights being violated, because tax theft is only an indirect violation of people's rights".

I don't remember saying I was OK with it; I remember saying I would eliminate it.

Quote:
Why don't you just be honest with yourself. You had to take the job because it's what was available, and you hate that it's a government-funded job. I 've already provided you with a better rationalization that does not require you to prostitute your values: "Getting back some of what the Government steals neither validates the theft nor makes protests against it hypocritical."

I agree with your rationalization.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
What is this argument about Libertarians and roads? Libertarians pay road, gas, registration, and licence fees, all of which are designated to road construction and upkeep.


So how does a libertarian society pay for all the basic scientific research which has identified AGW, and how would it act to prevent the catastrophic changes we are facing with a warming of >2 celsius?

PS: want to go double or quits on your avatar that no data has been fudged? (I assume you're still banging on about the ridiculous "climategate" pseudo-controversy).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Old School wrote:
What is this argument about Libertarians and roads? Libertarians pay road, gas, registration, and licence fees, all of which are designated to road construction and upkeep.


So how does a libertarian society pay for all the basic scientific research which has identified AGW, and how would it act to prevent the catastrophic changes we are facing with a warming of >2 celsius?

PS: want to go double or quits on your avatar that no data has been fudged? (I assume you're still banging on about the ridiculous "climategate" pseudo-controversy).

Of course, cuz we all know that the UN is a pillar of political purity.

No corruption or agendas there. :lol:
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum