or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

  I never claimed that energy companies are the largest source of academic funding, just that they are major funders and that I would expect them to counter any bias in funding. So your observation that federal government funding is larger is completely irrelevant. Why would the energy companies suffer financially? You made one point yourself - it places greater requirements on them to emit less greenhouse gases. The necessary technologies are expensive. In addition it...
  If you keep it going until 2016 he can claim that he was correct.
  Really? That's all you can think of as a response? You disagree with all that I wrote, but you have no comment (intelligent or otherwise) on why you disagree? I suggest that actually you have not the faintest clue what you are talking about, and hence are unwilling to write any specifics that would leave you open to definitive rebuttal. And you have the nerve to accuse my posts of lacking content?  Pathetic.
  Except that if you look at per capita federal revenue minus federal spending by state (net contribution to the federal budget) you see a quite different picture. The most recent compiled data I found was 2008, when California comes in around #15 in terms of contribution, and, in fact, the contributors are predominantly blue states (15/4) while the red states dominate the recipients list (20/12). Or in terms of dollars, blue states made a net contribution to the federal...
Trolling more usually refers to posting purely to provoke rather than have a discussion. Most of the posts on the climate issue probably don't fit that category, because the posts likely do represent the posters' views. On the other hand, it is quite apparent that data and evidence are being provided only on one side of the argument - the other side being represented mostly by dismissal and ridicule (although they don't have a monopoly on that). So far, in this thread, I...
  The topic of economics was not introduced into this thread by me - so why are you not criticizing MJ for talking about economics in post #2? Maybe you could have provided some examples of what you mean, rather than just flinging accusations. Can't you even be bothered to review a short 29 post thread before making demonstrably incorrect statements? My first post asked MJ why he thought economics was a science - a reasonable question, I thought, since he used that...
  No - I'm afraid you are now doing the same thing as MJ - my statement that I have no arbitrary beliefs to sell cannot be extrapolated to mean that I think all the positions espoused on this forum (other than mine) are arbitrary beliefs, or that I regard those espousing them as irrational and illogical. There is some measure of that IMO, but if that were all that were here I would not waste my time posting. And my point was that I am not selling anything.   Your analogy...
  I don't disagree with the sentiment but, firstly, that comment makes me think that you don't read many of my posts and, secondly, in the context of the level and type of discussion that predominates here in PO, that's a pretty bizarre criticism. My comments, unlike many here, are almost entirely about content, not style; I don't throw labels around as if they somehow contributed to, or enhanced, an argument, as opposed to just being ad hominem pejoratives; I don't...
  No offense taken, but I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.  MJ used the assertion that economics is a science to avoid addressing the substance of another post. I disputed that assertion. He then threw up a multitude of straw man arguments around my comment, and proceeded to make unconnected and incorrect statements to try to knock them down. That he failed even to defeat his own straw man arguments is odd, but I called him on those anyway. What is there...
  This is another argument that you are not going to win. However distasteful one might find much of Catholic doctrine to be, whether past or current, the Church can always point out that participation is optional (at least in modern times), and that expressing deeply held religious beliefs is a right and imposes no harm on others. While that argument may seem disingenuous to the point of absurdity, the first two assertions are technically correct and the third is too...
New Posts  All Forums: