Reducing CO2 Emissions: It's not about the Money.Follow

How did this happen, exactly? I mean... how did we get such a large number of people who "grew up taking Ayn Rand seriously" so to speak?

The same way we get suicide bombers. Weak willed impressionable youth exposed to a simple pat ideology that tells them they not only have value, but the only value that exists. Similarly, they receive affirmation of this view from adults who either know better but want to manipulate or who were similarly duped. Not that complicated, really.

Also, the riveting prose of Ayn Rand.

Good point, and the non stop rape fantasy sex. Every ******* sex scene is so cringeily rapey even if you were interested the story, you'd almost have to put the book down for long periods. I mean unless that was your normal view of sex, I guess, that women were just waiting for the right powerful man to rape them, then you'd find it delightful, I suppose.

Pic unrelated to the story.

NSFW, but considering the thread anyway ...

Edited, Jun 12th 2014 11:42am by lolgaxe

Would you kindly stop blaming games for bad policy?

There's a distinct lack of non stop rape fantasy sex in this thread.

Carbon credits? 6proton6electron6neutron? Mark of the Beast? Buying and selling?
Anyone? No?

I'm more of a C13 person, busy oppressing the 99%.

You just introduced a third (and completely unrelated) issue. I thought we were comparing the odds of Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we don't apply sanctions to the odds of ecological disaster if we don't pass some big honking cap and trade laws.

Nice try changing the subject, but how about you defend the comparison you made.

I didn't like your answer. You said you would defend your comparison of legislation proposed to fight global warming to sanctions against Iran's nuclear program. Instead, you contrasted the sanctions against Iran with some other completely unrelated alternative legislation having something to do with veterans.

So you completely ducked the question. Want to try again?

Oh. And since I forgot to respond to Joph's silly reposting of the same funny/joke graph he's posted in the past, let me say there are two things wrong:

1. The argument by GW skeptics does not have anything to do with the graph the joke uses. It's a strawman, at best. What GW skeptics actually argue is present in the other graph...

2. If you pay attention, the plot in the second graph is incorrect (deliberately so). It angles a bit too shallow in order to make the last 10 years appear as though they still plot to an upward trend line. But if you were to actually plot a trend line to that data, you'd find that the line peaks sometime around 2000 (depends on how many years they roll the plot), and begins coming down for the last 10 years. But that's not a very good representation of what the joke want's to say, so they just average that line out so that it appears to have a steady upward slope instead of a sharper upward slope, followed by a downward trend.


In case you're missing it *that* is the argument the GW skeptics (like myself) make. I have argued for a decade now (at least) that what we're seeing is a 60-70 year cycle of rising then lowering temperatures. In fact, if you pay attention to the joke graph, it abruptly cuts off at the low end in 1968, right at the point where it kinda looks like the graph was coming down temperature wise. It's like if they extended it 30 years prior, you'd see a downward trend to the last 60s, then an upward trend to the late 90s, and now a new downward tend.

Of course, the "joke" assumes that most people will just look at the trend line and not notice how it doesn't really match the underlying data. They present a laughably wrong strawman opposition so that you wont notice that their trend line is wrong as well. When you understand the actual arguments against GW and look at that graph by itself (ie: ignoring the joke), you'll see that the cyclical theory that GW skeptics actually argue for appears to be correct. But hey! Let's not let actual science get in the way of a good joke!

Edited, Jun 12th 2014 8:04pm by gbaji

Well, you're not letting science get in the way of making an intelligent argument anywhere in this forum. So you want to explain what in Iran is so necessary that veterans are out 27 VA hospitals? Of course you're not, that's why you're so focused on misrepresenting the topic instead of answering the question. It's never you.

Edited, Jun 12th 2014 11:08pm by lolgaxe

Uh... You're kidding right? There was no mention of anything having to do with veterans in your original statement. You compared the need to pass global warming legislation to the need to pass sanctions on Iran. I'm asking you to support that comparison. WTF does this have to do with veterans?