Wyoming is 1st state to reject science standards (no global warming hoax)

[torchbearer]

ALL? really? LOL

I have first hand experience with being hired(as part of a research group at Louisiana college) by a government agency(police jury) to conduct a study(on why the public bus system was losing a million dollars a year) and giving them a result they didn't want.(the program wasn't feasible because their wasn't enough demand- no rate adjustment- no route adjustments, no hours of operation adjustments would make it viable)
They disregarded the research, and we weren't asked to do any future studies.
Thus, the only info that was release was by a study that gave them the results they wanted(increase services/routes/funding)- and that group continued to get hired.
Government science.

 

[PRB]

I didn't see this one. I never said anything about a hoax, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Do you believe global warming is scientifically justified? or a hoax? Or something else?

 

[PRB]

So now your "people should hear reasonable warnings" has magically transformed into a "it'd be nice" if people just have this exchange of information that just happens to be out there. Your accountability and obligation for information providers is now just a mere happenstance event.

That's what I meant all along, you could've asked me what I meant instead of twisting my words into strawman arguments.

 

[PRB]

That's what some of them said.

Is this a serious question? Some of those people lived in places like New Orleans and Long Island.
And I don't understand the rest of your questions.

So some are not? Are there any Katrina or Sandy victims who didn't know but should know of their potential hazards? Are there any who intentionally ignored warnings? Are there any who are justifiably ignorant and therefore innocent?

Yes, my questions were serious.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

...you could've asked me...

I did ask you.

Here:

You demand that government/taxpayers care about people and then decline to answer my question about whether or not you have donated to people in hurricanes? You not only decline to answer the question, but you have the gall to ask me the same question?!

Here:

Independent of what?

Here:

Who?

Here:

What does buying a house near a river have to do with crime?

Wouldn't the people living in such predictably hazardous areas have an even larger than government interest in not locating in these places to begin with?

Hazards will, after all, directly affect that resident. If the residents themselves are not even interested in their own well-being, then why should the government/taxpayer be interested in their well-being?

Here:

If the government is not doing anything about it, then why are they conveying the facts?

Here:

PRB,
Let's just say--for the sake of argument--that global warming is true. Should governments do anything about it? If so, what should they do?

Here:

What of the people who ignore the hazards of living near a river AND believe that government should compensate them when those hazards occur?

Here:

Whose responsibility is that?

Here:

And if they ignore the hazards and believe in government handouts--what does that make them?

Here:

Why not long term?

Here:

PRB,
Do you think it's a good idea to buy a home near a river or live in a valley near large bodies of water?

Here:

I said all of New Jersey is dangerous?
I said people who live in such areas deserve such a name? What I actually said (and you can reread it) is that there are people who insist in living in such hazardous areas and insist that government entitle them to live in such areas by compensating them when those hazards occur.

Here:

So you demonstrate your caring for others by knowing where to live?
I used to live in New Jersey, so should I call myself an alarmist?

Here:

Then how will people demonstrate that they care?

Here:

So if you're a prick like me, then you have no problem saying that people in hurricanes get no government money?

Here:

First you say you care, then you say you don't care. Which is it?

You then said I don't need to care, but now you say I'm heartless. Which is it?

Are you Laurel and Hardy reincarnated, or is this really just your way of making more posts so that the forum can pay you more quarters?

Here:

You post all about climate, geology, etc., but somebody has to explain to you why it's not a good idea to live near a river or a valley close to a large body of water?

And here:

Then you would have no problem eliminating taxpayer/government relief for people who insist on living such areas?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

...instead of twisting my words into strawman arguments.

Your strawman accusation does not apply when you keep changing your argument and I ask you to clarify.



Your strawman accusation is particularly preposterous when I have not even commented on the issue and you engage in the strawman behavior yourself, as typified in this exchange:



I didn't even talk about hoaxes or global warming, yet you disregard that with some follow-up question about an agenda:

Back to global warming being a hoax. What's the government's agenda?

I clarify regarding hoaxes:

I never said it was a hoax, so I don't know what you're talking about.

You disregard that comment and say I should make an admission here:

If you admit global warming isn't a hoax, then we can stop arguing.

I repeat my post about the hoax thing in a subsequent post, to which you finally pay attention and ask my opinion of global warming here:

Do you believe global warming is scientifically justified? or a hoax? Or something else?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So some are not? Are there any Katrina or Sandy victims who didn't know but should know of their potential hazards? Are there any who intentionally ignored warnings? Are there any who are justifiably ignorant and therefore innocent?

Yes, my questions were serious.

I don't know what you're asking. You're asking if people are not even aware of where they live? If you're an infant or mentally disabled, then I suppose some of this would be true.

 

[PRB]

I don't know what you're asking. You're asking if people are not even aware of where they live? If you're an infant or mentally disabled, then I suppose some of this would be true.

Not not aware where they live, but whether where they live is high risk to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, flooding, droughts, power outage, ..etc.

 

[PRB]

Your strawman accusation does not apply when you keep changing your argument and I ask you to clarify.

Your strawman accusation is particularly preposterous when I have not even commented on the issue and you engage in the strawman behavior yourself, as typified in this exchange:

I didn't even talk about hoaxes or global warming, yet you disregard that with some follow-up question about an agenda:

I clarify regarding hoaxes:

You disregard that comment and say I should make an admission here:

I repeat my post about the hoax thing in a subsequent post, to which you finally pay attention and ask my opinion of global warming here:

You didn't say it was a hoax, so I asked you if you believe it's a hoax, are you finally going to answer me?

 

[PRB]

I did ask you.

No, you didn't. You didn't ask me "What do you mean by '"people should hear reasonable warnings"'" so you went straight to making strawman arguments and saying that I said taxpayers are liable for anything.

 

[PRB]

Your strawman accusation does not apply when you keep changing your argument and I ask you to clarify.

No, I didn't change my argument, the fact you think I did is exactly what makes it strawman. The fact you didn't understand my argument and rephrase it is what makes is strawman. You can quote me, or you can take me out of context, where did I change my argument?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

not aware where they live, but whether where they live is high risk to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, flooding, droughts, power outage, ..etc.

So are you saying that where somebody lives is not connected at all to that location's susceptibility to flooding?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

... where did I change my argument?

Where don't you change your arguments?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Dupe. D'oh! This is getting ridiculous.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

dupe

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

dupe

 

[PRB]

Where don't you change your arguments?

where don't you molest children?

 

[PRB]

So are you saying that where somebody lives is not connected at all to that location's susceptibility to flooding?

No, but doesn't mean they know about it. Do you disagree?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, but doesn't mean they know about it. Do you disagree?

Why couldn't someone see a river that is visible from their house? Are they visually impaired?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

where don't you molest children?

The difference is that I have provided loads of evidence about your changing arguments.