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

[PRB]

I have repeatedly addressed the point about people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs. If you don't want to address this point, then talk with countless home buyers who insist on having a riverfront view from their house.

I have repeatedly addressed the point about people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs. It is the dysfunctional enabling relationship between government and residents.

Ok, are Katrina and Sandy victims "people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs."? Yes or no or maybe?

Did they know they lived in hazardous areas? Or was where they lived safe because hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy hasn't happened often enough, or "who cares, it's all natural"? Or "you can't stop it anyway, so why act like it's going to happen"?

 

[PRB]

I would hope that people don't suffer at all. I actually care about people in these situations. The difference between you and me is that I don't express my caring by demanding that others care and then implementing a care tax.

How do you express you care? Prayer?

How do you not hope people suffer by not bailing them out or not donating money to them?

I hope Rand Paul wins, but I won't vote for him, is that what you're saying?

I hope Obama doesn't win, but I won't stop voting for him or telling people to vote against him, like that?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

How do you not hope people suffer by not bailing them out or not donating money to them?

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?!

OK fine; let's put it on the table. I have no problem answering the question if you will also answer.

 

[PRB]

You demand that government/taxpayers care about people

I don't. I just care that people don't lie or suppress facts. I believe like free press, people should hear reasonable warnings based on scientific predictions. But if they knew of warnings and denied them, ignored them, I can say they deserve to suffer and fuck them, if they relied on false information, I'd hope the liars responsible.

My "care" of how people suffer is just that, did they act on the right information or not.

and then decline to answer my question about whether or not you have donated to people in hurricanes?

I answered you, I donated zero. I don't care about them beyond wishing they were living where they did based on all available information to them.

You not only decline to answer the question, but you have the gall to ask me the same question?!

I answered you, I donated zero. And I don't care if you have, unless you think it's relevant.

OK fine; let's put it on the table. I have no problem answering the question if you will also answer.

Done. Your turn. What were you afraid of? that I'd ridicule you if you answered first?

 

[PRB]

One thing PRB probably doesn't do is care enough to personally contribute to people in hurricanes. He declined to answer whether or not he gives to people in hurricanes.

He does, however, care enough to suggest that everyone should care.

So you see here, you saw my answer, or inferred it correctly.

That's correct, I don't care enough to contribute in form of monetary donations.

I also didn't say anybody should care, just that anybody who claims to, prove they do, and anybody who doesn't, admit they're as heartless as I am. Fair?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I believe like free press, people should hear reasonable warnings based on scientific predictions.

From who?

 

[PRB]

From who?

Scientists, meteorologists, people who have experience, history in general.

Somebody other than naysayers and deniers.

Now, for my questions please:

"Ok, are Katrina and Sandy victims "people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs."? Yes or no or maybe?

Did they know they lived in hazardous areas? Or was where they lived safe because hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy hasn't happened often enough, or "who cares, it's all natural"? Or "you can't stop it anyway, so why act like it's going to happen"?"

Thanks.

Then you can tell me if you "care" more than I do as far as donating, or not, or how you express you care.

 

[HVACTech]

meanwhile,
back at the farm..

http://www.sott.net/article/279874-The-End-Holocene

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Scientists, meteorologists, people who have experience, history in general.

Funded by who?

 

[PRB]

Funded by who?

Frankly it doesn't matter, as long as their data can be verified by other people, using the scientific method. Find me scientists who are funded by oil interests, and we can see if their studies can be reproduced. That's what it comes down to, can facts and claims be verified.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Frankly it doesn't matter,

If it does not matter, then state who is funding them. Public? Private?

 

[PRB]

If it does not matter, then state who is funding them. Public? Private?

It can be anybody, oil companies, Monsanto, government, foreign government, solar energy interests, who funds them isn't as important as whether their claims can be verified by evidence and reproduced by other people using the scientific method.

Oh, you still haven't answered my questions?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It can be anybody, oil companies, Monsanto, government, foreign government, solar energy interests, who funds them isn't as important as whether their claims can be verified by evidence and reproduced by other people using the scientific method.

Oh, you still haven't answered my questions?

If it is not important, then why did you attach a value statement to this funding. You said, "...people should hear reasonable warnings based on scientific predictions."

So we're back to your original point that government (ie., me, the taxpayer) should care about hurricane people, as evidenced in your sentence, "...people should hear reasonable warnings based on scientific predictions."

So I, the taxpayer, "should" pay for this service, while you just acknowledged that you don't lift a finger to personally fund any of this.

And don't worry about your questions. I'll answer them. First things first. Besides, you're getting paid by the post anyway.

 

[PRB]

If it is not important, then why did you attach a value statement to this funding. You said, "...people should hear reasonable warnings based on scientific predictions."

Yep, stand by that. If claims can be scientifically tested, verified, reproduced, people should hear about it.

So we're back to your original point that government (ie., me, the taxpayer) should care about hurricane people, as evidenced in your sentence, "...people should hear reasonable warnings based on scientific predictions."

I think I've said that that's about as far as people should care about others, as for themselves, I just want them to hear the facts.

So I, the taxpayer, "should" pay for this service, while you just acknowledged that you don't lift a finger to personally fund any of this.

no, I didn't say you (or me) as a taxpayer should pay anything. I said I didn't donate a penny, hopefully you recognize that I have no idea how much of my income taxes have gone to disaster relief, which is a different question.

And don't worry about your questions. I'll answer them. First things first. Besides, you're getting paid by the post anyway.

Ok, whenever you're ready, thanks.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I think I've said that that's about as far as people should care about others, as for themselves, I just want them to hear the facts.

.
You "think" that is what you said?! Now I have to tell you what you said?

You stated that you're "heartless." Now the heartless has become a matter of degree. A degree to which you acknowledge you don't personally pay for hurricane people, but that I should pay through taxes. No wonder you can make the heartless claim.

no, I didn't say you (or me) as a taxpayer should pay anything.

Yes, you said "..people should hear reasonable warnings based on scientific predictions." You said those predictions come from "scientists" funded by "government." Government money comes from taxpayers (ie., me).

Ok, whenever you're ready, thanks.

Yeah, you're welcome. I'm paying your salary. LOL.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Go ahead and formulate questions to your heart's content. Unlike you, this forum is not my job, and I have to go to work. Take your time. Some of us just read the forums for fun AND have a real job through the week.

 

[PRB]

.
You "think" that is what you said?! Now I have to tell you what you said?

I know what I said, but go ahead and tell me if you want.

You stated that you're "heartless." Now the heartless has become a matter of degree.

Sure, why not.

A degree to which you acknowledge you don't personally pay for hurricane people, but that I should pay through taxes. No wonder you can make the heartless claim.

I have never once said you should pay anything through taxes, not once, are you unable to make an argument without lying or putting words in my mouth?

Yes, you said "..people should hear reasonable warnings based on scientific predictions." You said those predictions come from "scientists" funded by "government." Government money comes from taxpayers (ie., me).

If government stopped funding all scientific studies tomorrow, facts wouldn't change. So it doesn't matter if the past studies were already funded by taxpayers or oil companies, I didn't want them to be funded, but they've been done, nobody's disproven them. Oil companies can fund their own studies, and their claims are not verifiable in any comparable way.

So no, I didn't say anybody should fund scientific studies. I just said if scientific facts are available (and they are), it'd be nice if people hear about (as opposed to dismiss them without knowing). That's as far as I "care" and anybody "should" do.

Yeah, you're welcome. I'm paying your salary. LOL.

Were you going to answer my question or not?

Here it is again:

"Ok, are Katrina and Sandy victims "people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs."? Yes or no or maybe?

Did they know they lived in hazardous areas? Or was where they lived safe because hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy hasn't happened often enough, or "who cares, it's all natural"? Or "you can't stop it anyway, so why act like it's going to happen"?"

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I know what I said,...

If you know what you said, they why did you say "I think I said..."?

...are you unable to make an argument without lying or putting words in my mouth?

How would you even know that I'm putting words in your mouth? You just acknowledged that you're not aware of what you said 10 posts ago.

I just said if scientific facts are available (and they are), it'd be nice if people hear about...

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.

"Ok, are Katrina and Sandy victims "people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs."? Yes or no or maybe?

That's what some of them said.

Did they know they lived in hazardous areas?

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.

And did you notice these are all addressing problems that already exist?

No, I didn't. I did however, notice that government itself created the problems. I noticed that B. Obama created my problem of being $95 short because he created a law demanding I pay $95 for somebody else's healthcare. I noticed that M. Obama created my existing problem of an empty wallet by insisting I fund fat slobs with no common sense.

The government, of any ideology, has zero interest in helping people or saving people beyond what benefits them back

Government is not some abstract entity that benefits from anything. If there is benefit, than an individual is benefitting.
Just compare the party platforms of Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians and note how many times the word "help" appears in each document. The differences are significant.

 

[HVACTech]

Government is not some abstract entity that benefits from anything.

note to self.

thank you for that clarification.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

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

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