Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 61 of 944 (750299)
02-13-2015 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
02-12-2015 9:15 PM


It all comes down to physics.
Co2 is a greenhouse gas thats a fact we known that for over 100 years.
Mankind has been pumping co2 in to the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. Also a fact.
The logical conclusion is that the earth will get warmer because of those 2 facts. The only thing left to argue about is how hot is it going to get.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 9:15 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by marc9000, posted 02-14-2015 9:01 PM frako has replied
 Message 77 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2015 11:07 PM frako has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 62 of 944 (750300)
02-13-2015 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
02-12-2015 7:37 PM


going down that road again
How does data (possibly fudged) "debunk" any claims about data being fudged?
Two basic ways marc9000 ...
1. A review and adjustment of the calibration of scientific instruments is standard operating procedure for ALL scientific instruments to ensure accurate and precise results. If an instrument is out of calibration the data is adjusted so that the readings match from pre-adjustment to post-adjustment ... you do agree that the temperature should be the same at the calibration point in time don't you? Say the adjustment is 1° and the last calibration was a year ago -- you know it was accurate a year ago and you know it is accurate now, and you know that over the year it became 1° so you can prorate that difference over the year to improve the accuracy of the intermediate readings. Without such adjustment there is a discontinuity in the data.
Often instruments are upgraded with new instruments that are more accurate and precise -- which also results in a discontinuity in the data from one instrument to the next. Adjusting the historical data so that it matches the new instrument at the same time and same place is not fudging the data but calibrating the old equipment to the new equipment.
Data on such calibrations show that the data is not "fudged" but calibrated and by how much and why.
2. By ignoring the calibrations and adjustments of the data and using it raw. The discontinuities cause small point variation in the data but do not using the raw data still shows the overall trend. The raw data is still precise it is just slightly less accurate but that difference in accuracy is systemic: if the discontinuity is 1° hotter then all the data post discontinuity will be 1° hotter ... and you will still see the long term trend.
glowby addresses other reasons for making adjustments to data in Message 52.
Let me make an analogy:
I am going to survey the elevations of a road over a 10 mile length. I start with a single point -- a survey marker with a known elevation(1). I set up my level, take a reading on the marker and record how much higher the instrument is than the marker. This is my delta. I then take several readings along one side of the road and subtract the delta from those readings to arrive at their elevations benchmarked to the marker. At some point I need to move the instrument (I can't see 10 miles), so I take a reading on a temporary survey marker that is set in solid ground. I move to the other side of this temporary marker and take a second reading on it from the new location. From the difference in readings on the same temporary marker I adjust my delta and continue as before. When I reach the end of the 10 mile stretch I am half done, because the survey has to be closed to ensure accuracy. This is done by repeating the process back down the road using different temporary markers to adjust the delta. When I get back to the start I take a final reading on the original survey marker.
Now I think you will agree that
  • the elevation of the temporary markers doesn't change when I move the instrument from one side of it to the other, so I am not fudging the data by changing the delta that I use to calculate the elevation of each data point based on the original survey marker elevation.
  • the elevation of the original survey marker doesn't change when I go 10 miles away down the road and then return, so any difference in reading between the start and the end of the survey is due to small accumulated errors every time the instrument was moved, errors that could just be the limits of the equipment to measure elevations accurately.
  • thus, if say, the difference in reading the elevation of the original marker is 1" higher at the end I can divide 1" by the number of instrument moves and apportion that out to each temporary marker, and again I am not fudging the data but calibrating it.
  • this results in a adjustment at the turning points that then needs to be pro-rated to the data between them to improve the accuracy of their readings.
Now I can plot the elevation data versus length along the road both with the adjusted and calibrated data (which accurately and precisely shows the overall trend of elevation vs distance) and I can plot the uncalibrated data (which shows the same overall trend with slightly less accuracy and precision).
And I can even ignore the adjustments made in the delta for each turning point and plot the data as a series of discontinuous lines for each setup ... and each of those lines will still show the overall trend in change in elevation over the length of data taken at each setup.
Plus I can point out that it is irrational to think there are sudden jumps or drops in the elevation of the road at each turning point for data taken for the same point (the temporary markers) from different sides when the data from the return trip, using different turning points does not show a jump or drop at that location -- I can use the data from the return trip to adjust the first run data even without knowing what the difference in delta was at the turning point discontinuity. This also would not be fudging the data but adjusting it by cross-referencing it to other data in the same region.
Now a naive and ignorant person who wants to believe that the end of the road is only 1 ft higher than the start of the road, instead of the 5 ft higher as measured by the survey, can yell and scream about fudging the data to make it come out 5 ft higher, but that wouldn't be a realistic argument about the actual level of the road would it?
This is the kind of process engineers and scientists use when collecting data to ensure that it is as accurate and precise as possible within the limitations of the equipment.
Enjoy
(1) - the US Geological Survey sets these markers, originally by doing surveys similar to what I outlined and by integrating the data into a web. They now use satellite data to confirm (and adjust) those elevations, and this new data can show that some markers are rising and some are sinking from tectonic activity. Old surveys made from the markers can be updated to adjust for those changes ...
Edited by RAZD, : footnote

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 7:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 944 (750305)
02-13-2015 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
02-12-2015 9:15 PM


You've never heard of auto emissions testing?
Does auto-emissions testing have anything to do with Global Warming?
In the late 1990's, it was in the news as being just around the corner in my area, the greater Cincinnati area.
Yeah, wasn't that before all this Global Warming stuff?
The newspaper editors found out how much fun it was to sit in line and hand over $20 for a useless test, and they didn't like it!
Well that's weird, they don't charge me for emissions testing in Illinois. I'm gonna look that up.
Ohio Emissions Testing | DMV.com
quote:
EMISSIONS TESTING FEES
A motorist may receive up to three free tests within a 365 day period. The fourth test, and for the ones thereafter, the motorist will be charged $18 for the test. Only one free passing test is permitted in a 365 day period.
So, really, its free the first three times in one year.
But really, $20?
I gotta pay $99 every year for registration. And like $60 every month for insurance.
And that's nothing compared to the standard operational costs, like gas and fluids and filters and brakes and tires.
Are you really complaining about something that amounts to a fraction of a percent of your total car costs? Despite the fact that it doesn't even really cost you anything to begin with...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 9:15 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 64 of 944 (750318)
02-13-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by NosyNed
02-13-2015 9:02 AM


Re: Testing
It was not worth the cost of running the testing centers under the new circumstances.
don't see it as any extra cost i have to get my car checked out before i can register it its just one extra stop at the testing lane. And the price for the whole battery of tests just basically follows inflation no real increase 40 EUR witch is a fraction of the total costs to get your car registered. The road tax depends on your HP for my 105 HP i pay around 200EUR. And the insurance costs me about 300 EUR but its minimal cause i dont cause accidents so i dont need any higher insurance and i have a 50% deduction cause im a good driver. My girlfrend had full kasko insurence the insurance pays for everything that happened no matter whose fault it was as long as you where not drunk/drugged and the damage is above 300 EUR worth but it cost her 1200 EUR and she had no deductions.
But yea its not as necessary as before as the main thing people look for when buying a new car in my country is fuel efficiency witch also translates in to less emissions. But fuel prices are dropping again and without such regulations we could be going back to the old days when the snow along the road was black.
However, I just had a thought. Are we getting by without screening for polluting cars because of rules and testing done in so many other places that keep the on road fleet cleaner for us. Are we sort of being anti-vaxers?
Well yea I think every country should screen their cars for pollution it would force car manufacturers to adhere to the highest standard in order to be able to sell their cars everywhere. Its like seat belts before there where laws demanding seat belts there where no seat belts in cars now every car has them.
The same principle could be applied to other polluters too, If say just the EU and the US the main consumers of the world agree on pollution standards and tax imports from higher polluters the world economy would have to adapt and pollute less.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2015 9:02 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2015 1:08 PM frako has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 65 of 944 (750330)
02-13-2015 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by frako
02-13-2015 12:06 PM


Moving forward
Yeah, we have safety testing every year and emissions are part of that.
Any byproduct - such as cleaner running engines is bonus.
But I can do more to reduce my carbon footprint by using alternative energy at home -- solar panels and wind generators. With a surplus I can put energy back into the grid and reduce consumption of fossil fuels at generator plants.
I am also working on a solar water heating system to augment or replace the hot water heater and boiler and thus reducing fuel use.
My house is already rated "more efficient than your efficient neighbors" by the power company.
And I am working to get my town to install solar panels to reduce their costs. Most work done in town offices is during the day, so little battery storage should be needed.
We are also embarking on having solar powered street lights that store solar pv energy in a battery at each light to run at night ... ensuring street lights work during power outages.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 02-13-2015 12:06 PM frako has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 66 of 944 (750338)
02-13-2015 4:46 PM


My town and a neighbor put big PV panel farms in the fields next to the transfer station (i.e. on the old dump.)

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 67 of 944 (750377)
02-14-2015 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NoNukes
02-13-2015 9:00 AM


Wow. Yes, I've heard of auto emissions testing. They are not relevant to anything we've been talking about.
Yes they are. And not a single one of the master global warming advocates in this thread have have explained it to you, after 36 hours. Imagine that.
You were supposed to be telling us how billionaires flying in a jet airplane was unfair compared to you being penalized for riding in a car. We were looking for something relevant to global climate change. The answer surely has nothing to do with automobile emission testing.
I outlined it sufficiently. If one person using a jet for personal transportation isn't questioned as unnecessary pollution, then it doesn't make sense for ANY type of much smaller personal transportation to be questioned as pollution that must be addressed by the heavy hand of government.
Secondly, auto emissions testing is about prevention of smog. I'm not aware of any link between emissions testing and global warming. Are you?
ANY human activity involving any type of fuel can be linked to global warming, ANYTHING.
quote:
Our cars and trucks are a major cause of global warming.
Car Emissions & Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists
Is it possible to apply emission control of automobiles for carbon dioxide? No. That is inane.
From the same link:
quote:
Collectively, they [our cars and trucks] account for nearly one-fifth of all U.S. emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About 5 pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissionsmore than 19 pounds per galloncomes right out of a car’s tailpipe.
(my bold)
An ideal combustion of hydrocarbon fuel produces only carbon dioxide and water. It is impossible to prevent the production of carbon dioxide when you burn gas efficiently.
And if it's not "burned efficiently"? As in a 10 year old car? Ban its use? Restrict its use?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 02-13-2015 9:00 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 02-14-2015 9:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 68 of 944 (750378)
02-14-2015 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by frako
02-13-2015 9:15 AM


It all comes down to physics.
Co2 is a greenhouse gas thats a fact we known that for over 100 years.
Mankind has been pumping co2 in to the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. Also a fact.
The logical conclusion is that the earth will get warmer because of those 2 facts. The only thing left to argue about is how hot is it going to get.
The ONLY thing left to argue? There are many more things to argue.
1) What benefits would a slight increase in global warming have?
Page Not Found | Heartland Institute
Forbidden
More usable land, longer growing seasons, less energy required for heat, better health, better safety, etc.
2) How much is the scientific community paid to promote the fear of global warming?
The Cold Truth Initiative
$22 billion annually, in taxpayer money! No wonder Richard Muller acts so happy about it!
In the early 1900's, the Piltdown Man hoax was initiated. It lasted for about 40 years, until 1953, when 3 scientists finally examined and proved it a hoax. AND THAT WAS THE END OF IT. It was the end of it because no political careers were built on it. Science, at that time, wasn't almost fully owned by one political party, one (godless) worldview, or the mainstream news media.
In the early 1990's, the global warming hoax was initiated largely by one man, a liberal Democrat politician by the name of Al Gore. By the year 2000, a lot less than 40 years, a credentialed climatologist by the name of Fred Singer examined it and proved it a hoax, but unlike 50 years earlier, political careers WERE built on it, science IS now owned by one political party, one worldview, and the mainstream news media.
It now doesn't matter what any evidence shows, the global warming hoax will continue to be trumpeted by some for all it's worth, all $22 billion per year. It will buy a lot. The only hope is that with today's communication, the non-mainstream media and internet information sources, that people will slowly wake up, and demand more accountability for their tax money. Question more liberty destroying power grabs in the name of global warming.
It will be interesting to see how it goes in the coming years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by frako, posted 02-13-2015 9:15 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by frako, posted 02-15-2015 8:33 AM marc9000 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 944 (750379)
02-14-2015 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by marc9000
02-14-2015 8:33 PM


I outlined it sufficiently. If one person using a jet for personal transportation isn't questioned as unnecessary pollution, then it doesn't make sense for ANY type of much smaller personal transportation to be questioned as pollution that must be addressed by the heavy hand of government.
You haven't outlined anything.
1) You are conflating pollution with AGW. I know you think both concerns are equal BS, but they aren't the same thing.
2) You are incorrect that jet plane emissions are not controlled. Planes that cannot meet emission control standards are grounded
3) Air plane flights aren't just for billionaires. I am flying to MN and back on Monday-Tuesday.
So what's left, marc9000?
Collectively, they [our cars and trucks] account for nearly one-fifth of all U.S. emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas.
There is no question that burning fuel contributes to such gasses. The problem for your nonsense hypothesis is that we do not, and cannot control the amount of CO2 coming out of a tail pipe using an emission test. Those tests do not monitor carbon dioxide. In fact the tests were intended to control smog.
And if it's not "burned efficiently"? As in a 10 year old car? Ban its use? Restrict its use?
Inefficient cars use more gas, and produce more carbon dioxide, but that gas is not controlled. Carbon monoxide is controlled, but it is also life threatening. But even cars with poor gas mileage need not emit large amounts of Carbon monoxide. And carbon monoxide is not a greenhouse gas.
You missed the point, marc9000. The goal of emission control can never be controlling carbon dioxide. We have to get carbon dioxide when we burn gas. On top of that, 10 year old cars generally have no problem passing emission controls. Up until late last year, I drove a twenty five year old car.
ANY human activity involving any type of fuel can be linked to global warming, ANYTHING.
Making the link from emission controls to corruption is something you have utterly failed to do. Yes there is a component of auto emissions (hydrocarbons) that contributes to global warming and is subject to emission controls. But the purpose for regulating that stuff is to prevent smog.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by marc9000, posted 02-14-2015 8:33 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(4)
Message 70 of 944 (750392)
02-15-2015 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by marc9000
02-14-2015 9:01 PM


OK Lets say everything you wrote is true and the whole global warming is a hoax , or just awsome for mankind. So doing nothing about it is the right call yey.
But if you are wrong humanity will be completely unprepared for the effects of global warming billions die the rest struggle to survive.
Now lets say everything i believe about global warming is true and we act on it, humanity switches to electric cars like the Tesla, we swich from coal plants to liquid thorium plants, or solar plants, or tidal plants, wind farms, we raise the standard on building permits so houses became energy neutral or produce power, smog clears from our cities, less polution also translates to better healthe ....
If i am wrong well gosh darni't we cleaned up our air, and lost our dependency on foreign oil for nothing.
Im willing to risk some smog turned to fresh air for no good reason if i am wrong, you are risking billions of lives.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by marc9000, posted 02-14-2015 9:01 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 02-15-2015 10:07 AM frako has not replied
 Message 73 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2015 9:04 PM frako has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(5)
Message 71 of 944 (750396)
02-15-2015 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by frako
02-15-2015 8:33 AM


quote:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by frako, posted 02-15-2015 8:33 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by NoNukes, posted 02-15-2015 4:16 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 74 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2015 9:08 PM Theodoric has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 944 (750417)
02-15-2015 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Theodoric
02-15-2015 10:07 AM


"moral justification for selfishness"
Nice quote, Theodoric.
Marc9000 calls the empowerment to pee in his neighbors cornflakes, "Freedom".

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 02-15-2015 10:07 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 73 of 944 (750439)
02-15-2015 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by frako
02-15-2015 8:33 AM


OK Lets say everything you wrote is true and the whole global warming is a hoax , or just awsome for mankind. So doing nothing about it is the right call yey.
The Klyoto Protocol was signed into existence. Most new cars worldwide are required to conform to increasingly stringent pollution standards. Power plants are held to increasingly stringent standards. Many things (like those outlined in message 65) are being voluntarily done. Plenty is being done. Why is it never enough? Why are there always calls from the political left to do more, to mandate more of others?
But if you are wrong humanity will be completely unprepared for the effects of global warming billions die the rest struggle to survive.
If global warming was the only threat to mankind, you might have a point. But it's not, many are realistic enough to see that there are other potential problems, like economic meltdowns, terror attacks, wars, you know, things that history tells us can and have happened, and will happen again if identical mistakes are made. Then there are CURRENT, actual problems, like poverty, not only in the U.S. but around the world. History tells us that increasing productivity actually works, in reducing poverty. Redistributing income, reducing productivity, is largely what "doing something" about global warming is all about. It creates more poverty.
Now lets say everything i believe about global warming is true and we act on it, humanity switches to electric cars like the Tesla, we swich from coal plants to liquid thorium plants, or solar plants, or tidal plants, wind farms, we raise the standard on building permits so houses became energy neutral or produce power, smog clears from our cities, less polution also translates to better healthe ....
That would be beautiful in a perfect world. But it's not a perfect world, as the leadership of Cincinnati recently proved all too well.
http://www.fox19.com/...ty-trying-to-sell-350000-paperweight
They bought a really fancy, green garbage truck that was so environmentally friendly! Ooopsy, too bad they weren't prepared to actually be able to use it. People in poverty can ill afford to help inept leadership pay for a $350,000 paperweight. Watch the video, and listen to them giggle as they vote to sell it at a $100,000 loss. Unaccountable leadership tends to care like that when they waste money. No wonder the U.S. is $18 trillion in debt. Some see WASTE of the ever dwindling producers hard work as a bigger threat to society than global warming.
If i am wrong well gosh darni't we cleaned up our air, and lost our dependency on foreign oil for nothing.
Those things can eventually happen due to free market forces, not government mandates.
Im willing to risk some smog turned to fresh air for no good reason if i am wrong, you are risking billions of lives.
"Billions of lives" - that's emotion, there's no evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by frako, posted 02-15-2015 8:33 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by frako, posted 02-16-2015 8:28 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 74 of 944 (750440)
02-15-2015 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Theodoric
02-15-2015 10:07 AM


quote:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
And there's only one thing worse, the search for a superior moral justification to give other people orders, to rule over them, and not be accountable for it if it doesn't work out. History is full of examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 02-15-2015 10:07 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2015 9:35 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 02-15-2015 10:15 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 75 of 944 (750444)
02-15-2015 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by marc9000
02-15-2015 9:08 PM


quote:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
And there's only one thing worse, the search for a superior moral justification to give other people orders, to rule over them, and not be accountable for it if it doesn't work out. History is full of examples.
You're confused -- that is still the conservative (GOP) program.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2015 9:08 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024