Putting a dollar value on life is not mutually exclusive with supporting a stronger welfare state. All that is requires is that you accept that there is some point in which it is not worth spending money to save more lives, otherwise you're forced to say "yes" to funding a surgery that would cost $1 trillion and have a 0.00001% chance of saving a patient's life.

So long as the negativity externalities of fossil fuels are incorporated into prices and property rights are secure, there is no need for any further government intervention.

Straw... construct?

The Ed show is not exactly must see TV.

The "omg value of life!!!" posts, while i agree mostly, are kind of nauseating in how they're phrased. You're probably posting from an ipad that was assembled by a twelve y/o chinese kid making a quarter a day, so don't act like you're so enlightened when basically every facet of our modern, comfortable existence requires some form of human suffering. You'd never accept the alternative.

I would have to dig back through my posts but I think I even pointed out that this is essentially true at one point. As to accepting alternatives, and I assure you there is more than one, I am quite confident that we could limit human suffering while still creating comfort and convenience, though probably a little less of both.

What you are basically doing here is saying I am being hypocritical. I disagree, and here is why: this is the system we have right now. The only two choices a person has is to take part in the system or not. I choose, and I think it is the most useful choice, to both take part in the system and to work for incremental change within the system. Because I assure you that people who choose not to take part in the system have no voice or ability to affect societal change.

The post where Redbean "admits he's a shill"

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=206

And then later in in the thread

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=210

Redbean is a black former baseball player with an interest in defending a black former baseball player. If you're calling what he did being a shill, your definition is pointlessly broad.

.

While Redbean won't publivally disclose who he is. The was no attempt to hide his background and motivations.

Lol Dids. Maybe read that first quote of yours again? He admitted to targeting multiple websites hoping to change the opinion of a bunch of people out of his and his "fraternities" own self interest. It's like the very definition of a shill.

From Dictionary.com:
More from Wikipedia:

In the context of this forum, the label "shill" should be reserved for someone who's actually getting paid to post or hawking a product made by a company they work for.

But guys, he said he wasn't a shill.

And within the context of this conversation/suzzer's obsession, it's clearly about paid shills.

Is a shill somebody who visits a lot of websites to correct misinformation about his friend? Because that's another totally correct way to frame his actions.

Even without following any of the Bonds-related threads, I knew who he was and why he was here. No one has suggested that he misrepresented that, which seems the most important part.

TTHRIC imo. We're talking about red bean.

Redbean is a great arguer and all, and I sincerely commend his efforts, but Bonds cheated.

FYP obv.

But sure, if you want to redefine what the word "shill" means, and while you're at it redefine the whole reason for him being here, then yeah, I guess RB wasn't a shill.

Hey brainiacs, guess where all the CO2 is coming from. Its not our factories and SUVs or even cow butts. Thats not where most of it is to begin with. It is dissolved in the ocean.

SO much so, that if the average ocean temp raises by .1 degree, it will release Millions, probably billions of tons of CO2.

While it may have some causative capacity, CO2 is much more an EFFECT of temp rise.

Good to see all these CO2 graphs in the politards forum, as much as people want to call it science, we all know it is just more politics.

Key to understanding Redbean's approach is that he never argued that Bonds didn't cheat.

He argued that the evidence presented didn't prove that he did (both because the proof is not there, and because even if you could prove he didn't, at the time it wasn't actually against the rules). This is born out by the fact that the only thing they ever hung on Bonds was a joke of an obstruction charge.

To me, that's part of why I think "shill" is a really poor way to frame it. There was no dishonesty, no manipulation, just facts. The only place where opinion came into play was his assessment of the folks running the investigation and their personal feelings about Bonds).

Ikes graph points out that the predictive value of climate models to this point is nil. When this happens the model is not modeling the behavior correctly ldo.

USA co2 emissions have declined
12% between 2005-2012 and are at their lowest level since 1994. They have fallen in other countries like Germany, Japan, Canada, UK as well as Europe in the aggregate. Russia, China and India co2 emissions have risen during this same period. Obviously the rate of change in co2 emissions is quite favorable in countries where it is falling. In China, India and Russia not so much.

Are there any other already-debunked falsehoods you'd like to peddle?

Wtf is climate chage?

Thread title: Re: Climate Chage

Yeah, forget about climate chage... we need some title chage up ITT !!1!1

Bonds wasn't proven a cheater like OJ wasn't proven a murderer

Title chaged.

Ok how about "lawyer for the defense and friend posing as non-biased observer who just wants to see justice carried out fairly"? Does that work better for you than shill?

The key point is that most of us are at least ostensibly seeking the truth when we argue on these forums. RedBean was always playing the role of advocate, although that certainly was not made clear from the beginning. And even when it became painfully obvious he was simply playing lawyer for the defense, plenty of posters like you still refused to acknowledge it.

Fast forward to RedBean admitting his posts were made because was a friend with an agenda - and you breathlessly switch over to "We'll duh, we all knew he was an advocate all this time, he never lied".

Who even cares that much about the evidence? That topic is a distant 3rd or 4th behind whether Bonds actually did roids (duh) and how should he be judged because of that. I know I can dig up posts (by you even?) where RedBean had people questioning if Bonds even did roids, not whether or not there was evidence to convict.

The atmospheric increase in CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels (and, to a lesser extent, the destruction of terrestrial carbon sinks through deforestation).

We know this because the isotope ratios of the atmosphere and ocean have changed. They have changed in a direction indicating that vegetation is the source of the additional carbon.

We know the ocean is the not the source because ocean CO2 levels are rising.

Further, the burning of fossil fuels is known to produce CO2. When we add up how much has been burned we find close to half has ended up in the atmosphere. The rest has gone into the ocean or carbon sinks.
Possible. Not on this time scale.

It can be and has been in the past. Not this time.

Right.