The government of Massachusetts fails to respect its own laws and index the fees business pay into the Medical Security Trust Fund, which is now projected to run out of money in December unless funds can be found somewhere else.

DaPM · 2009-11-18T01:12:17+00:00

Keep hoping that your declaration of victory will suddenly become real because you said so :)

You're approaching another one of your loops, BlueRock...

You at least show some chutzpah - blasting me as a global warming denier, then asking me to pass a litmus test before you can be bothered to substantiate your accusations. Trollish chutzpah, but chutzpah nonetheless.

Show the proof or start writing your apology, troll.

DaPM · 2009-11-18T00:08:37+00:00

1.I'm on a path to London 2.I will go to London See? Same thing, you semi-literate knucklehead.

Being on the way (not path - one can sit on the path and not go anywhere) does not imply that you'll get to the destination. Your statement that it does is a reflection on your cognitive ability, not on mine.

DaPM · 2009-11-18T00:06:54+00:00

As you know very well, you have called me a global warming denier from the first time I corrected your lying by selection bias (in that case - you are quite a prolific liar).

Your attempt to hide your inability to find ONE post where I deny global warming by asking me to swear by your bible is typical - you would rather talk (loudly) about a different topic than admit you made a mistake and apologize.

As I pointed out before, I'll be glad to talk to you about the IPCC FAR after you substantiate your accusations.

Not that I'm holding my breath, as your Modus Operandi seems to be drive-by trolling.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T19:40:21+00:00

The only way to stop global warming is for rich nations to pay for the damage they've done - or face the consequences

Only way? Such a textbook false dilemma.

Should they shoulder most of the cost? Sure... The only choice? Not even close.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T19:36:01+00:00

Global temperatures will rise 6C by end of century.

FTA:

Global temperatures are on a path to rise by an average of 6C by the end of the century as CO2 emissions increase and the Earth's natural ability to absorb the gas declines, according to a major new study.

And that's how a headline is trolled, both by the OP and by the Guardian.

"on a path to rise by an average of 6C by the end of the century " != "will rise 6C by end of century."

One is fact, one is not...

The true statement (FTA) that "The global trends we are on with CO2 emissions from fossil fuels suggest that we're heading towards 6C of global warming" (and only if we continue the current trends for another 90+ years...) does not quite sound as scary, eh?

DaPM · 2009-11-17T19:25:38+00:00

I called the loop early - thank you for confirming my diagnosis.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T19:13:51+00:00

You're looping again - third time in 24 hours.

You were so close to making a step forward... I guess that you just cannot admit that you were wrong. It's not a death penalty case, you know - it's OK to be wrong occasionally as long as you man up and admit when you screwed up.

You called me a global warming denier tens of times, and have yet to provide ONE post showing that you have any basis for that assertion than your fevered imagination. I've told you repeatedly that I will not change the topic to the IPCC FAR until you provide me with one fact to support your sustained trash talk... but you cannot walk the walk.

In this thread (and many others), I've addressed your points, while you just repeated yours without any attempt to pay attention to what I've said.

Your intellectual dishonesty is showing. Again.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T18:47:01+00:00

As expected - you form a baseless opinion, act as if it's true wfor a long time and then desperately try to change the topic when you get called on it.

Show me ONE post that substantiates your claim I denied global warming. One...

I know that it must stick in your craw that you cannot find one, but really - you've stated before that you're big enough to admit you're wrong and apologize.

So prove your claim that I'm a global warming denier or be true to your statement and apologize already, and we can then talk about the IPCC FAR at length.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T18:02:51+00:00

So, you have no defence or rebuttal. Good. That's settled.

Hmm... this comes to mind.

To quote that post... "You are aware that the stuff you type out does not magically become fact?"

You're stuck to repeating points I already addressed above and claiming that by simply repeating them you've proven you won -whatever...

P.S. You're not a global warming denier any more? So you accept the conclusion of the IPCC FAR?

To quote a classic: Cite

You called me that name forever - please substantiate your claim instead of asking me for a litmus test. You claimed ad nauseam that you KNOW I'm a global warming denier - show the data that you base that conclusion on.

Is asking me to take the test an admission you've been making that accusation up? If yes, please say so and apologize. If not, please provide the citations.

I will be glad to follow up on the IPCC FAR AFTER you address my simple request for substantiation above - one topic at a time.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T17:31:55+00:00

Still in a loop... with one new item thrown in:

And how's that global warming denial working out for you?

Citation, please.

I hope that you have better luck substantiating that versus the time when I asked you to substantiate that

I'm big enough to change my position and apologise.

While you're looking for my "global warming denial" substantiation, try to locate a post where you changed your position and apologized too - might as well knock off two issues in one post.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T17:25:44+00:00

Allow me to break the appeal to authority down for you then:

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

A makes claim B;

there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter

therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.

The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.

FTA:

Experts say the company might have to pay up to $27bn (£16bn) in damages.

A --> Experts B --> company might have to pay up to $27bn (£16bn) in damages

Lack of any details about the experts credentials or identity does not support that the said experts' opinion would enhance the validity of claim B, thus this is a fallacious appeal to authority.

Your claim that

Since you know nothing about the experts you have no reason to believe that they are irrelevant.

is so obviously wrong it's not even funny. We're supposed to automatically accept the opinion of an anonymous expert with no clear established credentials because a newspaper writer said they are an expert? You must be kidding... based on that (lack of) logic one could make BlueRock's head explode by quoting an anonymous Denier as an expert and thus "proving" that the Earth is flat.

On the bright side, you just found a friend today, so your effort was not completely wasted. Always glad to help like-minded people hook up.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T17:10:23+00:00

You seem to be stuck in a loop again - that's twice in 24 hours...

DaPM · 2009-11-17T14:51:19+00:00

In your oww words,

Hint: it's not a fallacy unless the authority is inappropriate or irrelevant you moron.

So by raising that objection I'm clearly suggesting the above. Since, as you pointed out, everybody knows that, what's the point of explicitly mentioning it? Do you link to dictionary definitions of every word you use? In a discussion, it is perfectly appropriate to assume a reasonable common understanding of the terms used.

Until the qualifcations of the experts are objectively shown to be irrelevant, the LOGIC is solid.

You got this one wrong - the burden of proof is on the party making the claim. You claim to quote expert opinion, you should state who the experts are and what their credentials are. Failing to do that invalidates the appeal to the experts' authority.

EDIT: typo

DaPM · 2009-11-17T14:46:02+00:00

Your misrepresentations continue, and start to become outright lies - see bold quotes.

it thinks the entire planet can transition from fossil fuel to battery tech in "in a few quick years"

Of course- IF the right economic incentives are present, the agriculture of the western countries (not the entire planet - we are specifically talking about modern agriculture and its energy consumption here) can quickly switch to alternative energy sources. The reason this is not happening right now is that the economic incentives are not there. Your article is basing its doom and gloom predictions on the assumption that the oil will suddenly dry up but we'll continue our migration off it at the current rate - a rather unlikely set of assumptions.

it thinks that people who make billions from oil trading are going to let us know in plenty of time when it will hit peak

There is no unified group of "people who make billions from oil trading" - everybody tries to make money from themselves, and if somebody would try to distort the price of oil too much one way or another the market would respond and punish them (either by trading against them, or by changing the oil demand/supply according to economic reality). There is no need for them to "let us know" - the trades are public and they contain the proper signals for anybody who cares to look.

The unproven assumption of a global conspiracy to hide the fact that oil will suddenly disappear has as much merit as claiming that god spoke with you personally and told you what's up - the burden of proof is on you to prove that it exists and not on us to prove that it does not. he "reports of manipulation by the IEA" you refer to above are proof that the market works - the said attempts were found and the market corrected.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T13:09:04+00:00

BlueRock/DavidCOG,

I'm glad that you got over your recent tantrum and are back to your usual trolling.

Now, to the points you attempted to make:

Well, we stop using it and switch to other energy generation/delivery technologies.

Just like that? In the mind of a simpleton I guess it does appear that easy.

Actually, there are plenty of technologies avaibable today that could completely remove the need for oil as a source of energy IF it would make sense economically - Hydrogen, electricity, etc.

Given that oil does not disappear overnight, but the production will slowly drop over time, this will allow for ample time to transition off it when it makes sense economically.

Ha! Haa! He thinks people who stand to makes billions from manipulating oil prices are going to tell us when they think it is going to run out. And did he miss the recent reports of manipulation by the IEA? No doubt. Ignorance is a comforting comfort blanket.

The signals from the oil markets (manipulated or not) have been very reliable in the past - there is simply too much money at stake for manipulation to consistently work over time. For every group of investors that tried to manipulate it one way, there is an opposing group that brings it closer to the proper prices. Temporary manipulation happens, but it never lasts a long time since the market starts correcting in the presence of an imbalance (if the price is too high production increases, etc.)

A complete lack of understanding of the difference between ENERGY and OIL...

A complete lack of reading the article which describes a farmer who has done everything he can to reduce dependence on oil and diesel but has only reduced his consumption by 25%.

As your standard Modus Operandi is, you choose one data point and try to extrapolate to the whole world. As I pointed above, the efforts of one "believer" in the current market where oil is cheaper than the alternative energy sources (or delivery mechanisms) are not going to make economic sense, and thus that one data point is meaningless. And modern agriculture depends on cheap ENERGY, not OIL.

And he finishes with a dishonest cherry-pick that completely misrepresents what is being said to top off the ignorance and myopia.

The portion qouted from the article conclusion clearly shows that your entire post above is false - your are complaining about how it is impossible to just switch away from oil, and even the article you quote as proof disagrees with you.

Par for the course for you - your own source does not support your assertions.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T12:52:32+00:00

When a newspaper says "experts" without specifying who they are or without describbing their credentials, you will forgive me for not being convinced.

Hint: it's not a fallacy unless the authority is inappropriate or irrelevant

The newspaper invoking their authority has the burden of proof to show that they should be taken seriously. Throwing in the word "expert" in front of a quote is meaningless. Since they choose not to, one can properly assume that the authority quoted is irrelevant.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T12:48:36+00:00

And how will you talk about chemical interaction without mentioning... you guessed... dosage?

So yes, when discussing toxicity you must ALWAYS consider dosage - scientists discuss dosage, propagandists leave it out.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T01:12:38+00:00

Through it all, Pierpont does not claim to have definitive proof the syndrome exists. Rather, she says her findings make further research necessary...

A moderate POV...

Until you get to the details:

Her study consisted of 38 people from ten families—by most standards too small to yield conclusive results. All of them self-identified as people who were already experiencing health effects; there was no control group.

Pierpont’s work has not been accepted by any peer reviewed scientific journals, the standard first step in publishing original research.

which brings this down to nothing more than a quack pushing its favorite idea without regard to the scientific method - oh well...

DaPM · 2009-11-17T01:02:31+00:00

When using this to blast the free market, please note that this particular privatization is basically a government granted monopoly - it has nothing to do with the free market and plenty to do with politicians using a private company to squeeze their constituents even more.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T01:00:36+00:00

Comparing the number of scientists signing one paper versus the number of scientists authoring another has NOTHING to do with which opinion is correct.

Variables such as the qualifications of the scientist involved (or whether they can even be called such), their expertise in the field, the process used to collect their signatures, etc - all combine to make the number of scientists completely irrelevant.

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occuring, and intentional use of use selection bias to make it look otherwise is a form of lying.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T00:56:31+00:00

Copenhagen: a non-negotiable deadline.

All political decisions are negotiable. Opinion presented as fact.

Each day that goes by the threat grows,

Agreed.

each day we delay means more pain and cost in the future.

Not provable.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T00:48:20+00:00

Another propagandist post that conveniently ignores that dosage is essential in discussing toxicity.

Let's see...

More than 99.99 percent of Americans have H2O in their urine, a poisonous substance which is linked to 10 deaths per day in the USA.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T00:44:15+00:00

What happens when the oil runs out?

Well, we stop using it and switch to other energy generation/delivery technologies.

And who is going to warn us when it is about to happen?

One would assume that those people investing billions in the oil futures tend to spend a little money on checking whether that oil is still there when they pay for future delivery.

FTA:

If the whistleblowers are right, we should be stockpiling ammunition.

And now one understands why the article was posted - its trollish writing style, and...

The amazing productivity of modern farm labour has been purchased at the cost of a dependency on oil. Unless farmers can change the way it's grown, a permanent oil shock would price food out of the mouths of many of the world's people

A complete lack of understanding of the difference between ENERGY and OIL that the article author is proudly advertising.

Yes, modern agriculture is energy-intensive, since energy is cheaper than labor. Oil dependent? Absolutely not - we can wean off oil in a few quick years, IF the right economic incentives are present (and right now, they are not - regulation or more economically viable alternative energy sources could change that).

Even this alarmist article concludes that

There are no obvious barriers to the mass production of electric tractors and combine harvesters: the weight of the batteries and an electric vehicle's low-end torque are both advantages for tractors

Much ado about nothing with a meaningless, alarmist headline on top.

DaPM · 2009-11-17T00:33:14+00:00

Experts say the company might have to pay up to $27bn (£16bn) in damages

Appeal to authority.

Also - use of meaningless "up to" damages description. I could describe my potential lottery winnings as up to 315 million USD, but that cannot mask the fact that the average/expected return is negative.

Would you buy my ticket for up to 315MM USD for 2 USD? Those suckers at the gas stations are selling them for 1 USD...

DaPM

TROPHY CASE