Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

All things Rugby
getrucked
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by getrucked »

Your lack of an answer would suggest I was correct - you spout bollox and pretend it is fact.
User avatar
6roucho
Posts: 9504
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Gangly Beehive

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by 6roucho »

getrucked wrote:Your lack of an answer would suggest I was correct - you spout bollox and pretend it is fact.
Mmmmmm.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 37186
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by JM2K6 »

6roucho wrote:
getrucked wrote:
"The fraudsters on Wattsup were pretending more storms were predicted"
Really - I would be genuinely interested for you to show where WUWT pointed fingers at the IPCC in this regard. And genuinely interested for you to also show where WUWT have made fraudulent claims regarding more storms.

Or is it just more of your normal bollox being spouted as 'fact'?
Ikaponthus / Mog, your trolling is become relatively tedious. I say 'relatively' because Bill is here: a master of the art.
getrucked isn't Ika.
getrucked
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by getrucked »

Excellent reply.

I will await your evidence re WUWT and storm reporting - I will make sure that I look in from time to time!
User avatar
6roucho
Posts: 9504
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Gangly Beehive

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by 6roucho »

JM2K6 wrote:
6roucho wrote:
getrucked wrote:
"The fraudsters on Wattsup were pretending more storms were predicted"
Really - I would be genuinely interested for you to show where WUWT pointed fingers at the IPCC in this regard. And genuinely interested for you to also show where WUWT have made fraudulent claims regarding more storms.

Or is it just more of your normal bollox being spouted as 'fact'?
Ikaponthus / Mog, your trolling is become relatively tedious. I say 'relatively' because Bill is here: a master of the art.
getrucked isn't Ika.
Perhaps so. However it's my theory, based on at least a half-dozen data readings. :)

Firstly, Ika and Getrucked referred to each other a couple of time then Ika denied it. Secondly, Getrucked uses Ika's bludgeoning style. Thirdly, when I tried a climate-change pastiche multi it turned out exactly as risible as Getrucked.

Coincidence? I don't think so!
Last edited by 6roucho on Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 37186
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by JM2K6 »

:uhoh:

It's not a guess. Getrucked is an English rugby fan who's been part of these threads for a lot longer than Ika's been on the bored. His main MO in the last couple of years has been one-liners every couple of months about WUWT.

Ika is, well, completely different. And a windbag. So no idea why you'd get that so wrong.
User avatar
6roucho
Posts: 9504
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Gangly Beehive

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by 6roucho »

Okay, maybe I'm wrong. It was an inference.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12475
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Mog The Almighty »

:lol: :lol: :lol: ...6roucho...

Mate ... I rarely bother opening this thread these days, but this is f**king funny shit.

Never mind the fact that (as far as I'm aware), GR and I have totally opposing opinions on this particular topic. Take a look at my post on the previous page, sherlock.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 37186
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by JM2K6 »

6roucho wrote:Okay, maybe I'm wrong. It was an inference.
No maybe about it. It'd be like me claiming that Womack is in fact Sluggy.
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

JM2K6 wrote:
6roucho wrote:Okay, maybe I'm wrong. It was an inference.
No maybe about it. It'd be like me claiming that Womack is in fact Sluggy.

nah. sluggy is way slimmer.
User avatar
Laurent
Posts: 17501
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: balbriggan
Contact:

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Laurent »

Donger wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
6roucho wrote:Okay, maybe I'm wrong. It was an inference.
No maybe about it. It'd be like me claiming that Womack is in fact Sluggy.

nah. sluggy is way sober.
Fixed
User avatar
Laurent
Posts: 17501
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: balbriggan
Contact:

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Laurent »

Donger wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
6roucho wrote:Okay, maybe I'm wrong. It was an inference.
No maybe about it. It'd be like me claiming that Womack is in fact Sluggy.

nah. sluggy is way drunker.
Fixed
User avatar
Sefton
Posts: 15761
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Sefton »

An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."

His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes, and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.

Among those named as key nodes of the network were the American Enterprise Institute, which claims to have no institutional position on climate change, and the Heritage Foundation, which campaigns on a number of issues.

However, Brulle admitted that tracing the funding back to its original sources was difficult, as around three-quarters of the money has been routed through trusts that assure anonymity to their donors.

While it was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said: "This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power."

He added: "They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy."
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/ ... k-exposed/
zzzz
Posts: 6587
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by zzzz »

"It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy."
I think we should all agree that the side spending the most money campaigning on this must be wrong.

Right?
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17605
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Ted. »

Sefton wrote:
An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."

His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes, and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.

Among those named as key nodes of the network were the American Enterprise Institute, which claims to have no institutional position on climate change, and the Heritage Foundation, which campaigns on a number of issues.

However, Brulle admitted that tracing the funding back to its original sources was difficult, as around three-quarters of the money has been routed through trusts that assure anonymity to their donors.

While it was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said: "This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power."

He added: "They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy."
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/ ... k-exposed/
No surprises there, Seft. The world has always been at the beck & call of a few individuals who have the will and the means to impose themselves. The fact that these are some of the most insidious nasty fuckers in human history should not surprise anyone either. What is even more alarming about this current crop of despots, is that they have the means to fudge us all permanent my including themselves and there are still plenty of the little people who will cheer them on blissful in the knowledge that they are on the side of might.
merlin the happy pig
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by merlin the happy pig »

Ted. wrote:
Sefton wrote:
An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."

His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes, and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.

Among those named as key nodes of the network were the American Enterprise Institute, which claims to have no institutional position on climate change, and the Heritage Foundation, which campaigns on a number of issues.

However, Brulle admitted that tracing the funding back to its original sources was difficult, as around three-quarters of the money has been routed through trusts that assure anonymity to their donors.

While it was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said: "This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power."

He added: "They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy."
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/ ... k-exposed/
No surprises there, Seft. The world has always been at the beck & call of a few individuals who have the will and the means to impose themselves. The fact that these are some of the most insidious nasty fuckers in human history should not surprise anyone either. What is even more alarming about this current crop of despots, is that they have the means to fudge us all permanent my including themselves and there are still plenty of the little people who will cheer them on blissful in the knowledge that they are on the side of might.
It might be alarming but it shouldn't be surprising.
They aren't just plum, they are THE plum.
Just beng plum isn't enough to get to their position otherwise they'd be no more powerful than your average mongrel mob filth.
Joe average can be pretty gullible, after all more than 50% of the world believe in sky faries.
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

zzzz wrote:
"It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy."
I think we should all agree that the side spending the most money campaigning on this must be wrong.

Right?

chuckle......who would that be then?

[admires the large pile of poo in front of his feet/]
User avatar
Bill
Posts: 6408
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Bill »

That ice bound research ship trapped in the Antarctic who's passengers are being rescued as we speak - had to laugh at this
Despite being trapped, the scientists continued their experiments, measuring temperature and salinity through cracks in the surrounding ice.

One of the aims was to track how quickly the Antarctic's sea ice was disappearing.
Not as rapidly as they had estimated apparently
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17605
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Ted. »

Failed doubters trust leaves taxpayers at loss

STEVE KILGALLON
Last updated 05:00 12/01/2014

A group of climate-change doubters has left the taxpayer at a substantial six-figure loss after its trust was liquidated following a failed High Court battle with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).

A three-year court case over NIWA's recording of historic temperature data ended last year when the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust's final appeal foundered. It was ordered to pay NIWA $89,000 in costs after losing the original case; the appeals court then made another costs order, with the amount yet to be finalised.

The trust didn't pay the first amount, and last month NIWA pursued liquidation, but a trustee has confirmed the trust has no money.

NIWA chief executive John Morgan said it was still considering pursuing two of the trust's key players - former wine journalist Terry Dunleavy, a Justice of the Peace and MBE, and retired lawyer Barry Brill, a former National MP - for the money, but was waiting for the liquidation process to finish.

He added: "On the surface it looks like the trust was purely for the purpose of taking action, which is not what one would consider the normal use of a charitable trust".

NIWA gained an increase on the normal scale used to award costs. Morgan said he "suspected the judge [did that because] he think the merits of their accusations way below a basic threshold".

The trust's deed said its purpose was "promotion of enlightened awareness and understanding of climate [and other environmental issues", research and exchange of ideas.

Trustee Bryan Leyland, when asked about its assets, said: "To my knowledge, there is no money. We spent a large amount of money on the court case, there were some expensive legal technicalities."

Funding had come "from a number of source, which are confidential".

Dunleavey referred calls to Brill, who did not respond to calls.

Both Judge Venning and the Court of Appeal dismissed the trust's claim that it was in the "public interest" to challenge government departments, partly because the trust refused to back up some of its arguments.

The Ministry of Business, Employment and Industry wouldn't comment until liquidator Anthony Pullan's report on January 17.

- © Fairfax NZ News
I say, name and shame the rest of the profligate plum, then slap the lot of them in irons chained to the Cuba fountain before exiling them to Kiribati. :frown:
User avatar
waguser
Posts: 12986
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by waguser »

Bill wrote:Let me guess - they also predicted the unprecedented levels of ice coverage in the Antarctic also!

I can plainly recall them stating, 'polar ice caps, we will see record levels of ice coverage, more ice than ever seen before, no sign of melting there, the exact opposite in fact, Antarctic levels of ice cover will INCREASE dramatically'
Area of sea ice at antarctic is increaseing
But Volume of land ice is decreasing

you work out why that's a problem


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet
User avatar
Waratah
Posts: 4712
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Straya c**ts.

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Waratah »

getrucked wrote:Excellent reply.

I will await your evidence re WUWT and storm reporting - I will make sure that I look in from time to time!
Only an idiot would cite WUWT/Anthony Watts as a reliable source of information on climate change.
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries
SourceWatch
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Silver »

Ted. wrote:
Sefton wrote:
An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."

His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes, and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.

Among those named as key nodes of the network were the American Enterprise Institute, which claims to have no institutional position on climate change, and the Heritage Foundation, which campaigns on a number of issues.

However, Brulle admitted that tracing the funding back to its original sources was difficult, as around three-quarters of the money has been routed through trusts that assure anonymity to their donors.

While it was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said: "This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power."

He added: "They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy."
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/ ... k-exposed/
No surprises there, Seft. The world has always been at the beck & call of a few individuals who have the will and the means to impose themselves. The fact that these are some of the most insidious nasty fuckers in human history should not surprise anyone either. What is even more alarming about this current crop of despots, is that they have the means to fudge us all permanent my including themselves and there are still plenty of the little people who will cheer them on blissful in the knowledge that they are on the side of might.
Were you having a bad day Ted
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

interesting. Fed is thinking of making natural gas producers pay royalties on the gas they flare, which has been estimated to be as much as 25%.

:lol:

the free market.......
bimboman
Posts: 67467
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by bimboman »

Donger wrote:interesting. Fed is thinking of making natural gas producers pay royalties on the gas they flare, which has been estimated to be as much as 25%.

:lol:

the free market.......

Well It seems sensible to force producers to use the most of an asset rather than waste them. Why would you object ? :?
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

bimboman wrote:
Donger wrote:interesting. Fed is thinking of making natural gas producers pay royalties on the gas they flare, which has been estimated to be as much as 25%.

:lol:

the free market.......

Well It seems sensible to force producers to use the most of an asset rather than waste them. Why would you object ? :?

who is objecting?

apart from the producers.

my point is that it is amazing that they have got away with it for so long, and that it shows a classic breakdown in the free market that requires a shepherding to achieve what it is supposed to achieve.


honestly, Bimbo, you could try being a little less contrarian and reactionary. :nod:
zzzz
Posts: 6587
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by zzzz »

Donger wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Donger wrote:interesting. Fed is thinking of making natural gas producers pay royalties on the gas they flare, which has been estimated to be as much as 25%.

:lol:

the free market.......

Well It seems sensible to force producers to use the most of an asset rather than waste them. Why would you object ? :?

who is objecting?

apart from the producers.

my point is that it is amazing that they have got away with it for so long, and that it shows a classic breakdown in the free market that requires a shepherding to achieve what it is supposed to achieve.


honestly, Bimbo, you could try being a little less contrarian and reactionary. :nod:

Hmm. Govt fucks up royalty scheme. Free market to blame. Riiighht.
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

zzzz wrote:
Donger wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Donger wrote:interesting. Fed is thinking of making natural gas producers pay royalties on the gas they flare, which has been estimated to be as much as 25%.

:lol:

the free market.......

Well It seems sensible to force producers to use the most of an asset rather than waste them. Why would you object ? :?

who is objecting?

apart from the producers.

my point is that it is amazing that they have got away with it for so long, and that it shows a classic breakdown in the free market that requires a shepherding to achieve what it is supposed to achieve.


honestly, Bimbo, you could try being a little less contrarian and reactionary. :nod:

Hmm. Govt fucks up royalty scheme. Free market to blame. Riiighht.

:lol:

you too, ZZZZZ.
zzzz
Posts: 6587
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by zzzz »

Donger wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Donger wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Donger wrote:interesting. Fed is thinking of making natural gas producers pay royalties on the gas they flare, which has been estimated to be as much as 25%.

:lol:

the free market.......

Well It seems sensible to force producers to use the most of an asset rather than waste them. Why would you object ? :?

who is objecting?

apart from the producers.

my point is that it is amazing that they have got away with it for so long, and that it shows a classic breakdown in the free market that requires a shepherding to achieve what it is supposed to achieve.


honestly, Bimbo, you could try being a little less contrarian and reactionary. :nod:

Hmm. Govt fucks up royalty scheme. Free market to blame. Riiighht.

:lol:

you too, ZZZZZ.

Ah - the "brazen it out" approach.
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

zzzz wrote:
Donger wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Donger wrote:
bimboman wrote:

Well It seems sensible to force producers to use the most of an asset rather than waste them. Why would you object ? :?

who is objecting?

apart from the producers.

my point is that it is amazing that they have got away with it for so long, and that it shows a classic breakdown in the free market that requires a shepherding to achieve what it is supposed to achieve.


honestly, Bimbo, you could try being a little less contrarian and reactionary. :nod:

Hmm. Govt fucks up royalty scheme. Free market to blame. Riiighht.

:lol:

you too, ZZZZZ.

Ah - the "brazen it out" approach.

dude, I won't have a crack at you for not reading the entire post...just what you needed to have a crack at me.....

;)
zzzz
Posts: 6587
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by zzzz »

dude, I won't have a crack at you for not reading the entire post...just what you needed to have a crack at me.....
So what's your point?
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

zzzz wrote:
dude, I won't have a crack at you for not reading the entire post...just what you needed to have a crack at me.....
So what's your point?
read the post. see the bit about being amazed that they got away with it so long?

do I actually need to spell it out?

as I said, you could try being less contrarian and reactionary.
bimboman
Posts: 67467
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by bimboman »

Donger wrote:
zzzz wrote:
dude, I won't have a crack at you for not reading the entire post...just what you needed to have a crack at me.....
So what's your point?
read the post. see the bit about being amazed that they got away with it so long?

do I actually need to spell it out?

as I said, you could try being less contrarian and reactionary.

Or you should stop trying to tie everything in with your view of a "free market" and regulation ..... It seems sensible to force better engineering of finite resources.
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

bimboman wrote:
Donger wrote:
zzzz wrote:
dude, I won't have a crack at you for not reading the entire post...just what you needed to have a crack at me.....
So what's your point?
read the post. see the bit about being amazed that they got away with it so long?

do I actually need to spell it out?

as I said, you could try being less contrarian and reactionary.

Or you should stop trying to tie everything in with your view of a "free market" and regulation ..... It seems sensible to force better engineering of finite resources.

agreed. In fact, if you had not jumped the gun and made your tourettic response, you would have taken a milli-second to reflect on the fact that that has been my almost singular attitude to carbon resources on every thread on the subject.

not entirely sure where, apart from some preconceived notion, you get the impression that I disagree.

it's a complete feckup, IMO, that they have been flaring up to 27% (according to some sources), of the resource. a complete waste. and a knowing one.

it's a complete feckup that no-one knew.

and that no-one has done anything about it.

it all ties in nicely with the anti-regulation/anti-government stuff I hear around the traps in Washington. you may not get that sitting in your little piece of heaven.

:o
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

incidentally, it is the landowners that are suing.

:lol:

so, free enterprise works, as does the legal profession.

:thumbup:
bimboman
Posts: 67467
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by bimboman »

not entirely sure where, apart from some preconceived notion, you get the impression that I disagree.
Preconceived idea ? I asked a question on your view and you answered it. Looks like most of the preconception was yours.

And thanks for pointing out how much more you know.
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

bimboman wrote:
not entirely sure where, apart from some preconceived notion, you get the impression that I disagree.
Preconceived idea ? I asked a question on your view and you answered it. Looks like most of the preconception was yours.

And thanks for pointing out how much more you know.

sure you did...... :nod:
Well It seems sensible to force producers to use the most of an asset rather than waste them. Why would you object ? :?
Or you should stop trying to tie everything in with your view of a "free market" and regulation ..... It seems sensible to force better engineering of finite resources.
anyhoo..... :thumbdown: not sure what your gratuitous second remark means, to be honest.
bimboman
Posts: 67467
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by bimboman »

:? , is a question after a question mark, you could have just replied oh I don't object. That would have cleared things up nicely,

:thumbup:

And the second remark is following you laughing at the free market when the issue either before the change or after isn't a free market issue. So I don't actually get your drift at all.
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

bimboman wrote::? , is a question after a question mark, you could have just replied oh I don't object. That would have cleared things up nicely,

:thumbup:

:lol:

playing the victim nicely.

you know what you were intimating.

and I simply played a straight bat back at you.

:thumbup:
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by Donger »

bimboman wrote::? , is a question after a question mark, you could have just replied oh I don't object. That would have cleared things up nicely,

:thumbup:

And the second remark is following you laughing at the free market when the issue either before the change or after isn't a free market issue. So I don't actually get your drift at all.

perhaps, then, you should read up on it and see why they are being sued, and why they are flaring.

:thumbup:
bimboman
Posts: 67467
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Post by bimboman »

Donger wrote:
bimboman wrote::? , is a question after a question mark, you could have just replied oh I don't object. That would have cleared things up nicely,

:thumbup:

And the second remark is following you laughing at the free market when the issue either before the change or after isn't a free market issue. So I don't actually get your drift at all.

perhaps, then, you should read up on it and see why they are being sued, and why they are flaring.

:thumbup:

Not really that interested, and anyway I'm sure you'll post it here eventually between the spite.
Locked