Questions for Conserative/libertarians after Harvey.

Stop acting intentionally dense.

It does not make your position any stronger.

 

I haven't stated a position besides no liking VOX.

 

Just assume that he means anthropogenic climate change when he says climate change and he is referring to all of the core tenets of the ACC religion.

 

Really, if I go back and look at all the threads on climate change, your telling me I won't find your position on climate change.

This is what you are implying. Is that correct?

 

no im stating i haven't given a position in this thread. IF your below statement is referring to a position I posted previously in my many years in this forum, then you need to state what position that is.

 

Tell you what, why don't we just save time and you tell us your position.

 

I think the climate changes and human behavior is one variable that affects it. I think I am in line with the entire scientific community.

 

Right, now keep going to the political position regarding potential actions around climate change.

 

depends on the action. generally Im against wealth redistribution and loss of liberties.

 

Are you generally against catastrophic weather events or is it more of a staunch position?

 

I think what you are trying to ask is am I for wealth transfer and loss of liberties if it leads to less catastrophic weather. Depends on how much, what alternatives exist, and the proof you have it will reduce catastrophic weather events.

 

Never mentioned anything about wealth transfer or loss of liberties.

I asked if you were generally against catastrophic weather events or if it was more of a firm position.

 

LOL "are you against catastrophic weather events?"

C'mon man, that's ridiculous, EVERYONE is against bad things happening, the options are not either support policy X (that won't really prevent catastrophic weather events in any meaningful way) or support catastrophic weather events.

Do you support murder? If not then you want to ban ice cream sales because the more ice cream is sold, the more murders there are.

 

thats what you want to ask me? am I against catastrophic weather events?

 

No, I asked about the strength of your catastrophic weather event position, whether you were "firmly" against it, or if it was more of just a general position.

Unfortunately, your forum communication style requires these short direct questions in succession, one built upon the next, to have an honest exchange of ideas. It prevents you from hiding from the issues by using your two favorite techniques:

1.) Vaguely using libertarian creedo's as a general response.
2.) Acting intentionally dense.

It's just a series of simple honest questions to get to the core of Tallanvor. This shouldn't concern you if feel your positions are strongly supported. However, if by chance, you know you are full of ****, I would guess you will quickly find a way to exit the conversation.

 

lol. He does this all the time, and I don't even think its on purpose anymore.

 

then i answered your question:

Whether I would support legislation to reduce catastrophic weather events depends on how much loss of wealth/liberties, what alternatives exist, and the proof you have it will reduce catastrophic weather events. This is the exact same position as everyone in the country,

 

Harvey was unlikely caused by climate change.

That Harvey dumped as much rain as it did was partly due to climate change. Did Houston get 3 more inches because of climate change, or 10 more inches? No one will ever know. But the fact is there is a lot more moisture in the air to fuel these systems and more fuel = more fire.

 

Do not waste your time on that one my friend.

 

There are a few here who are very disingenuous with their arguments. Only a flat earther idiot like Irving would believe climate change is a hoax. Intermingling 'climate change' and ACC/AGW is disingenuous.

The fact is a tropical storm sitting over the 4th largest MSA for a week is the key reason. A close second reason is the massive urban spawl. Climate change, AWG or not, is really irrelevant.