Gore's climate claims melt under scrutiny...

So the truth is not good enough for you? You can't stand somebody postulating a situation with "if"? Your criticism is so astonishingly weak that it should be obvious to you that you have nothing left. You're simply wrong.

 

I would remind the poster that truth is what I'm looking for, not something which he describes as a postulate or premice. Take you'r pick they both mean a claim or assurtion of simply an idea. NOT necessarily TRUTH. Get the difference?:thumb:

 

You would be surprised at just how little is obvious to some of these kind folks. Being "wrong" has never stopped them before. It's never a matter of saying, "Wow, I hadn't considered that before.", or "Touche', good one". It's ideology over common sense or logic that matters here. I often feel that this forum is a major waste of time and yet, here I am. You're new here and I don't know how much overt Conservatism you are regularly exposed to but this group tends to lean pretty heavily towards lockstep Conservative values and I don't mean the values that many of us wouldn't have any problems with. I guess that is what attracts me. I would really be bored if I was in a place where everyone agreed with me. I think I'll stay awhile.

 

Now that is an offer that I find hard to refuse. From now on, I'm on your side no matter what old buddy!

 

Nothing works better than the truth, and nothing more is required. I'm all in favor of conserving oil resources, not because there is even a 1 in a million chance that they are causing climate change, because there isn't in my opinion. But oil is a valuable and scarce resource, too valuable to waste on transportation. And your own example shows the uselessness of the global warmists efforts. People will choose a hybrid without government regulations or carbon taxes or marketable carbon credits or artificial carbon limitations to some arbitrarily chosen base year. I think you underestimate the goal of control. I'm sure many rank and file global warmists are convinced of the righteousness of their cause. I'm not so sure that the folks running the show from the top are interested in anything except power, and will manufacture the "science" required to obtain it.

But I always try to be fair in each discussion, so here is one idea I've never heard anyone discuss, although they may have so I won't claim credit for it. I'm fairly certain that in the US, companies that extract and deliver water to commercial and residential customers are not permitted to "own" the water. They can only charge a fee for delivery based on volume. The same concept could be applied to oil. The oil resource could be considered a national resource like water, and oil companies could earn a profit on the refining and delivery based on volume, but never actually own the oil. This arrangement hasn't hampered the water industry and might work in the energy industry too.

 

This time your wrong Cloudy, as out here in the western part of the country they have such things as 'water rights' which are owned by either the property owner of the surface area above the water or else it's a munisapality that has applied for and received water rights. these are generally 'junior' rigths and must be subject to the senior water right owner not needing all the water, before they are allowed to take and use the junior amount. Most of these rights are very expensive and have been subject of some very heated law suits in court. The state of Nebraska and Wyoming just got through going through some litigation on water rights to the flow in the North Plate river. By the time Nebraska get it, most of it has been used several times and run through a purifier and then sent on down stream. So you got a good idea but the method isn't what you though it would be.

 

http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/default.asp

I'm not sure about that Old Dan. This is an example of what I thought to be the case. Utah indicates that water rights are a right to use, not to own. The difference kicks in when you try to resell the water. Maybe it differs by state.

 

But an assertion of fact is truth, and that is precisely what I claim. You say you're bored because Moen keeps saying the same thing... well... he's trying to tell you the truth. It keeps sounding the same to you because facts are facts.

You have been recalcitrant to every piece of data, and every responsible analysis of available information. Your stubbornness seem to be much more than simple skepticism but reeks of self-delusion... like the poor fools who claim the earth is actually flat and that the whole round-earth idea is an elaborate hoax. My question to you is: What would it take to convince you that Global Warming (anthropogenic climate forcing) is actually taking place?

Is there anything that could convince you? Any authority that you respect? Any event that you would recognize? Any information that would seem valid to you? What level of scientific consensus is necessary for you to realize this is real? 90% is not enough for you. How about 99%? Or 99.9%? What if the only holdout is that crazy homeless guy on the corner? Would you still persist in your delusion?

For my part, I am not a "global warmist" but a scientist. That means I believe that science reveals true facts about the world... and current science indicates that global warming is very very real. I will gladly retreat from my assertions of an anthropgenic factor to climate forcing when the IPCC issues a statement showing how all the data turned out to be wrong.

 

I can only attest to Wyoming for sure. I own water rights and can sell, loan, barter or use them for what ever purpose that I choose. The rights that I have were taken out back in 1895 and are senior to most rights around these parts with the exception of the ones the Indians have on the Reservation. Theres were given senior status when the whole system was being made up. I draw royalties from the UPRR for the use of 25% of my rights and have a 50 year arrangenent with them. I can bottle it, sell it, or give it away as I choose. But once in the stream and flowing, I have to allow it to flow on down stream, usless I have a head gate to irrigate down stream. So this I'm sure of and know that we (the state of Wyoming) can't just cut off the down stream flow to Nebraska, Colorado and Utah because we want to. Interstate pacts have been made and must be upheld. Federal law takes over in this case.

 

Old Dan, okay, then I withdraw my suggestion based on your input.

Wow! You've owned those water right since 1895! Alert the media and call Guiness Book of World Records!

 

You had better hold up on that phone call, because it should have been stated that it has been in our family from that date. My Grandfather took it out when he purchased the land from the Federal Government way back in the late 1890's. The water rights went along with the surface rights at that time, and most people never gave it much thought. Now it's something that is included in your will and is valued by almost everyone. Especially the towns and Cities who are always looking for water.

 

Hey OldDan, how about mineral rights if they ever drill for oil or gas. Down in Tx we've (Bro and I) got 840 acres with an additional 840 acres for a total of 1680 acres of mineral rights right in the middle of an oil/gas boom. Leon/Madison counties.

 

Your right Bones, a person has to take these into consideration when it comes time to valuate property. We (my family) had to file a mining claim to be given all title to the minerals and oil etc which were held below the surface rights. The north/eastern part of the state in experiencing gas exploration and drilling of hundreds of well at this time. We have held our's to live stock gazing and nothing else. We run cattle, bufffalo and a small heard of horses on the lower home place. Up in the hills we use it for cattle and buffalo only. No mining or drilling until I'm long gone and turned to dust. I don't care if every Californian has to ride a tricycle to get to work, there will be no drilling on this land.

Texas is a different story, as the wife's folks are all from Fallls couonty and they have wells right out in fromt of their barns down there. Her dad was the one who brought in the first one along about 1946 near Marlin, Tx. been going strong ever since. In fact, that is what he gave us for our wedding present. Our own oil well, hows that for Texas style?

 

Old Dan, it sounds like you're Ben Cartwright living on the Ponderosa.

 

LOL, I know right where Marlin is at, you drive thru Marquez and Kosse (Home of Willie Nelson) on Highway 7 when leaving my folks (Bro & Mine now) house over in Centerville. Small world eh??? BTW, those damn wells smell like sulphur too...

 

If that were only so! Nope, this is just a little layout up here in the hills, with just enough land to keep the neighbors away from building too close. I am relegated to staying out of the way, and helping the cook keep fresh trout in the freezer. Like I tell everone, I spent all my money on beer or women, the rest I just wasted.

 

Old Dan, sounds like a good life.

 

I've seen threads get off topic before but GEEEEEZ!

 

Off-topic indeed!

I'll make an attempt to bring it back and repeat the question posed to Old Dan and which he so adroitly sidestepped:

What would it take to convince you that global warming is real?

 

It's real. Very real and very NATURAL...