Hey, Kuzi, I can totally get on board with a flat tax without loopholes, and a whole pile of tax incentives for productive/constructive behavior... Either method gets you to the same place. If you start with a low base tax, and then institute additional taxes based on bad behavior, you will factor out to the same amount as a large base tax, with incentives based on good behavior.
Yes, I will disagree in the fact that his results are tainted and have no bearing what-so-ever... Corruption is wrong on either side.
But you don't KNOW that he's corrupt.. All you see is that it's not entirely 100% unanimous. He doesn't publish his results and say, "by the way, I am being fed millions by Big Oil to say this even though it's not true"... How do you know that 3% of climatologists aren't being fed money by Big Oil? You're instead deciding to believe no less than 47% of climatologists are corrupt, rather than 3%. That makes no sense!
Yes, I will disagree in the fact that his results are tainted and have no bearing what-so-ever... Corruption is wrong on either side.
But you don't KNOW that he's corrupt.. All you see is that it's not entirely 100% unanimous. He doesn't publish his results and say, "by the way, I am being fed millions by Big Oil to say this even though it's not true"... How do you know that 3% of climatologists aren't being fed money by Big Oil? You're instead deciding to believe no less than 47% of climatologists are corrupt, rather than 3%. That makes no sense!
Yes it does make sense because never once have I said that I am certain there is no link between man and Global Warming, there is no proof of it though. I believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Prove to me without a doubt that we are causing Global Warming. I believe as Kuzi and I have both stated that there should be no legislation punishing people for global warming when there is no definate proof that we are causing it.
Yes, I will disagree in the fact that his results are tainted and have no bearing what-so-ever... Corruption is wrong on either side.
But you don't KNOW that he's corrupt.. All you see is that it's not entirely 100% unanimous. He doesn't publish his results and say, "by the way, I am being fed millions by Big Oil to say this even though it's not true"... How do you know that 3% of climatologists aren't being fed money by Big Oil? You're instead deciding to believe no less than 47% of climatologists are corrupt, rather than 3%. That makes no sense!
Yes it does make sense because never once have I said that I am certain there is no link between man and Global Warming, there is no proof of it though. I believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Prove to me without a doubt that we are causing Global Warming. I believe as Kuzi and I have both stated that there should be no legislation punishing people for global warming when there is no definate proof that we are causing it.
Then, for the last time... What would you consider PROOF?
Comments