Top Climate Scientist: arrest Oil CEOs for spreading global warming disinformation - Page 7 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #61 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-24-2008, 08:21 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
I'm not sure how this thread became a debate by the supreme court on me. My original complaint was that the original poster, a "scientist" who wears political activist's clothing, wasn't doing himself or his cause any favors by riding his high horse around Washington and calling for those on the other side of this question to be thrown in jail. What I've read or not read is irrelevant to that, and I think I've been a pretty good sport in humoring the tangents that you all have attempted to take this thread down afterwards.

A new tact, a new set of spokespersons, a new approach, are needed to set the story straight once and for all. My two cents; it would be refreshing to see some honesty and integrity associated with this message.
Actually, when you asked, in post #13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Q
This is science?

Who died and put this guy in charge? What does any of this have to do with proving/disproving global warming? Is this what the "scientific faction" of the GCC movement has resorted to - calling for the trial and imprisonment of those with an opposing point of view? So much for welcoming dissent.
I think that opened the debate up pretty well.

And what you have read and not read is very relevant. If you have been setting here bitching that the GCC information is bogus or invalid without ever having read the reports and read the studies then that says volumes about your objectivity on the subject.

Same with Gore's book and resultant reams of information over the past decade. If you have not read it, and understand what it actually says, you are just not in a position to question it or attack its credibility, as you have done for the past year.

Simply put, none of us on this board are in a position to draw conclusions on GCC without doing a metric shitload of reading, and I am talking thousands and thousands of pages over years, not googles over hours. And I am talking about reading from ALL sides of the issue to get the broadbased understanding it takes to get your arms around something this complex.

So, yes, what you have read or not IS relevant. To the core.

No new tact is needed, no new story, no new spokespersons. This very dynamic challenge is being addressed worldwide by some of the smartest people on the globe. The tact is in place, it works, and is providing information and change to start the process toward some kind of rectification on the parts that can actually be addressed. The honesty and integrity are there. You just don't seem to like either the answers or the people providing them. That is not their problem.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.

Last edited by mcbear; 06-24-2008 at 08:27 PM.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-24-2008, 09:19 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,253
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
^ Ridiculous. Seriously. Look, read this stuff aloud before you post it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcbear
Simply put, none of us on this board are in a position to draw conclusions on GCC without doing a metric shitload of reading, and I am talking thousands and thousands of pages over years, not googles over hours. And I am talking about reading from ALL sides of the issue to get the broadbased understanding it takes to get your arms around something this complex.
Followed immediately by:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcbear
No new tact is needed, no new story, no new spokespersons. This very dynamic challenge is being addressed worldwide by some of the smartest people on the globe. The tact is in place, it works, and is providing information and change to start the process toward some kind of rectification on the parts that can actually be addressed. The honesty and integrity are there. You just don't seem to like either the answers or the people providing them. That is not their problem.

...


So what is it; either this stuff is too complicated for anyone to draw a conclusion on without reading thousands and thousands of pages over years? Or that everything we hear boiled down for us by Cirque du Gore is honest, accurate, free of spin or ulterior motive, and those of us whose gullible nerves are stinging every time the topic comes up should just take an aspirin and deal with it? THAT'S what constitutes an effective approach? THAT is the tact which is working so well?

Back to the original point, read what I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myself
Who died and put this guy in charge? What does any of this have to do with proving/disproving global warming? Is this what the "scientific faction" of the GCC movement has resorted to - calling for the trial and imprisonment of those with an opposing point of view? So much for welcoming dissent.
I am typically regarded as having a pretty damned firm grasp of the language, and I'm totally at a loss as to how this question - one I feel to be legitimate and as yet still not satisfactorily answered - equates to opening my own reading list to scrutiny.

Nonsense.
Qubes is offline  
post #63 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-24-2008, 09:40 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
^ Ridiculous. Seriously. Look, read this stuff aloud before you post it.

I think you are the one that needs to re-read it.

Followed immediately by:

So what is it; either this stuff is too complicated for anyone to draw a conclusion on without reading thousands and thousands of pages over years? Or that everything we hear boiled down for us by Cirque du Gore is honest, accurate, free of spin or ulterior motive, and those of us whose gullible nerves are stinging every time the topic comes up should just take an aspirin and deal with it? THAT'S what constitutes an effective approach? THAT is the tact which is working so well?

The point was, and is that if you are going to DEBATE IT and QUESTION IT and try and DEBUNK IT you need to read the source material and know it cold, not just guess it. On the other hand, if you are like the majority of folks around the world who don't need that kind of additional study to trust what has been addressed and what has been discussed then you have no need to read the reams of information.

Gore and his folks tact has been a general information project to inform and to enlighten folks to the problems of the issue. For folks who want to dig deeper, they have plenty of information and for folks who want to really immerse themselves, one can go to either their sites or the IPCC site for indepth information. Gore is not trying to "convert" those who don't believe the issue nor is he trying to provide deep saturation information during many of his conferences [although they do get very technical].




Back to the original point, read what I said:

I am typically regarded as having a pretty damned firm grasp of the language, and I'm totally at a loss as to how this question - one I feel to be legitimate and as yet still not satisfactorily answered - equates to opening my own reading list to scrutiny.

Nonsense.
The nonsense is that you try and call the credibility of scientists into question, try to call their science into question, try to obfuscate the motives of the spokespersons and then when you are asked the simple question as to whether you have actually read their scientific reports or their conference information to know for yourself if the information is credible you balk.

Your original question did not trigger the question of your reading of the source material. It was the body of your comments over the thread [and others] that brought the question to mind. It just seems that you are trying to fight an battle against an enemy that you don't know. You take pot shots at the edges at every chance, whether Gore or Hanson or a report that might have another report that counterbalances part of the findings but not the conclusions. But it seems that you do so without having read the IPCC report, and it does take about a week to read in its entirety, without having actually read any of Gore's published reports or books [just news accounts of what he said or did or how much energy his house uses].

And that seems to me to be a awkward position from which to be fighting this battle.

As for a satisfactory answer to your original question, you received a bunch of answers. You just didn't like the answers. That is not our problem.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.

Last edited by mcbear; 06-24-2008 at 09:44 PM.
mcbear is offline  
post #64 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-25-2008, 03:15 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Difflock's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1984 300GD "G" Wagen, and 1998 Steyr Puch 290GD "G" Van & a 1988 MB Trac 1000
Location: Co Antrim, Norn Ireland
Posts: 3,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to Difflock
Bear,
I am of the opinion that with an issue this complex it is impossible to digest all the supposedly relevent information, a lot of which is biased both ways --depending on who paid the bills or grant funded it.
It is indded beyond the ken of man
Common sense must prevail.
There seems to be remarkedly little of it about.
There are too many people making too much money and getting too much "respect" for pushing the global warming agenda.
We, mankind may indeed have contributed to our current unstable condition,
however a study of the fossil record shows that 90/95 % of all living creatures ( ok that is only an estimate ) were rendered extinct before man had even evolved.
My contribution has been to purchase 150 arces of marginal farmland and let it return to nature.
So - hey - my very own "carbon offsetting"
PS
An article in the Daily Telegraph Sat past about "Property Abroad"
featured a family who had bought a property in Canada, they were going to fly out a few times a year.
I cannot remember what hubbys job was.
But wait for it
The Missis was studying for a degree in " Environmental Science"
Oh the unintended irony
Difflock is offline  
post #65 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-25-2008, 10:07 AM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,253
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
...As for a satisfactory answer to your original question, you received a bunch of answers. You just didn't like the answers. That is not our problem.
We obviously misunderstand and disagree with one another in a fundamental way, so I'm not going to continue re-hashing the other stuff.

That said, in regard to your last paragraph, in your own words, I'm interested in hearing how you feel that the incessant barrage of condescending and outright fascist comments that are the brazen hallmarks of this "movement" don't deserve scrutiny, are acceptable, producing the desired result, and for which consideration of change is off the table.

That's what this guy's statement amounts to. Condescending and fascist. "I'm smarter than all of you bozo's who don't think the world is warming, and whatever you think is wrong, and however you've proved it is a lie, and you should be in jail for even talking about it."

Gore's credibility isn't even worth arguing anymore. How the operation of his "global enterprise" requires a hot tub to be running all the time is absolutely beyond me. I'M not the one who put him on a pedestal; he did that himself. The defense of this indefensible buffoon is more amazing to me than the absence of Jayhawk's sense of self.

It's a liberal mentality to proclaim that the message is more important than the messenger, especially when that dictum is suddenly nullified when the other side falls down from their self-erected pedestals. We're to look past Gore, the self-appointed spokesperson for the planet, and the hypocrisy of his own life when contrasted with the message he tells; yet we suffer slings and arrows of hostility when we don't immediately condemn the Larry Craig's of the world. Quite a double standard.

And all of this is central to the point I'm trying to make, which you all keep trying to divert into psychoanalysis of my own position here - the GCC movement needs a makeover. It's being championed by hypocrites and fascists. That fact detracts so greatly from the message, that otherwise reasonable yet conservative individuals cannot see the truth of it. Someone else can chime in if they agree, but this has certainly been the case for me.

I'm proud that you and FTL, etc. are so enlightened as to be able to see past the human failings of the messengers, and have the kind of time it takes to become fully immersed and well versed in the material. I can only apologize that priorities in my life prohibit me from becoming similarly educated, which is why I think it's fair to say the GCC movement has failed in this regard. The information has NOT been made accessible to the mainstream in an effective manner; it has been rammed down our throats by fascists and hypocrites - that's about all the exposure most people will have had. For some, the fascism and hypocrisy are palatable I suppose. Maybe most of them aren't aware that they're being talked down to, which would partially explain why I find myself in what you describe as a minority. I have to concede that this may be the case.

I'm not at all opposed to becoming educated on the full text of the IPCC; I just remain rather confounded by the reluctance of the advocates to address the questions of science (or at least what seem to the layperson to be based in science) posed by the opposition, in simple terms. All I hear is that if *I* can't demonstrate that I fully understand every aspect behind the questions, then the questions themselves are invalid...that's not an answer, that's a deflection. Usually those deflections are tinged with aggravation and hostility and/or condescension, which only strengthens the resolve of those posing the question to begin with. Now, every doubter in the world knows exactly how to press a believer's buttons. The response is unbelievably predictable...it's like going to the zoo. None of it is helping to bridge the gap between the facts and the message. It seems to me that the GCC movement would be well served by being able to sell it's case convincingly not just to soccer moms and tree huggers, but to honest and intelligent skeptics with genuinely open minds but with genuine questions (and perhaps plenty of misunderstandings). I put myself in this last category, and the treatment I've received by this movement (not the individuals here per se) is shameful.
Qubes is offline  
post #66 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-25-2008, 12:47 PM
Will Moderate For Cigars
 
cmitch's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: 2002 ML320, 2005 S430 4MATIC, 2010 F150 Crew Cab
Location: City on the TN River
Posts: 10,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
^^^^What QBN said.
What I find equally interesting is the fact that when the hypocrisy of Global Warming advocates is pointed out, we are scorned that we should be heeding the message, not necessarily scrutinizing the messenger. This argument , in the end, will be rooted in credibility of the scientists and activists who seek to get out the message to the general public. But, can they do so without coming off as a bunch of arrogant socialists with a hidden agenda? I haven't seen anything, to date, that indicates these 'activists' are willing to put aside their arrogance and hypocrisy for the sake of educating the general public about concerns addressing this issue. It's a 'do as I say, not as I do' mentality that will serve to destroy any credibility left in this argument.

My personal beliefs are based in previous 'alarmist' issues that dealt with ecological dangers that turned out later not to even be a danger. One case in point is the hoax and farce perpetrated on the American People that Freon was destroying our ozone layer. This 'theory' that was taught as fact could have been disproven by a high school chemistry student. But, opponents were, as usual, shouted down and scorned by the 'mainstrean' scientific community instead of being allowed to present their simple facts that Freon, when released, dissipated in the lower atmosphere, actually not many feet from the ground (Hello! It's HEAVIER than air?!) and was destroyed by ultraviolet rays long before it ever made it to the ozone layer. The resulting chemicals, ethane gas, Hydrochloric and Hydrofluoric acids would then dissolve in the first dew fall, land on the ground forming a very weak 'acid rain' , then dissipate into the ground where it could react to various minerals turning it into salts of these elements. Nature, taking care of herself, but man in his own arrogance thinking he could destroy it.

I liken today's issue of Global Warming, (which is conveniently being changed to say, 'Climate Change' to better fit the needs of the scientific community) to the above example. We have less than 100 years of weather data to base such a widespread and far reaching theory on. Weather events of the past are conveniently ignored in order to project these 'theories' as facts to the much less educated public. It is not even a stretch to say that the earth has been considerably warming, even at a much faster pace than now is claimed, for thousands of years. There is also indisputable evidence that suggests the arctic circle used to be a tropical climate. Why else would a wooly mammoth be found under several hundred feet of ice with a chew of cud still in it's mouth containing tropical foliage?

This so called evidence is being presented to try and prove a conclusion that has already been reached. That, in itself, flaws the very science in which those who claim this is real, is based.

2005 S430 4Matic 'Morton' W220.183 • 722.671 Rest in Peace

Bells and whistles are thorns and thistles.
cmitch is offline  
post #67 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-25-2008, 01:16 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Smackrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
@ Cmitch

You believe atmospheric gases form distinct layers according to weight? Not corroborated by even simple observation.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Seneca
Smackrattle is online now  
post #68 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-25-2008, 03:56 PM
Will Moderate For Cigars
 
cmitch's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: 2002 ML320, 2005 S430 4MATIC, 2010 F150 Crew Cab
Location: City on the TN River
Posts: 10,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by dope View Post
@ Cmitch

You believe atmospheric gases form distinct layers according to weight? Not corroborated by even simple observation.
You didn't read all of what I wrote, did you?
It's much like the 'mix phenomena' of Dinitrogen Trioxide, the red gas bi-product of copper reacting in Nitric Acid. It can be poured from beaker to beaker, until the molecules of the gas 'dissolve' in between the various molecules of lighter gases in the air until it rises. It rises slowly, not rapidly, never making it's way to the ozone layer. But Freon decomposes in sunlight and what sunlight doesn't get, lightning does. Fill a balloon with hydrogen and it rapidly rises. Fill it with Freon and it'll sink to the ground, much more rapidly than an air filled balloon. My chemistry teacher laughed and did demonstration after demonstration for us, disproving the lie that was told about Freon. Of course, Freon wasn't banned until many years later. He actually taught us how to think for ourselves rather than be led into thought by those who perpetrated bullshit.

2005 S430 4Matic 'Morton' W220.183 • 722.671 Rest in Peace

Bells and whistles are thorns and thistles.

Last edited by cmitch; 06-25-2008 at 04:05 PM.
cmitch is offline  
post #69 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-25-2008, 04:37 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Smackrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch View Post
You didn't read all of what I wrote, did you?
It's much like the 'mix phenomena' of Dinitrogen Trioxide, the red gas bi-product of copper reacting in Nitric Acid. It can be poured from beaker to beaker, until the molecules of the gas 'dissolve' in between the various molecules of lighter gases in the air until it rises. It rises slowly, not rapidly, never making it's way to the ozone layer. But Freon decomposes in sunlight and what sunlight doesn't get, lightning does. Fill a balloon with hydrogen and it rapidly rises. Fill it with Freon and it'll sink to the ground, much more rapidly than an air filled balloon. My chemistry teacher laughed and did demonstration after demonstration for us, disproving the lie that was told about Freon. Of course, Freon wasn't banned until many years later. He actually taught us how to think for ourselves rather than be led into thought by those who perpetrated bullshit.
That right there is the problem.Climatology is orders of magnitude more complex than schoolboy science.Maybe your teachers would have been better to remind you that 'a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing'

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Seneca
Smackrattle is online now  
post #70 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-25-2008, 04:59 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
The best way to learn about GCC without being an actual climatologist or geochemist is to read the popular press and think about the information with patient skepticism. What is "patient skepticism"? It means holding one's opinion in abeyance as information is revealed. It means to consider each bit of evidence on its own merits, not on one's preconception of what the evidence "should" indicate.

I understand that at some point people come of a conviction about GCC. That's okay, too. Just remain skeptical, regardless of your current convictions. Remember that science rarely provides easy answers in black and white.

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and that’s what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Forget Global Warming - Be scared of Global Cooling 430 Off-Topic 13 08-05-2007 08:36 PM
    Sure could use some global warming... Qubes Off-Topic 6 02-09-2007 05:08 PM
    Major report on Climate Change exposes Republican lies on Global Warming FeelTheLove Off-Topic 60 02-02-2007 07:16 PM
    Global Warming Over? 430 Off-Topic 30 01-06-2007 03:29 AM
    A refresher on Global Cooling. errrr Global Warming 430 Off-Topic 67 04-07-2006 06:55 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome