Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Al Gore Part 2: Liar Liar Pants on Fire

Al Gore Part 2: Liar Liar Pants on Fire (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 07:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
IPCC? How about NASA? How about NOAA?
Let me get this straight; SpaceMonkey states you can't come to the conclusion the OP cited with such a limited chunk of data (15 years), you respond with "Damn. This has been a hot January month.", then cite a study that examines the energy imbalance over a period of 11-13 years for the solar minimum? This just establishes that the most zealous of alarmists cannot satisfy their own standards. When you can, let me know and we'll talk.

James Hansen? This is the same GISS Hansen that was formally rebuked by his supervisor, Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon (a GW skeptic BTW) for going off half-cocked to Congress over forecast alarmism when the data was not near conclusive enough for policy advocacy. It should be noted that Theon is only one of several dissenters including Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA's Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA's Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility... to name a few. I wonder if the true number of AGW skeptics from NASA is enough to discount the "99%" claim. I'm guessing there is, but the only problem is you have to wait for them to retire to have the courage to actually say anything.

I'm not going to be as shameless as our GW alarmists here in citing studies by the aforementioned NASA skeptics so I can say; "See?!? NASA and NOAA support my view!"
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
My tactics here over the years I would have thought would be pretty transparent by now. I'm here to have fun.
I'm not sure how this relates to your talking in circles and asking incredibly stupid questions. But it does help reinforce the notion that the PL has become a giant waste that should be shuttered.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If you are so bothered by embarrassing questions and stuff, why do you never take a more active stance in calling out ridiculous tactics and rhetoric and stuff that prevents even getting into the subject matter (e.g. emotional rant threads/posts, leading questions, phantom enemies, the MacNN filtration process, etc.)?
There are only 24 hours in a day.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
With so much of this, it would seem that what you are describing would be the least of anybody's worries?
You post the most, you want the attention, you got it, buddy.

Edit: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...r/#post4145944
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Interesting reactions. I didn't mean to spark a Dakar-besson political battle. Never saw that one coming actually.
It's certainly more interesting than a knee-jerk anti-climate change thread posted by someone with a clear agenda.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

What does this post have to do with this conversation, or are you trying to drop this topic?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Let me get this straight; SpaceMonkey states you can't come to the conclusion the OP cited with such a limited chunk of data (15 years), you respond with "Damn. This has been a hot January month.", then cite a study that examines the energy imbalance over a period of 11-13 years for the solar minimum? This just establishes that the most zealous of alarmists cannot satisfy their own standards. When you can, let me know and we'll talk.
What? I'm just stating this has been a very hot January. Was I trying to prove anything from that comment? No.

Maybe you are too overzealous and jumping to conclusions on some hidden meaning from a simple comment "Damn. This has been a hot January month."

Man, today is foggy. How's the weather today?
( Last edited by hyteckit; Feb 2, 2012 at 12:56 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
99% of the experts "in the field" say absolutely nothing of the sort.
Yes, they do. There is not a single scientific body of national or international standing in the entire f*cking world that disagrees with that conclusion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You've got a circle-jerk of pals who review one another's work before handing it off to a panel of government officials and authors who haven't a clue of what they're writing.
That is, quite possibly, the most inaccurate description of the peer review process I have ever read in my entire life.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 09:52 PM
 
ebuddy is anti-science. It's like talking to a wall.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 11:48 PM
 
I'd say ebuddy's just anti-sanctimonious-MMGW-cultist-blowhard.

If we could just harness the hot gas spewing out of the mouths of self righteous enviroweenie cultists and use it to replace the vast amounts of energy the same twits hypocritically waste while they're pointing their greedy fingers at everyone else, our energy problems would be solved.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 12:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
99% of the experts "in the field" say absolutely nothing of the sort.
Heh. Have you noticed the patten yet? Someone told one lefty that claiming 99% consensus on something was a great idea, and like sheep they've taken to applying the same nonsense to any and everything.

Could you even come up with a more hyperbolic claim? Meanwhile in reality, you can't get 99% of anyone anywhere to agree on anything. Only in leftyloonland.

It totally escapes them that we've all seen the PREDICTABLE results of the last idiotic attempt to claim being the 99%: breaking into local businesses (mostly small), stealing, looting, rioting, sexual assaults, costing communities (mostly poor) huge amounts of money they don't have, making huge messes for others to clean up (ah yes, how lefties 'respect' the environment).

None of it's been any surprise to anyone- it's EXACTLY what we all expected from anything lefties are involved with from the start- doing exactly the OPPOSITE of whatever it was they were up on a soapbox about. IE: hurting/stealing from/destroying the property of those they were sanctimoniously pretending to be "99%" of.

And without batting an eyelash, a lefty drone cites some hyperbolic "99%" vs 1% nonsense. All I expect from the usual suspects is the same thing the usual suspects deliver EVERY TIME: more hypocrisy. More scapegoating. More finger pointing. More demonizing those with more money than them. "BIG OIL!" WAHH!" Even as they use the products and services of those they're demonizing just as much if not more than anyone else. More of the same.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 01:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
ebuddy is anti-science. It's like talking to a wall.
If he's "like talking to a wall", is a conversation with you like talking to a fog horn?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 02:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
And without batting an eyelash, a lefty drone cites some hyperbolic "99%" vs 1% nonsense. All I expect from the usual suspects is the same thing the usual suspects deliver EVERY TIME: more hypocrisy. More scapegoating. More finger pointing. More demonizing those with more money than them. "BIG OIL!" WAHH!" Even as they use the products and services of those they're demonizing just as much if not more than anyone else. More of the same.
Al isn't worth that much more than I am, but somehow he spends >$30k /yr in utilities for one home? How in the hell does he do that? One month we were at $1700 (~7800 sq/ft with additions) and I was like, "Holy Cripes, WTF?".
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 02:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Al isn't worth that much more than I am, but somehow he spends >$30k /yr in utilities for one home? How in the hell does he do that? One month we were at $1700 (~7800 sq/ft with additions) and I was like, "Holy Cripes, WTF?".
$1,700/mo would be over $20k/yr.

You should compare kwh/mo usage rather than cost, since cost varies greatly depending on the time of the day, time of the year, company providing the energy, taxes, and so forth.

Al Gore pays a 30% to 40% premium for green energy.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 07:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Yes, they do. There is not a single scientific body of national or international standing in the entire f*cking world that disagrees with that conclusion.
The only ones to stand behind your conclusion are zealots and political activists.

That is, quite possibly, the most inaccurate description of the peer review process I have ever read in my entire life.
That statement was not intended to be a description of proper peer review, it is the well documented shenanigans of the circle jerk at CRU and within the IPCC.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What would it take for you to believe that man is contributing to GW? Just wondering...
Nothing you've offered so far, if I might respond in kind.

There are a bunch of good reasons to conserve, diversify, and produce domestic energy, but there's absolutely no reason for hasty government responses to their own contrived impending doom.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Could you even come up with a more hyperbolic claim? Meanwhile in reality, you can't get 99% of anyone anywhere to agree on anything. Only in leftyloonland.
This is an important point, but many of our resident enthusiasts of science will maintain some bizarre mob rules mentality with regard to the scientific method and in no other field is the outright abuse of this method more apparent.

It totally escapes them that we've all seen the PREDICTABLE results of the last idiotic attempt to claim being the 99%: breaking into local businesses (mostly small), stealing, looting, rioting, sexual assaults, costing communities (mostly poor) huge amounts of money they don't have, making huge messes for others to clean up (ah yes, how lefties 'respect' the environment).
That's just it, a political activist cannot shake his fist at the sun, or castigate the clouds, chastise termites shitting in the woods, or picket active volcanoes. Whatever their cause du jour, it must always deflect from their own greed, waste, and frivolities.

How dare you not assume your green armband and fall in the goose-step that is SCIENCE!™
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Nothing you've offered so far, if I might respond in kind.
I'm still curious in your answer to that question, seriously...
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The only ones to stand behind your conclusion are zealots and political activists.


eBuddy and CRASH make me sad.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Al isn't worth that much more than I am, but somehow he spends >$30k /yr in utilities for one home? How in the hell does he do that? One month we were at $1700 (~7800 sq/ft with additions) and I was like, "Holy Cripes, WTF?".
“Thou energy bill doth defy belief, as thou sit astride documents of deforestation, incandescent glare above thine fourth monitor warm to the open window air conditioner’s whine…

Fear not!

For though thou appear asshat hypocrite, servant of the wicked Oil Baron, thou art saved, sinner! With thy pittance tithe of carbon credit, thou ballot cast and thou lipservice paid in full to the Church of the DNC, thou sins are washed clean!

So sayeth the high holy algore! All hail!”


From the first book of algore’s No Need To Inconvenience Thyself, Truth.

     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 01:00 PM
 
I still don't understand the obsession some of you guys have with Al Gore. He's far from the only person in the world concerned with GW. Who cares whether he is a hypocrite? A lot of people are, it doesn't change anything about this issue.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 01:03 PM
 
Just look at him. Clearly he's Wesley Crusher all growns up. He must have traveled back in time at some point and gotten stuck here.

How could you not find that interesting?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I still don't understand the obsession some of you guys have with Al Gore. He's far from the only person in the world concerned with GW. Who cares whether he is a hypocrite? A lot of people are, it doesn't change anything about this issue.
Because he's the loudest voice in the room.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 01:23 PM
 
How does he find the time to worry about GW when he's hunting Manbearpig?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Just look at him. Clearly he's Wesley Crusher all growns up. He must have traveled back in time at some point and gotten stuck here.

How could you not find that interesting?

Holy ****ing shit, he does look like Wesley Crusher!

My god! I mean G-d!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Because he's the loudest voice in the room.

Still? Maybe I'm just not dialed into the world of Al Gore, but I haven't come across an article or media piece of his in a while.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Still?
I wouldn't say still, but has anyone else risen to eclipse it?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I wouldn't say still, but has anyone else risen to eclipse it?
No one proxy, but there are obviously a ton of people taking activist stands over stuff like the Keystone pipeline for environmental reasons, the Alberta tar sands, etc. Then you also have people like Tom Friedman taking stands over our lacking energy strategy. Friedman doesn't seem to be as hated by the right though, perhaps because he generally avoids GW and focuses more on energy independence and the geopolitical benefits of clean energy?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The only ones to stand behind your conclusion are zealots and political activists.
What seems more likely: 100% of all published peer reviewed scientific journals were written by zealots and political activists (as you have just asserted), or, you're apart of a minority group who remain willfully ignorant of the subject because it conflicts with your political and/or religious point of view.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
That statement was not intended to be a description of proper peer review, it is the well documented shenanigans of the circle jerk at CRU and within the IPCC.
Regardless of any policies the IPCC may suggest, and whether or not you agree those policies, the fact remains that 97%-98% of all published peer review studies found a direct link between human activity and recent changes in rising global temperatures. The remainder maintained a possible link between human activity and rising global temperatures. That means 100% of the published peer review studies do not disagree with original conclusion I mentioned.

If you do not have a problem with proper peer review, then why are you accusing every single published study as have been conducted by zealots and political activists?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 02:32 PM
 
Olepigeon, do you agree that the main problem with this issue is that it sets off emotional triggers with some? If so, what is the root of these triggers? What makes these triggers so strong?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Olepigeon, do you agree that the main problem with this issue is that it sets off emotional triggers with some? If so, what is the root of these triggers? What makes these triggers so strong?
I covered this in another thread. Its people defending their way of life. They don't want to spend the time/effort/money or simply don't want to change their lifestyle to be environmentally conscious. Its no different to the pro-gun people. They cite constitutional rights and self defence but really its a combination of penis extension and the fact they just like to shoot stuff. Whats odd is that they don't care if preserving their way of life fun costs other people their quality of life or even their lives.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Heh. Have you noticed the patten yet? Someone told one lefty that claiming 99% consensus on something was a great idea, and like sheep they've taken to applying the same nonsense to any and everything.
Dr. Oreskes is not the only "lefty." Numerous organizations including George Mason University, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, University of Illinois, Chicago, and the National Academy of Sciences just to name a few.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Could you even come up with a more hyperbolic claim? Meanwhile in reality, you can't get 99% of anyone anywhere to agree on anything. Only in leftyloonland.
I would posit the opposite. You can easily get 99% of educated people to agree that gravity is a fundamental force and that evolution is the process by which organisms evolve; except in rightyloonyland, where the "truth" is that gravity is really pixy dust and organisms are designed by magical pink unicorns.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
$1,700/mo would be over $20k/yr.

You should compare kwh/mo usage rather than cost, since cost varies greatly depending on the time of the day, time of the year, company providing the energy, taxes, and so forth.

Al Gore pays a 30% to 40% premium for green energy.
So do I, been buying "green" power for >5 years now. Cost /kwh in Nashville can't be that much more than this part of the state.

Edit: Also, that was our highest bill, usually all utilities run around $1000. That's not bad at all for a house this size and all the electronics we have. It helps that we use our fireplace(s) in the winter.

Maybe he runs his AC full blast with the windows open, trying to counter global warming?
( Last edited by Shaddim; Feb 3, 2012 at 10:38 PM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2012, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I covered this in another thread. Its people defending their way of life. They don't want to spend the time/effort/money or simply don't want to change their lifestyle to be environmentally conscious. Its no different to the pro-gun people. They cite constitutional rights and self defence but really its a combination of penis extension and the fact they just like to shoot stuff. Whats odd is that they don't care if preserving their way of life fun costs other people their quality of life or even their lives.
What do you drive? What are your kwh of usage/month? Do you use any alternate forms of transportation? How have you modified your lifestyle to accommodate your belief that humans are destroying the planet?

I'd be willing to bet that if you were to take all forum members and judge their view on AGW contingent upon their energy usage and subsequent waste, you'd be hard-pressed in determining who is actually most eco-conscious. See, this is where the above talking points fall apart and why Al Gore is such popular fodder for skeptics. Once again it is someone advocating what YOU should do without regard for what THEY are doing which is just one more thing that calls into question the veracity of their views.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2012, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What do you drive? What are your kwh of usage/month? Do you use any alternate forms of transportation? How have you modified your lifestyle to accommodate your belief that humans are destroying the planet?

I'd be willing to bet that if you were to take all forum members and judge their view on AGW contingent upon their energy usage and subsequent waste, you'd be hard-pressed in determining who is actually most eco-conscious. See, this is where the above talking points fall apart and why Al Gore is such popular fodder for skeptics. Once again it is someone advocating what YOU should do without regard for what THEY are doing which is just one more thing that calls into question the veracity of their views.

These arguments are rather lame though.

What is needed is environmentally and politically smart energy policy to make a real possibly measurable difference. While the little things we do can work as a small individual protest, can pass us through the hypocrisy filters, and can put us in good standing in debate when somebody tries to turn the tables as you are here, it really doesn't serve much productive purpose. At the end of the day that same smart energy policy is needed whether what you drive and no matter how you live, and no matter whether you are interested in this issue from a geopolitical standpoint or a purely environmental standpoint, or some mix thereof. These sorts of arguments are just massive distractions - the real issue is government policy.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2012, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
What seems more likely: 100% of all published peer reviewed scientific journals were written by zealots and political activists (as you have just asserted), or, you're apart of a minority group who remain willfully ignorant of the subject because it conflicts with your political and/or religious point of view... Regardless of any policies the IPCC may suggest, and whether or not you agree those policies, the fact remains that 97%-98% of all published peer review studies found a direct link between human activity and recent changes in rising global temperatures. The remainder maintained a possible link between human activity and rising global temperatures. That means 100% of the published peer review studies do not disagree with original conclusion I mentioned.
... or the circle jerk at CRU encouraged his friends at the journal not to publish the work of a skeptic as it might damage the credibility of the brotherhood. As it turns out, Microsoft Outlook may not be the best place to engage SCIENCE!™

If you do not have a problem with proper peer review, then why are you accusing every single published study as have been conducted by zealots and political activists?
Because there are simply too many examples of dismissing critical review to take their conclusions as seriously as you. I'm not accusing these studies of anything more than finding what they were commissioned to find and neglecting the rest as not germane to the task at hand.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2012, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
These arguments are rather lame though.
That's because you missed the argument entirely. Waragainstsleep offered a theory on why skeptics are skeptical and it had to do with their unwillingness to modify their lifestyle. My argument goes directly to the core of his flaw in thinking by demonstrating the double-standard.

What is needed is environmentally and politically smart energy policy to make a real possibly measurable difference. While the little things we do can work as a small individual protest, can pass us through the hypocrisy filters, and can put us in good standing in debate when somebody tries to turn the tables as you are here, it really doesn't serve much productive purpose.
My response served the exact purpose it was intended to. You may want to try following along.

At the end of the day that same smart energy policy is needed whether what you drive and no matter how you live, and no matter whether you are interested in this issue from a geopolitical standpoint or a purely environmental standpoint, or some mix thereof. These sorts of arguments are just massive distractions - the real issue is government policy.
When it is done under the guise of "planetary doom", it alienates smart energy people and renders policy solutions to political zealots with an agenda of another kind.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2012, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Because there are simply too many examples of dismissing critical review to take their conclusions as seriously as you. I'm not accusing these studies of anything more than finding what they were commissioned to find and neglecting the rest as not germane to the task at hand.
Isn't this throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Unless you think that the vast majority of these studies were staged, and that there is not just an American, but global conspiracy among scientists to suppress the truth?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2012, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
When it is done under the guise of "planetary doom", it alienates smart energy people and renders policy solutions to political zealots with an agenda of another kind.

So, your problem is that the rhetoric doesn't match the reality? When does the rhetoric ever match the reality with any issue?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2012, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Isn't this throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Unless you think that the vast majority of these studies were staged, and that there is not just an American, but global conspiracy among scientists to suppress the truth?
It's not about "truth" or "lies", it's science. Whether or not skeptics offering critical analysis of studies is espousing "truth" over "lies" or simply offering points that place conclusions in differing perspective; this is science and concerted efforts to silence critical review must be met with a fundamental concern for the aforementioned conclusions. I'm not accusing these scientists of anything more than finding what they were commissioned to find and neglecting the rest as not germane to the task at hand.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2012, 11:13 AM
 
My question remains, use whatever words you want.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2012, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What do you drive? What are your kwh of usage/month? Do you use any alternate forms of transportation? How have you modified your lifestyle to accommodate your belief that humans are destroying the planet?

I'd be willing to bet that if you were to take all forum members and judge their view on AGW contingent upon their energy usage and subsequent waste, you'd be hard-pressed in determining who is actually most eco-conscious. See, this is where the above talking points fall apart and why Al Gore is such popular fodder for skeptics. Once again it is someone advocating what YOU should do without regard for what THEY are doing which is just one more thing that calls into question the veracity of their views.
Truthfully the people whose actions matter are the ones who can afford to choose. That doesn't just mean the rich, it often means people who choose to spend a little extra to have a faster car.
To answer your question, I drive a 2001 Peugot that I was given for free. Its not worth the hassle/risk of trying to sell it and buy something else. I can't do without a car because the transport alternatives where I live are non existent and I have to be able to take computers, tools etc out on jobs with me. I can't deliver a Mac Pro 20 miles away on a bicycle sadly.
I'm not hooked up to mains gas, I use a 13kg bottle to run my hob which I get refilled every six months or so and my house is heated by electric storage heaters. I say house, I only heat one room which right now is topping out at 10C. The rest of the house is about the same temp as a fridge.

Could I be more eco-conscious? Slightly, if I changed my car but I don't have the cash to buy one before I sell mine, and I can't sell mine without having another one lined up. I only drive ~3-4k miles or so a year anyway so it really wouldn't save the environment very much at all. How about you?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2012, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Once again it is someone advocating what YOU should do without regard for what THEY are doing which is just one more thing that calls into question the veracity of their views.
The problem is that greenies are going to have a hard time controlling other people after they eat their own dogfood, because as warag pointed out, you can't be very effectual without burning oil. So for them, it's either-or. Either tread lightly OR force others to do so, because doing the former makes the latter more difficult.

With your typical right-wing control issues, like terrorism or immigration, it's the opposite. Boosting the control of police or military makes it easier to exercise more control across the board.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2012, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
How about you?
As it turns out, way more than you, but my God man you live like a Polish refugee.

I ride a bicycle 13 miles to work weather-permitting which probably averages 3 days/wk during the late spring, summer, and early fall months. I own a 2002 Jeep Wrangler which is horrible on gas, but if it sees 7k miles in a year it's a total fluke. My wife drives a 2001 Chrysler LHS which I don't have the heart to give up just yet as it's at 130k miles, IMO (call me crazy) one of the most beautiful combinations of interior/exterior I've seen in its class, drives like new, and... it's paid for. However, I did just replace my dated and inefficient washing machine, every window in the house has been replaced with new as of 3 months ago to an extremely efficient window, and we've contracted new siding and roof to be replaced in the next two months. Needless to say a sizable investment for a more efficient lifestyle and while the old versions of the aforementioned were working fine, eco-consciousness was only one factor of several in making the replacement decisions.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2012, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The problem is that greenies are going to have a hard time controlling other people after they eat their own dogfood, because as warag pointed out, you can't be very effectual without burning oil. So for them, it's either-or. Either tread lightly OR force others to do so, because doing the former makes the latter more difficult.

With your typical right-wing control issues, like terrorism or immigration, it's the opposite. Boosting the control of police or military makes it easier to exercise more control across the board.
I can appreciate the conundrum from both sides of the political spectrum and I have a problem with fear-mongering on all counts, but it stands to reason the more egregious offenders are going to get the Ted Haggard treatment.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2012, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
my God man you live like a Polish refugee.
I really do. My bedroom was 2-3C this morning. Its starting to get really old.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
... or the circle jerk at CRU encouraged his friends at the journal not to publish the work of a skeptic as it might damage the credibility of the brotherhood. As it turns out, Microsoft Outlook may not be the best place to engage SCIENCE!™
Or not.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not accusing these studies of anything more than finding what they were commissioned to find and neglecting the rest as not germane to the task at hand.
Your opinion is exactly the opposite of how these discoveries are made. There is not a conclusion made, then a study funded to support it. That's how religion works, not science. The point of peer review is that it is composed of various individuals that are not apart of your research group. Their job, essentially, is to find errors in the research; errors include, by the way, bias (be it personal, professional, or corporate.)

If there is a credible, dissenting view, then it will be published. There isn't a right and wrong. Discoveries are equally important whether or not a hypothesis is validated or not. Right now we're searching for a hypothetical particle called the Higgs boson. Regardless if they find it, it's going to be unbelievably important to our understanding of physics. It doesn't matter if the Higgs boson exists or not! That isn't what's important.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 05:19 PM
 
But studies that conservatives donate more money are not politically motivated with pre-formed conclusions, I guess?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 07:52 PM
 
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

That's pretty much the only thing that needs to be said about climate change deniers, creationists, homophobes, and Koch-suckers. You know, the Republican base and their representatives here at MacNN.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2012, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
That's pretty much the only thing that needs to be said about climate change deniers, creationists, homophobes, and Koch-suckers. You know, the Republican base and their representatives here at MacNN.
So says the godless evangelist of tolerance™. No one is denying climate change or talking about creationism, gay rights, or Koch. If we were, we'd also be talking about the que sera sera, mentally ill left more concerned for issues they can't control to botch the issues they can for nothing more than to assuage their youthful, angsty, naivete and boredom. It's not my fault some folks dressed their kids up funny and made them go to church. Keep your authority problem to professionals who can help.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2012, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
But studies that conservatives donate more money are not politically motivated with pre-formed conclusions, I guess?
If you can show me some evidence of a concerted effort to suppress any information in conflict with the conclusion of the study or well-documented manipulation of data to support a presupposition; I'd be interested in seeing it.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2012, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Your opinion is exactly the opposite of how these discoveries are made. There is not a conclusion made, then a study funded to support it. That's how religion works, not science.
Try to separate from your bigotry a sec please.

The point of peer review is that it is composed of various individuals that are not apart of your research group. Their job, essentially, is to find errors in the research; errors include, by the way, bias (be it personal, professional, or corporate.)
Right, so why do we have evidence of suppressing data that conflicts with the foregone conclusion? Why do you not accept the fact that we've attained evidence that scientists were submitting papers to their fellows for peer review? Why don't you acknowledge that there are scientists writing their cronies at journals encouraging them not to publish the credible works of others? And why weren't the errors identified not addressed with a formal review of the data instead of kneejerk slander against "deniers" only to move the erroneous parts into a larger schematic of erroneous data?

If there is a credible, dissenting view, then it will be published. There isn't a right and wrong. Discoveries are equally important whether or not a hypothesis is validated or not. Right now we're searching for a hypothetical particle called the Higgs boson. Regardless if they find it, it's going to be unbelievably important to our understanding of physics. It doesn't matter if the Higgs boson exists or not! That isn't what's important.
Don't pretend to tell me how the process works pigeon. No more an egregious abuse of the scientific method will you find than in the current, populist field of climate science; particularly that perpetuated by CRU and the IPCC which is your "99% of experts in the field". Mob doesn't rule here and you're not some crusader of truth. At best, you might be mildly interested in SCIENCE!™
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:58 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2