Page 68 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1858636465666768697071727378 ... LastLast
Results 1,341 to 1,360 of 2209
  1. #1341  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Enough already. Can we get back to a discussion of substance?
    Well I for one are surprised that nobody has commented on the latest government report on the arctic. So that is one thing we can talk about.

    The other is the link to Hobbes post and his suggestions to move things forward. I still think he has some good ideas in his list that should be discussed.
  2. #1342  
    The condescending tones in this forum are not exclusive to just the conservatives here, moderatinny. There are a few sanctimonious leftists around here who continually patronize others of opposing perspectives simply because of political differences.
    Its to the point of being absolutely nauseating. My post was directed at BOTH sides of the aisle here, not just the conservatives.
  3. #1343  
    Quote Originally Posted by logmein View Post
    The condescending tones in this forum are not exclusive to just the conservatives here, moderatinny. There are a few sanctimonious leftists around here who continually patronize others of opposing perspectives simply because of political differences.
    Its to the point of being absolutely nauseating. My post was directed at BOTH sides of the aisle here, not just the conservatives.
    Understood. It's a slippery slope and elements from both sides have definitely started down that sliperry slope. I think I've tried to maintain a level of civility in numerous threads but admit to letting one or two guys fire up the defensive mechanisms in me.

    I've added both mikec, slingbox and gojeda to my ignore list and hope that we can get back to discussing issues. You're balanced criticism were well said and duly noted.
  4. #1344  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Understood. It's a slippery slope and elements from both sides have definitely started down that sliperry slope. I think I've tried to maintain a level of civility in numerous threads but admit to letting one or two guys fire up the defensive mechanisms in me.

    I've added both mikec, slingbox and gojeda to my ignore list and hope that we can get back to discussing issues. You're balanced criticism were well said and duly noted.
    Wholeheartedly agree. Although I admit to giving in to the temptation that a few have consistently baited, that does not excuse a couple of outbursts on my part. This is exactly why, for the past week gojeda has been on my ignore list, and now slingbox and mikec can keep him company there.

    Thanks to logmein for helping frame this from a 3rd party perspective. Let's hope this can end here.
  5. #1345  
    For those who want to ignore global warming, for various reasons, and want to shut this thread down, I am glad this thread has managed to stay alive. I encourage everyone to learn about global warming not from someone's rhetoric on this forum, but from learning the science yourselves. The journal "Nature", and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and its journal "Science" are good places to start.
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/445567a.html
  6. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1346  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Googling a userID is hardly an investigation.
    And again, you refuse to take responsibility for your online behavior - which has recently largely consisted of character assassinations and crazy accusations with no real basis in reality.

    This is what the "progressive" movement has reduced itself to?
  7. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1347  
    Getting back on topic, I suggest to those who want to educate themselves on global warming not to give into the alarmist rhetoric expoused by a few on this forum (and indeed on the Internet at large). Often, you will find their position to be just as political as their sworn enemies.

    Be wary....be very wary.

    While science is pretty clear that the Earth is warming, to some degree, due to natural causes, there is still a great deal of debate regarding man's contribution to that warming (or whether it exists at all in any meaningful way). There is also heated (no pun intended) debate regarding the ramifications of global warming. Some have taken it upon themselves to go off the deep-end and declare a myriad of impending catastrophies as a result of global warming in lieu of conclusive scientific evidence.

    Fortunately, more and more thinking men are coming forward and putting a stop to the madness. These days, there is scarcely a week that goes by that a study is introduced that shows the science is simply not there to support the doom-and-gloom scenarios

    Little by little, there is a healthy debate coming to the fore. Questioning is a good thing. By gauging the violent reactions of some on this forum when they are questions, that makes the attempt to question even more imperative.

    I suggest reviewing ALL the science thus far - from scientists, and not pseudo-scientists like one politician who pretends to be a scientist.

    Brookhaven National Laboratory peer-reviewed study that questions heat increases from CO2 emissions:
    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

    Ohio State University - A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

    "The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica. We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment,”

    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/anttemps.htm

    Lastly, an article that outlines a phenomena that completely contradicts a central theme in the movie "An Inconventient Truth", that polar bears are disappearing:

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story...iat-bears.html

    Knowledge is power. Question everything.
  8. #1348  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    confirms my suspicions entirely
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/22/2007 at 09:11 AM.
  9. #1349  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Be wary....be very wary.
    good advice. I get very wary when the oil industry tell me what to think about global warming.

    And as far as the Brookhaven article is concerned,
    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
    its seriously flawed, according to other earth scientists as shown in the article below.
    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/resea...n_schwartz.pdf
  10. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1350  
    Oh, and I forgot to mention, in case anyone wants to see the motivations of people like Al Gore, here is a rundown of his financial ties to the Global Warming lobby:

    http://www.generationim.com/

    The link goes to the website of his investment company which, of course, stands to make a killing on global warming investments. On the disclaimer page, there is this:

    This communication has been issued in the United Kingdom by Generation Investment Management LLP ("GenerationIM") which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority of the United Kingdom...

    The reason for this, of course, is that Gore & Co. do not want to pay taxes on the money they earn from their hysteria.

    The UK taxation website explains it clearly (http://articles.taxationweb.co.uk/index.php?id=66):

    Partnerships are effectively transparent for UK direct tax purposes, as is a Limited Liability Partnership, in that each partner, or member of the LLP, is usually treated for tax purposes as if he incurred his proportionate share of any partnership trading profit or loss himself. A member of a trading partnership which incurs a loss would usually be able to relieve his share of the trading losses against his income or capital gains.

    Carbon Credits Partnerships can generally be seen as a variety of a research and development partnership. Their objectives are to create environmental credits with a view to trading them for profit.


    The interesting thing here is that Al Gore, who consumes 20 times more energy than the average American, says that this is "OK" because he says he is buying carbon offsets. The problem here is that he buys his carbon offsets from none other than his own company - completely tax free.

    In other words, he is buying these offsets from himself. This, of course, boosts company earnings which in turn boosts the ability to buy carbon offsets.

    This in turn boosts Gore's personal earnings.

    There is more to the papar trail with regards to GenerationIM, such as how the US arm of the company, headed by Peter S. Knight - who was under investigation for some crooked office developement activities in the Washington DC area.

    More on Gore later
  11. #1351  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    confirms my suspicions entirely
    And to top it off, gojeda completely screwed up my hotel reservations! Hummpphh. https://www.eseg.org/source/Meetings...RTDISPLAYROW=1
  12. #1352  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Oh, and I forgot to mention, in case anyone wants to see the motivations of people like Al Gore, here is a rundown of his financial ties to the Global Warming lobby:........
    "The facts, m'am, just the facts." I get my information from enough different sources that the motives of the reporters do not interest me.

    [Which came first, Mr. Gore's conclusions or his associations? You do not know and I do not care.]
  13. #1353  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    And to top it off, gojeda completely screwed up my hotel reservations! Hummpphh. https://www.eseg.org/source/Meetings...RTDISPLAYROW=1
    Petroleum Systems of Deepwater Settings.... is that a class on off-shore drilling?
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1354  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    "The facts, m'am, just the facts." I get my information from enough different sources that the motives of the reporters do not interest me.

    [Which came first, Mr. Gore's conclusions or his associations? You do not know and I do not care.]
    Indeed, it pays to read....and read alot, from both the yea and naysayers.

    To answer the question, it seems his associations came first, then the conclusions came when it was decided there was money to be made. The aforementioned Peter Knight, for example, has been in Gore's little circle well before went on this world wide eco-tour.

    I particularly liked Algore's little gem from his film:

    "What changed in the US with Hurricane Katrina was a feeling that we have entered a period of consequences...."

    Oh brother.....
  15. #1355  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    good advice. I get very wary when the oil industry tell me what to think about global warming.

    And as far as the Brookhaven article is concerned,
    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
    its seriously flawed, according to other earth scientists as shown in the article below.
    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/resea...n_schwartz.pdf
    The lead author of that article works at a database marketing firm.
  16. #1356  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Petroleum Systems of Deepwater Settings.... is that a class on off-shore drilling?
    It certainly appears that way. But, to be certain, you may want to check with the concierge.
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1357  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    The lead author of that article works at a database marketing firm.
    Funny...isn't it?

    The irony in your observation is that cell has, routinely, dismissed my sources (and other's sources) as somehow being mouthpieces of the oil industry when, in fact, they are actually scientists in the Earth sciences from some of the world's most prestigious academic institutions.

    That, essentially, is the excuse "de rigeur" offered by Gore apologists like, BARYE, Cell, Modboy, Shortie, et al, is that if you are not on-board with the global warming hysteria they propose, that you are somehow involved the petroleum industry.

    Pathetic really, but given their flaccid position that is being increasingly questioned by thinking men, is it not unexpected.
  18. #1358  
    When a person accepts a world view as the absolute truth, any analysis challenging that view must be dismissed as false. There's no point in considering alternate viewpoints. He just needs to decide whether the analysis is flawed or the source is biased.

    Since the content of much analysis related to climate change is beyond the reach of most people, it's difficult to challenge the analysis directly. So unless there is another scientist who has an opposing viewpoint, the only viable strategy is to attack the source. In other words, one must assert that the author is in the pocket of big oil - not necessarily based on facts but because that's the best explanation for the bias that is presumed to be there.

    And if that fails, there's always name-calling, personal attacks, lying, and cyber-stalking.

    Sometimes it's best to avoid engaging in debate with certain people because no good can come from it.
  19. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1359  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    When a person accepts a world view as the absolute truth, any analysis challenging that view must be dismissed as false. There's no point in considering alternate viewpoints. He just needs to decide whether the analysis is flawed or the source is biased.

    Since the content of much analysis related to climate change is beyond the reach of most people, it's difficult to challenge the analysis directly. So unless there is another scientist who has an opposing viewpoint, the only viable strategy is to attack the source. In other words, one must assert that the author is in the pocket of big oil - not necessarily based on facts but because that's the best explanation for the bias that is presumed to be there.
    Adroit observations indeed. Mind you, let the record show that I never held the position that man-made global warming was a myth. I merely raised the possibility, though the presentation of scientific evidence, that at the very least, suggests that perhaps we should step back for a moment and see what the science really is on the matter.

    As you can see, the mere suggestion of questioning certain individuals who are deemed to be beyond reproach illicits a violent reaction.....

    ...hence, your point below:

    .....there's always name-calling, personal attacks, lying, and cyber-stalking...
    ....and don't forget the treatment of ostracization taken by at least two on the forum.

    To which I ask why become part of a forum if you are just going to ostracize people? The only logical conclusion is that the parties concerned were more interested in a spumescent ideological circle-jerk than any real exchange of ideas and viewpoints.

    Apparently one of them has been banned from this forum before because he could not contain himself. I suppose putting people on ignore is a step in the right direction insofar as his anger management is concerned.

    Well, to each his own.
  20. #1360  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    When a person accepts a world view as the absolute truth, any analysis challenging that view must be dismissed as false. There's no point in considering alternate viewpoints. He just needs to decide whether the analysis is flawed or the source is biased.

    Since the content of much analysis related to climate change is beyond the reach of most people, it's difficult to challenge the analysis directly. So unless there is another scientist who has an opposing viewpoint, the only viable strategy is to attack the source. In other words, one must assert that the author is in the pocket of big oil - not necessarily based on facts but because that's the best explanation for the bias that is presumed to be there.

    And if that fails, there's always name-calling, personal attacks, lying, and cyber-stalking.

    Sometimes it's best to avoid engaging in debate with certain people because no good can come from it.
    Hear! Hear! However, "true believers," of the right and left, are often willing to go beyond rhetoric. Sometimes declining to engage is not sufficient or effective.

Posting Permissions