Grist for the mill--Climate Change Shenanigans

[SecretMaster]

Yeah, if you read what I try to get across, not always good at it, I have tried to hold that we should try to conserve, reduce our impact, hence my Lukewarm Rod instead of my gas guzzler dream hot rod. I just have never seen that the affect we're supposed to have matches up with the alarmist position, aka media circus. That last bit was directed to the content of the infamous stolen emails that indicate that disagreeing positions should not be published. Whether the source of the emails is valid or not, if they hold any truth, then it begs the question of why.

I understood what you were saying originally; I think you were pretty effective at it. I'm just devoting most of my time towards addressing the claims that we have no impact on the climate. As I keep saying, there is a tremendous amount of evidence from research and data that shows we are.

I also agree, conservation is the best realistic measure to take that would probably please the largest amount of people.

I don't know what to make of the CRU mess. It wouldn't surprise me if in recent years there has been more sloppy work done and greater unethical behavior. It has become a tremendous political issue, and I think that is causing tremendous problems. I would love to see the full context of the emails however. At the worst, all of the data is wrong and the research has to be reconducted. That would be a major setback financially and timewise, but it doesn't destroy the argument.

[SecretMaster]

Originally Posted by robertthebard I'm all for saving the environment. I keep saying that, I'm just not all for having armed guards at my car telling me I can't drive to the convenience store, or McDonald's if I want to.

Now I ask you this. You say you are all for saving the environment. I am going to ask "at what cost?" This is purely a question out of curiousity. My own area of interest and area of research is different than climate change, and I'd say the measures needed to be taken are arguably greater. I am making it my goal however, to understand what people are willing and not willing to do. Intuitatively I think I know most people's reactions and responses. But I like to hear the how's and why's.

How much would you personally be willing to sacrifice in order to help/save the environment?

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard So because his work coincides with your beliefs, his lack of education in the field makes his opinion ok? He's no more educated in Climatology than I am, and yet his is an expert opinion, and mine is what, voodoo science? Again, double standards are bad. What happened to people that aren't educated in the science shouldn't talk about the science? I mean, I understand that his movie fully supports GW/CC, and that it's easy to overlook his lack of education based on releasing material that supports the "science", but come on. That's so blatantly a double standard that I'm surprised anyone would jump to defend his "work".

Much of this is assumption on your part, as I said nothing about your opinion or how you view the issue. However, since you asked, yes, he is far more educated in "Climatology" than you are. He has researched and studied it far more intricately and, made a movie out of it. One that was well-received by science in general and scientists everywhere. If he had no clue, it would have been panned by critics everywhere. It received rave reviews. Where is your movie?

Btw, I noticed in one of these recent posts you alluded to the fact that science disagrees on climate change. We already proved that as incorrect at the BEGINNING of this thread. People also came in and admitted they were wrong in believing scientists were divided on this issue. Now, if you still want to say they are, that's groovy, but it does not make it true regardless of how many times you say it and causes this discussion to become repetetive. This alone tells me that Al Gore has done more research and study than you have.

I also agree with Chewbacca that this whole discussion is pointless. It bored me a long time ago. Nobody here is going to change anyones views. Climate change is like the new Christianity, it seems. Evidence can be presented and then ignored. Yet the discussion continues, or people act like they never received these answers and keep resetting it. While I am a fan of recycling, what's the point if we see no progression?

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior I take it you finally saw the movie then? Otherwise, you wouldn't be qualified to speak on his work.

LOLOLOL! I point out that Al Gore falls squarely in the "unqualified category" as defined by posts made by you and others (if they don't have a degree in climate science, then they don't really understand all the influences involved) and you're counter claim is that I'm not qualified to address Gore's qualifications? Seriously? That is the biggest laugh I've had from this debate so far.

I've read several different reviews of his mockumentary - some positive, some negative. What can not be denied is the fact his film was proven to contain at least 9 factual errors in a court of law. Even Michael Moore never had one of his films legally proven to contain lies.

While the judge did agree that the overall message of the film could still be presented to schoolchildren, it was done with the caveat that any presentation of the film also include a disclaimer stating his "film" only presented one side of the story and, therefore, should be considered a political editorial rather than an actual documentary.

As for the film itself, I checked at the local video store, but they didn't have a copy.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by SecretMaster Now I ask you this. You say you are all for saving the environment. I am going to ask "at what cost?" This is purely a question out of curiousity. My own area of interest and area of research is different than climate change, and I'd say the measures needed to be taken are arguably greater. I am making it my goal however, to understand what people are willing and not willing to do. Intuitatively I think I know most people's reactions and responses. But I like to hear the how's and why's. How much would you personally be willing to sacrifice in order to help/save the environment?

As indicated, even if I could afford to buy the gas guzzler, I wouldn't. Emission controls are nice on my new model, fuel efficient car. As a former professional mechanic, I fully understand the need for them. In a very real sense, I am limited to what I can do. I don't waste the fuel I do buy, and I don't leave the lights on 24 hours a day. I went to economical, low wattage light bulbs, although my reasoning is more health than environment, as higher wattage bulbs, even the ones I use now, are bad for my headaches. I will not put a Carbon measurer on my house. Although I will "car pool" with the neighbor to the grocery store, so long as I get to drive, that guy's driving scares me. I will also not fly in a private jet to Geneva, or Copenhagen to tell everyone how much we should reduce our GHG production, it would seem very hypocritical of me.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Much of this is assumption on your part, as I said nothing about your opinion or how you view the issue. However, since you asked, yes, he is far more educated in "Climatology" than you are. He has researched and studied it far more intricately and, made a movie out of it. One that was well-received by science in general and scientists everywhere. If he had no clue, it would have been panned by critics everywhere. It received rave reviews. Where is your movie? Btw, I noticed in one of these recent posts you alluded to the fact that science disagrees on climate change. We already proved that as incorrect at the BEGINNING of this thread. People also came in and admitted they were wrong in believing scientists were divided on this issue. Now, if you still want to say they are, that's groovy, but it does not make it true regardless of how many times you say it and causes this discussion to become repetetive. This alone tells me that Al Gore has done more research and study than you have. I also agree with Chewbacca that this whole discussion is pointless. It bored me a long time ago. Nobody here is going to change anyones views. Climate change is like the new Christianity, it seems. Evidence can be presented and then ignored. Yet the discussion continues, or people act like they never received these answers and keep resetting it. While I am a fan of recycling, what's the point if we see no progression?

Evidence? Such as the 10 year old report presented by MH, that hasn't been updated since 1999? You see, while we have determined that further study had been done there, it was still dated material to 2006. The problems there have been corrected, or set on that road, so they don't feel the need to update any more, and that's all well and good. However, it begs the question, how much dated material is being presented as evidence? After all, if local offices of the EPA will leave outdated info up as current, what other outdated info are they using to draw conclusions from? Why do these people that gather this evidence, to beat the dead horse one more time, feel the need to destroy the raw data they use to get this evidence? Is it to make room, or is it because it may not support their hypothesis? It's really easy to want to believe they did it on accident. It's really easy to want to believe that there was no malicious intent. However, it's really hard to believe it in light of the fear mongering tactics that are used to force feed the general public, albeit by MSM more than anyone. However, somebody feeds MSM the info they use, and they feed that info for a reason. The nay sayers feed it to discredit the pro side, and the extremists on the pro side do it to bolster their case, and keep their funding. That's pretty basic stuff.

Regarding Al, he lost all credibility with me on the Carbon Footprint buying and selling. You know, pollute all you want, but sell off the excess to make it look like you're doing something good.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek LOLOLOL! I point out that Al Gore falls squarely in the "unqualified category" as defined by posts made by you and others (if they don't have a degree in climate science, then they don't really understand all the influences involved) and you're counter claim is that I'm not qualified to address Gore's qualifications? Seriously? That is the biggest laugh I've had from this debate so far. I've read several different reviews of his mockumentary - some positive, some negative. What can not be denied is the fact his film was proven to contain at least 9 factual errors in a court of law. Even Michael Moore never had one of his films legally proven to contain lies. While the judge did agree that the overall message of the film could still be presented to schoolchildren, it was done with the caveat that any presentation of the film also include a disclaimer stating his "film" only presented one side of the story and, therefore, should be considered a political editorial rather than an actual documentary. As for the film itself, I checked at the local video store, but they didn't have a copy.

I'll take that as a "No, I still haven't seen it" but want to continue to criticise that which I have never seen. That to me, is the biggest laugh. One that keeps on giving.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior I'll take that as a "No, I still haven't seen it" but want to continue to criticise that which I have never seen.

I haven't seen it either. However, I feel good enough about my position on Al to criticize his intent. To scare me into buying into his schemes. Hey, he got a Nobel Prize for it, that should mean something, right? Well, maybe, except that Obama got one too, and hasn't done anything to warrant the award except win an election. That award kinda puts the prize itself into a different light.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard As indicated, even if I could afford to buy the gas guzzler, I wouldn't. Emission controls are nice on my new model, fuel efficient car. As a former professional mechanic, I fully understand the need for them. In a very real sense, I am limited to what I can do. I don't waste the fuel I do buy, and I don't leave the lights on 24 hours a day. I went to economical, low wattage light bulbs, although my reasoning is more health than environment, as higher wattage bulbs, even the ones I use now, are bad for my headaches. I will not put a Carbon measurer on my house. Although I will "car pool" with the neighbor to the grocery store, so long as I get to drive, that guy's driving scares me. I will also not fly in a private jet to Geneva, or Copenhagen to tell everyone how much we should reduce our GHG production, it would seem very hypocritical of me. Evidence? Such as the 10 year old report presented by MH, that hasn't been updated since 1999? You see, while we have determined that further study had been done there, it was still dated material to 2006. The problems there have been corrected, or set on that road, so they don't feel the need to update any more, and that's all well and good. However, it begs the question, how much dated material is being presented as evidence? After all, if local offices of the EPA will leave outdated info up as current, what other outdated info are they using to draw conclusions from? Why do these people that gather this evidence, to beat the dead horse one more time, feel the need to destroy the raw data they use to get this evidence? Is it to make room, or is it because it may not support their hypothesis? It's really easy to want to believe they did it on accident. It's really easy to want to believe that there was no malicious intent. However, it's really hard to believe it in light of the fear mongering tactics that are used to force feed the general public, albeit by MSM more than anyone. However, somebody feeds MSM the info they use, and they feed that info for a reason. The nay sayers feed it to discredit the pro side, and the extremists on the pro side do it to bolster their case, and keep their funding. That's pretty basic stuff. Regarding Al, he lost all credibility with me on the Carbon Footprint buying and selling. You know, pollute all you want, but sell off the excess to make it look like you're doing something good.

So wait, you think that science is now fiercely divided on this issue?

[robertthebard]

If it wasn't, would there still be an issue? Everybody would have run to Copenhagen to sign the world government, er, environmental contract treaties...

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard I haven't seen it either. However, I feel good enough about my position on Al to criticize his intent. To scare me into buying into his schemes. Hey, he got a Nobel Prize for it, that should mean something, right? Well, maybe, except that Obama got one too, and hasn't done anything to warrant the award except win an election. That award kinda puts the prize itself into a different light.

Obama re-opened the dialogue of national diplomacy that the other guy closed.

Feeling "good enough" may be acceptable to you, but alas, it only portrays a misguided confidence - nothing more. Like I said to you in my previous post, we are recycling the same stuff here. Take Cerek for example, he spouts the same argument every time, I tell him go see the movie, come back. He doesn't. It's like a selective amnesia almost. Would you believe I told him this around 5 times already? Must I do the same with you? Please, say no.