Re: Don't feed the trolls folks (Re: Review: An Inconvenient Truth (2006))

On 11 Jun 2006 17:20:28 -0700, Mark_Reichert@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Ross Parker wrote:

Please note that I am not conversing with 'Ross Parker' because it
would be a complete waste to do so. I used a reply to him because
using a reply to someone else to address issues in his posts didn't
seem correct. The purpose of making any reply is for the lurkers
reading the thread who just might get the idea he has valid points.

I do have valid points, that is exactly why you don't want to address them.
You are nothing more than a wacko lib with an agenda. And like most have
very little understanding of what it is that your purport to be an expert.


A Mark Twain quote in the movie : It ain't what you don't know that
gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

That is profound, read it and understand it. Too bad you fail to
recognize that this quote is most applicable to you.


'Parker' is one of those who believes he utterly knows for sure that
mankind is not responsible for global warming and there is nothing we
can do about it. It is vital to his self-esteem that he never be
proven wrong on this belief. Nothing you ever say to him is ever going
to change his mind. His change can only be motivated from within.

As opposed you who utterly know for sure that mankind is responsible.
Based on what? There is nothing we can do about changing the climate
anymore than we can control the weather. I can handle being proven wrong,
you are just not capable of doing so.

Instead of playing arm chair psychoanalyst, at which you truly suck, how
about you move onto more fertile grounds like climatology. I am positive
this is where you can make a true ass of yourself.


On the other hand, perhaps he works in the fossil fuel extraction
industry and is worried about tobacco sized lawsuits.

Perhaps you work solar power field, or maybe some other industry that has a
vested interest in this terror campaign. You know nothing about me but
that does not stop you from proffering ridiculous charges and conclusions.
Not surprising since this is the same "scientific" technique being used to
arrive at your climate change conclusions.

An Upton Sinclair quote from the movie: It is difficult to get a man to
understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding
it.

Sounds like you. For the record I have nothing to do with any fossil fuel
industry, nor any other industry that would be effected one way or the
other regardless of what the cause of climate change may be. Can you say
the same?

Thing is, as far as I can tell, until people like Lee "$400 million
retirement" Raymond, the fossil fuel industry wasn't engaged tobacco
industry tactics of spreading doubt among the public through the media
about straight forward scientific facts. Had they owned up to global
warming and worked with the public and government rather than fighting
them, they could still have sold the $12 trillion dollars of oil still
left (though over a longer time scale) without ever worrying about
lawsuits.


The scientific facts are not straight forward and you know it, or you
should. There is a healthy debate ongoing about causality and if you
looked into it you would discover the other side makes a whole lot more
sense. Do you even know what the other theory is? Yeah, I didn't think
so.

of it. All you lefties get so lost in your fervor that simple basic facts
escape your attention. Maybe you should go back and study the topic some
more before you demonstrate your complete idiocy in a public forum again.

Notice how he wants to pretend to be an unbiased average joe while his
opponents are the fanatics, but he uses words like lefties and idiocy.
Also note that he doesn't present any facts or links to show he has
studied the topic, rather than using fossil fuel industry talking
points.

Everyone is biased, only a simpleton like you would attempt to claim
otherwise. I presented plenty of facts and links and names that you could
Google on for your edification. Regardless, there is not a single fact in
your post nor a single link to your studies or otherwise. All we have here
is the talking points of the left, aka Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

Climatology has chronicled several shifts in global temperature. In 1975
you ecoterrorists ran about the land screaming about the coming ice age.

Again with an angry term: ecoterrorist. "You ecoterrorists". Who are
supposed to be the ecoterrorists? Who were they screaming to and
where? Why does he have no links to support this notion.

The ecoterrorists are the idiots like you running around claiming all this
knowledge of which you have NONE. The screaming is Gore's movie, your
posts, and any other attempt to spread your propaganda. What more is
needed? BTW, where are all your links? Yeah, that is what I thought.

What happened to that?

As it is, I'll help him. I well remember the winters of 1976-77,
77-78, 78-79 here in Missouri. As the following link states, they were
all notably frigid and the last was the coldest on record:

Missouri? What the hell does anecdotal evidence from Missouri have to do
with global climate change? This is the most demonstrative part of your
post, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

http://www.mcc.missouri.edu/sigwxmo.htm

It also notes how remarkably mild the winters have been since the start
of the nineties.

Again, meaningless anecdotes. The simple fact is that you cannot have both
global cooling and global warming happening at the same time. It is one of
the other but never both. Global climate changes are measured in decades
and centuries, not years.


There was loose talk about a coming ice age but it was almost all in
the media, whose business is loose talk. After all, wasn't the
consensus that we were in an interglacial period just waiting for the
ice sheets to come back. On the other hand, real climatologists were
divided, as scientists usually are when the data isn't all in yet.

Just as in this case. If you were as smart as you claim to be you would
know that. You might have even bothered to read and understand the other
positions. In a perfect world you would have read at least the manifesto
from the man is responsible crowd. At least enough to see all the wholes
their methodology and theories. It does not hold any water when
scrutinized.


From: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm#M_70_ (scroll up a
bit)
Science journalists, by now closely attuned to the views of climate
scientists, promptly reflected the shift of opinion. Media talk of a
ruinous new ice age continued through the winter of 1976-1977, which
was savagely cold in the Eastern half of the U.S. But that was the end
of it, despite blizzards the following winter. In early 1978 the New
York Times reported that a poll of climate scientists found them evenly
divided on whether there would be warming, cooling, or no particular
change.

Again, climate changes take place on a GLOBAL level. Anecdotal evidence
from a couple of states is meaningless. Using your retarded logic we could
then conclude that we are once again on track for another ice age based on
the fact that this past winter was the coldest on record for Northern
Russia.

Your ignorance is staggering.


From the footnote, that's the New York Times of Feb. 18, 1978. A
fuller account is done by Bray, A.J. (1991). "The Ice Age Cometh.
Remembering the Scare of Global Cooling." Policy Review, Fall, pp.
82-84.

This has been accounted for and it makes things all the scarier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

More meaningless drivel. Wikipedia for God's sake?? Anyone can head out
there and write anything they want. It is about as authoritative as your
Usenet ramblings.

Back in the late seventies, the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the EPA were
not yet a decade old and we were still pumping out a lot of particulate
matter into the air and we had significantly less people and less
greenhouse gases. Likewise, Europe wasn't as 'green'. Conditions have
changed.

Greenhouse gases? Answer this genius, why is it that 450 million years ago
during one of the COLDEST periods in our climatological history that the
CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today? Kind of destroys your
ridiculous fantasy that man and our modest increases in CO2 is the cause of
the current climate changes.

Think this is all wild eyed speculation? Well the opposing viewpoint
is extreme enough to claim that CO2 does not contribute to the
greenhouse effect:

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050317hutchison.htm

More garbage. If this is the case then explain to all of us why the Earth
failed to warm when teh CO2 levels were at their highest?

Having Political Ideology and not Common Sense, the author did not even
bother to go to these web sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html

Nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to infrared radiation, carbon
dioxide and water vapor are not.

Big deal. None of this does anything to support causality. To bad you are
to ignorant to understand that.

(BTW way if you want to see self-parodying commercials by oil industry
flacks championing carbon dioxide go here: http://streams.cei.org/
Their attack on Al Gore's carbon footprint is a transparent smear
tactic, not flying to give talks would be giving up and most of those
planes would still fly whether he was on them or not. Besides plane
contrails contribute to global dimming<g> Want Gore to travel less?
Get as many people as you can to see the movie.)

Who cares what Gore does. He is a lunatic.


Again, what is it that makes you think that the global climate does not
change, or that we can have any effect upon its ebbs and tides? These
warming and cooling cycles have occurred in the past and will happen in the
future.

As _An Inconvenient Truth_ shows, there have been cycles of glaciers
and interglacial periods since the start of the Ice Age three million
years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

No one ever disputed that Genius. As a matter fact the same point was made
by me in a previous post.

but at no point as far back as ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica
can tell has there been as much carbon dioxide as there is now. No
natural cycle has produced those levels.

Wrong.


Any references to the Age of Dinosaurs or previous eras and the carbon
dioxide then is idiocy because, dinosaurs are not humans and vice
versa. We live in world built on the climate we've had since the
glaciers retreated. We have no experience living in other climate
regimes or trying to feed six billion people.

Any reference that shatters your junk science is meaningless? LOL. That
is beyond hilarious and once again demonstrates that this whole issue is
predicated on nothing more than a political agenda.


Maybe Al should be looking into that rather than wasting his
time inventing the Internet.

Once again with the political attack from somebody purporting to be
unbiased. The real story on that bogus claim is here:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Sure, sure. Everyone knows what Al did. He made himself look like an
idiot every time he opened his mouth.


Likewise on claims that he said he was the model for Love Story, well,
read this:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h120699_1.shtml

Again, we all know what he did. Must be a bitch trying to defend a lunatic
and forward an agenda based on junk science. No wonder you liberals are
all so miserable.


--
Ross
.