"Brent P" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:wvWKb.85851$xX.598981@attbi_s02...
> I get what you are trying to do. The problem is that is not the
> working definition and you know it.
>
And, I know what your trying to do too. The problem is that your
redefinition is
not the working definition - and you know it also.
>
> Not what I stated. Temeperature does not have to be observed to increase
> for the political agenda.
>
I don't give a crap about your or "their" political agenda.
>
> And if that *IS* the definition scientists use, how come the lack
> of attack on Dr. Parker (self proclaimed scientist) by any of the
> sci.environment regulars like yourself?
I am _not_ a sci.environment regular, I do not follow or post in that
group. And I do not understand what your fixation is with sci.environment
when you are continually posting in the automotive newsgroups.
> Why don't you put Dr. Parker
> in his place as he goes off spouting it's the result of man creating
> too much CO2 (while he's driving a MB)?
By any chance is this Dr. Parker the same one with the fixation on
Comsumer Reports who is constantly trying to convince all the
regulars in the rec.autos.chrysler newsgroups that import cars
are better made and sell better? I suspect he is, if so, you should
rest assured that he has already been whupped good here for the
same kind of bull****, and slunk away over a month ago.
> Instead you waste your time
> trying to discredit me, someone who merely questions. It's very telling
> indeed what the real working definition of global warming is.
You are not questioning, that last sentence of yours was not any kind
of question.
You are doing the same thing that many newspaper reporters do who
are prohibited from expressing personal opinion in their stories, you are
simply phrasing your so-called "questions" to express your personal views
that the idea that the temperature of the globe is increasing is a lot of
bunk.
Sort of like the "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question.
> I am
> saying that if a scientist does not believe that man's activities are
> causing global warming, if his data and research doesn't show a warming,
> he will suffer career wise.
You see, there you go again, mixing the conclusion with the observation.
"if a scientist does not believe that man's activities are
causing global warming,"
that's a conclusion
"if his data and research doesn't show a warming,"
That's an observation.
There are many scientists out there who show observations that there's a
warming
trend right now who DON'T believe man's activities have anything to do with
it.
> It's the new religion. Just like galieo
> suffered from the religious leaders of the day, a scientist who has
> done research that shows no significant warming or that any warming
> is caused by nature will likely suffer. It's seen in sci.environment
> consistantly. That's what I am talking about.
>
Then please take this _back_ to the sci.environment newsgroup and stop
troubling the automotive newsgroups with it.
Why are you posting bitches about sci.environment in the automotive
newsgroups? Many regulars in the automotive newsgroups are keenly
interested in the global warming debate, extremely few to none are
interested in the opinions of the sci.environment newsgroup.
> The fact that you keep interpeting this as an attempt to disprove
> global warming proves my point.
No, the point it proves is that you have communicated that you do not
believe that the temperature of the globe has been increasing. If this
is a misunderstanding, then you can easily set it right by saying that I
have misunderstood your intentions and that you do indeed believe that
the temperature of the globe is increasing.
The fact that you have not, even given plenty of opportunity to do so,
pretty much proves that you do not believe that the globe's temperature
is increasing. So I do not understand why you are so defensive about
it.
> It's a religion and my statements
> are then viewed as an attack on that religion. You and others continue
> in your arguement assignments, ridicule, and personal attack any time
> someone questions the faith.
>
No, we redicule someone who implies that they don't believe in something
then when pressed, claims that they do believe in it, then flops back the
next post claiming they don't believe in it.
Everybody starts out with an opinion on something. The open minded people
are willing to change their mind in the face of evidence to the contrary of
what they believe. The closed minded people are not. Your free to chose
which group you want to be in.
>
> Read what I wrote again. It's an OBSERVATION of sci.environment regulars.
Why then are you posting this observation of sci.environment in the auto
newsgroups?
>
> > I don't see sci.environment in the header list, nor am I posting from
there.
>
> It was before the thread was revived or maybe it was one of the other
> offshoots or global warming threads. Same difference though.
>
No it is NOT the "same difference" This thread is in the auto groups, not
the sci.environment newsgroups. Discussion about what sci.environment is
saying about something is inappropriate here.
"global warming" has much relevance to automotive technology for many
obvious reasons. If the reasons for global warming are eventually believed
to be pollution from automotive tailpipes, there will be of course a great
work by many governments to make automotive ownership extremely
uncomfortable. If however the reasons for global warming are eventually
believed to be pollution from, say, developing countries burning up their
forests in open fires and stoves without any pollution control, then auto
ownership will likely be unaffected.
>
> > religions are not scientific.
>
> You don't understand then what happens in science to those that
> don't follow the popular path. No funding, wrecked careers, etc.
>
Rubbish. Science is a risk game like any other field of human endeavor.
Scientists that do not wish to take risks may be free to toe the party
line. They will never be critized and have to worry about perhaps losing
their jobs - but their careers will spent doing grunt work or fill-in work
for already established theories.
By contrast scientists who don't follow the popular path will of course
take a very big chance of losing their cushy jobs, etc. If they are right
and time bears this out, then they eventually become regarded as pioneers
and the expert of the experts in their fields, and can charge enormous
sums of money for their opinions, work, etc. However, it wouldn't be
a risk if the majority of people taking it succeeded. Thus, this is why you
read about no funding/wrecked careers/etc. because the majority of
scientists that take big risks, are in fact, wrong.
It is no different in any other field.
Take my own career. Over the last decade I have worked for 6 different
software startup firms. All 6 started out with bright promise, then went
bankrupt. If any one of those had been successful, I would be retired
at age 35. But do you see me whining about "broken career, blah blah blah?"
No. I took my huge risks, and the luck of the dice wasn't in my favor. Too
bad. The majority of people in my position failed also. But if it wasn't
for
the majority of us failing, the reward for success wouldn't be as high as
it is.
The threat of losing 10 years of my life where I could have been working
steadily to build up a nest egg was not any deterrent to me to getting
involved
with software startups. If it had been I would have washed my hands of
software startups after the first couple of failures. I don't believe that
the
threat of "no funding, wrecked careers" is much of a deterrence to
risk-taking
scientists, either.
> I question, but in questioning people like
> you begin to use terms like "other side". That any questioning
> automatically puts a person on that "other side" of planet raping
> conservative corporate whores who fund bogus research to keep their
> profit machines going.
>
I use terms like Other Side because you are putting yourself on a side.
Your claim that your merely questioning is laughable.
>
> Oh I know there is more to it, but you are using this built up personal
> attack of yours to divert from my point.
What IS your point?
> Global warming is now part
> of a greater religion like structure where anyone who questions it
> is an enemy of the faith.
And are you questioning it? It sure seems like it to me.
> You prove this simply with the what you've
> done to attempt to discredit me and divert the discussion away from
> my point.
>
paranoia will destroya
>
> You unquestionally follow a belief system that is endorsed by scientists.
> I question it. And when I question it, I get responses like yours that
> try to discredit me, attack me personally, etc. And that's the response
> I get for asking questions.
Because you are not simply asking questions, you are making statements
that are phrased in the form of questions. You probably have caught
several youngsters with this trick who haven't been around the debate
game for a while, but your not in the kid's playroom anymore. We aren't
dumb enough to fall for that sort of stunt here.
In short, you ask a question like "is the globe warming" then are told "yes"
But you don't want to believe this, so like a little kid you just keep
asking
"but is it _really_ warming" over and over again. You won't be happy until
someone tells you "no it's not" then you will accept what that person says
without question.
If your all so fired up wanting to question things, then why aren't you
_equally_ questioning the global warming disbelievers? You seem to
be fixated on questioning the global warming believers, but very
uninterested in questioning the global warming disbelievers.
No Brent, it's obvious to everyone that you are just one more
anti-temperature-change bigot out there who simply doesen't
believe that the temperature of the globe is increasing. You should
not be in the least suprised that you get raked over the coals by
the global warming believers, they can sense a hostile question
even if they may not be able to elucidate what your doing.
> Not only that, I have to show research and
> make cites just to show I have a reason for questioning!
Correct, because your not really questioning.
Brent, it is not my responsibility to give you a bunch of cites
proving global warming. I have read enough to be satisfied
that the temperature of the globe is increasing, slowly. The
material that I have read has also convinced me that nobody
has any proof of what is causing it, and furthermore that this
is not the kind of problem that your ever going to have any
real proof of what the cause is.
Either you believe that it's warming or you don't. If you don't
then you obviously have issues to deal with, with all of the
people that have published their observations claiming that the
globe's temperature is increasing. Please take it up with them,
any Internet search engine will give you plenty of people to
bitch at.
What is applicable in these newsgroups is the RESULTS of
any global warming debate resolution. In short, nobody here
really cares if the globe is warming or not, because that is
imaterial. We don't really give a crap about all the people that
believe the globe is warming who believe that it's not anything
that man is doing. Nor do we give a crap about the people
that believe in global warming and believe that it's industrial
processes or wood-burning or whatever that is causing it.
No, Brent, what we all care about is the large number of
people who believe that global warming is being caused by
automotive emissions, and are therefore trying to ban them
or curtail their use. That is what we in the automotive newsgroups
care about. I'm sorry that you cannot get anyone here to join
with you in your crusade against sci.environment, but it's
obvious that your pretty young and don't know much yet about
how the world works, and how people view life, risk, and
a great many things.
Ted
