In article <newscache$kna9rh$bs$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:wvWKb.85851$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.
I am not trying to do anything, but point out how the environment
is being used as an excuse to further a political agenda. How the
processes of funding and career advancement stifle research that
does not go along with politics. It seems that this bothers you
and it's just easy for you, like many others to accuse me of being
in some group of global warming denialists.
It's happened many times. I question something as is valid in science
and I get a self proclaimed scientist like Dr. Parker calling me a
right-winger. I get people like you accusing me of trying to discredit
global warming.
>> 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.
Then why the **** are you replying? Because my entire set of points in
this thread have been about how the environment is being used as an
excuse to further a political agenda. And how those politics then
guide the science. How it's become more of a religon, where questioning
is not welcome.
>> 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.
There have been several cross posts, and your posting on this topic
comes across exactly the same as theirs.
>> 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.
Yes. He's just the one you'd know best.
>> 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.
Go back to oh about 1996 and read my posts.
> 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.
I have never stated it was bunk. Never implied it was bunk. Only that it
is not rock solid, undebatable fact that the world is warming due to
human activity.
> Sort of like the "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question.
And greys are sitting on my couch right now.
>> 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.
You are really stretching things to try to fit me as a square peg into
the round hole you have.
> 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.
Exactly. That's why the whole thing is debatable. But bring up those
studies in a group of true believers and watch what happens. Just watch.
They'll try to discredit those scientists personally as shills of the
carbon industry. I've been called a right-winger just for mentioning
such studies.
>> 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.
I didn't revive the the thread, you could stop posting too.
> 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.
My deepest apoligies, I don't keep track of which global warming thread
branches are crossposted there and which aren't.
>> 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.
I've stated no such thing. Not at all. That's you, trying to fit me
into your pretermined box.
> 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.
I must repent, and declare that I believe the reglion. Did you ever think
that I might be *GASP* UNDECIDED? That I haven't seen anything that has
made me set roots on either side of the issue? Nahh. That doesn't fit
how you see the world.
> 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.
I haven't seen anything that says you believe fords are the best cars made,
therefore you must hate fords. That's your logic applied to car brands.
Why do I have to believe either way? Because it suits your us-vs-them
idea of the topic?
>> 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.
I've never said I believe or disbelieve.
> Everybody starts out with an opinion on something.
No. Maybe you do. You are projecting your behavior on me.
> 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.
Cute. I'm tired of trying to discuss this with you, it appears your
mind is of the closed variety that has to stuff other people in nice
little slots.
> "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.
Yet you feel free to use insult and ridicule on me because I believe
the environment is being used as an excuse for a political and social
agenda that in part is to severely limit private automobile use likely
to only the privledged elites. After all, developing countries will
still get to spew as much CO2 as they like forcing a relocation of
manufacturing and in turn the wealth that comes from making things.
>> 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.
It's not comparable to what science is supposed to be vs. what it is.
In business, that is exactly what it is supposed to be. Science is
supposed to be about asking questions, finding answers. But some questions
are not allowed to be asked. Even when there is good solid evidence to
ask those questions, if it doesn't follow the established line forget
about ever getting the *CHANCE* to persue it in most cases. In business
just show evidence that it can make money and sell it that way and you
have a chance. In science, work that challenges established belief, no
matter how good the foundation, is very difficult to get off the ground,
many times with virtually no chance. Evidence that doesn't fit convention
is even known to disappear or be destroyed.
>> 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.
No, you've put be on the other side because I question your belief and
you can only think in us-vs-them terms.
>> 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?
See above.
>> 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.
Before you said I wasn't.
>> 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
Ahh yes, more personal attack.
>> 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.
*laugh*. Ok smarty pants, tell me why CO2 from china is less harmful
to the globe than CO2 from the USA? Why is it better for the environment
to have widgets made in china instead of new jersey for a buyer in Texas?
Answer that one. Because the so called attempt to limit global warming,
the kyoto treaty, and others like carbon credits and the like give nations
like China a pass but not ones like the USA. Net result will be more reason
to relocate manufacturing to china. And if manufacturing is relocated from
countries with environmental protections to those without, how has this
helped the environment?
> 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.
Have done *NOTHING* of the kind. I demand you prove your charge with
links to revelant posts in a usenet archive.
> 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.
I have on occasion. Thing is I don't have to. Others do, I can sit
on the sidelines and watch.
> 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.
How does, I don't like their political agenda become that I don't believe
the globe is warming? I don't know if the globe is warming or not. What
I dislike, what I am "hostile" about is the methods being used to
protect the environment that won't. Methods that will actually *HARM*
the environment. So yes, I question policies I see as harmful to the
environment. I demand answers, and get personal attack in return.
If CO2 and global warming is a problem why are china and others exempt?
Why do they get a free ride to destroy the environment and not learn
from past experiences elsewhere? Why is it that because I ask these
questions does it make me an "anti-temperature-change bigot"?
Let me put this way, why would someone who believed humans are
wasting resources and destroying the planet not question things
like the kyoto treaty that only displace the destruction from point
A to point B? Solutions that do more harm than good because point
A has systems in place to protect the environment but point B doesnt?
Why, as someone who can be best described as one who wants to conserve
resources, which is what I believe in, should not question the motives
of the people pushing an environmental policy using global warming as
it's reason that does *NOT* conserve resources nor protect the
environment for a large portion of the planet? (let alone do anything
to slow *GLOBAL* CO2 output)
>> 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.
Didn't ask you to.
> 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.
Yet you get all upset when I question environmental policy based
on the assumption that CO2 from 'west' especially the USA, and not
china or other 'developing' (why a nation that has had nuclear weapons
for decades and space program is called 'developing' seems kinda
of silly to me anyway) nations.
> 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.
A person is insane, off balance if they don't believe or haven't
been convinced.
> 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.
Then you shouldn't have any problem with my questions regarding
the 'solutions' or mitagtions of global warming. Shouldn't bother
you in the least. Yet it does. So much so, you've taken considerable
time to discredit me. I guess you won't care when the chinese get to
drive and you don't? When their lack of a CO2 cap lets them drive,
but you just cannot afford the carbon tax.
> 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.
If they care about that, if you care about that, then my questions
shouldn't bother you. You shouldn't have to recast them as something
different, you shouldn't have to attack me personally. Yet you do.
My view that global warming is being used as an excuse to further
a political and social agenda, one that doesn't favor the personal
automobile should not bother you. But you attack me instead.
> I'm sorry that you cannot get anyone here to join
> with you in your crusade against sci.environment,
Crusade? no, but if you want to take up that role, as you have, expect
the shoe to be fitted. Maybe you should read the cross posted threads
some time. The true believers really do think you shouldn't have
a car.
> 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.
Nothing like personal attack, it's all you got. You make up
arguements for me, attack my character, my maturity, my sanity,
but the one thing you didn't do, was answer my question(s). Instead
you have decided to change my questions to different ones. It's
really sad.
So when you can tell me why CO2 from china is ok, and it's not
ok from the USA, let me know.
