Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

This quote merits repeating a million times"

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

-Tolstoy

HarveyH42 said:

I did have some thoughts on lowering the seas, and reduce flooding... Why not start building space-tankers, and start hauling water to the moon?

Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding! LOL!
Harvey, you just made this thread worth my while. Thanks for the laughs!

kchriste said:

You've got to be kidding! LOL!
Harvey, you just made this thread worth my while. Thanks for the laughs!

Click to expand...

Scary part is if he is not kidding

kchriste said:

You've got to be kidding! LOL!
Harvey, you just made this thread worth my while. Thanks for the laughs!

Click to expand...

I have to admit, not a bad concept for a sci-fi movie, but with our current technology if the carbon from current emissions isn't bad enough, the carbon released from all those rockets would be disastrous! LOL (That is, if RP-1 is used as the propellant)

Not to mention the weight of the water

However----water fuel, if it ever comes to be? Hmmm

I was about to come to your defense until you made this remark.

I knew very well that you and those like you were going to jump on me when I posted, and I was prepared for it. I'm not like Kchristy and Mikebits, as I don't care anything for soft-peddling around those who taunt and redicule.

Click to expand...

You would do well to read the works of Machiavelli.

From my perspective, you have allowed your passion to rule over your reason. I am sure you are a reasonable man and I ask that you take a step back and take a breath, and re-approach this issue with the clear mind that you did when you first entered into this debate. Otherwise, I fear you will lose the dignity and respect that most here have for you.

Still your friend. Michael

ke5frf said:

I have to admit, not a bad concept for a sci-fi movie, but with our current technology if the carbon from current emissions isn't bad enough, the carbon released from all those rockets would be disastrous! LOL (That is, if RP-1 is used as the propellant)

Not to mention the weight of the water

However----water fuel, if it ever comes to be? Hmmm

Click to expand...

Hoped some would see the humor, we want to save the planet, but we also don't mind do considerably more harm in the process. 'We have to act now, tomorrow is to late...', but what are the consequences of these actions?

Cash-for Clunkers, a program to take gas hungry, inefficient vehicles off the road, and replace them with pretty, shiny, new, only slightly improved cars. The 'clunkers' were engine-disabled, so those of us who can't afford a shiny new car, and the $20-$30,000 debt, couldn't upgrade to a slightly better clunker. Most of the trade-ins were much better than my '91 Explorer, since $4,500 was mostly a down payment. A lot of people got new cars, many will get repossessed, and good luck to them finding a better clunker, than what they traded in. The trade-ins will be crushed and shipped to Japan, who will melt them down, burning coal, to manufacture more cars.

Regulating carbon emissions is a fine dream also, but the add-ons, and upgrades are going to increase emissions, least for a while. Recycling the old parts and materials, is going to increase emissions. The demolition, transportation, and reconstruction of new plants, is going to really increase emissions. And since this all will increase the CO2 levels considerably, won't we be force to put out stronger restrictions? Process repeats, nothing gained. It's pointless to tear down something the still works fairly well, to replace it with something only slightly better.

Developing countries building power plants. Burning stuff is usually the cheapest way to get started, the US doesn't allow most countries to mess with nuclear stuff, renewable technology is very expensive on a large scale. Seems like us actually going on site, and building the power plants green, would be better than writing a check for a couple of billion, and hope some it actually gets used as intended. If you can only afford to build a few coal-burning plants, and you get enough money to build a few green plants, or dozens more coal burners...

Mikebits said:

I was about to come to your defense until you made this remark.



You would do well to read the works of Machiavelli.

From my perspective, you have allowed your passion to rule over your reason. I am sure you are a reasonable man and I ask that you take a step back and take a breath, and re-approach this issue with the clear mind that you did when you first entered into this debate. Otherwise, I fear you will lose the dignity and respect that most here have for you.

Still your friend. Michael

Click to expand...

Good advice Mike.

Nobody ever won an argument with emotion. (Not that this argument is winnable)...and certainly nobody ever won an argument by calling like minded thinkers "soft-peddlers".

And nobody ever won an argument by calling thinkers "eco-tards" or "eco-nuts", or trying to connect a person's argument with people who they also seek to insult ie Al Gore, which was how you first tried to trivialize my opinions. There is clearly a double standard for behavior, and it depends completely on which side of the argument you are on. I see behavior like this around every water cooler, those who go against the "group-think" are insulted, bullied and discouraged from participating. I make my arguments with passion, and I do not stand for personal comments to dissuade me from offering them. Sorry Mike if you think that's wrong, but as I don't know you, or anyone else offering advice on how I should conduct myself, I'll go with what has worked for me for as long as I've been here. If I've lost dignity with you, then it was too fragile to worry about the first place.


But I'll give the deniers their props; they always do a better job at circling their wagons and piling on. While those on our side can't ever seem to put together any kind of united front. Too bad, because this remains an important issue and it looks to be decided by whoever gets more organized than who is right.

Here is what I have found to be a odd but interesting phenomenon. If you go into a random crowd of people and yell ' Hey Stupid, What are you doing?' to no one in general you will always get a few standard responses.

Most will ignore it because they know whom ever said it is not talking to them. They are smart enough to automatically know they didn't do anything dumb that would warrant the comment.
Then you will get the people who look around to see who may be the stupid person who might be doing something dumb. They too know the remark was not intended towards them either but do show a general response by being interested as to see who it may have been directed towards. They too are smart enough to know the comment was not aimed at them either but curiosity gets them looking to see who it may have been directed at.
Then there are the last few who automatically look and see who may be talking to them. That response alone shows those people right away as the ones whom unconsciously think of themselves as being the most likely one a stranger would call out ' Hey stupid, what are you doing?' too for what ever reason it may be.

Try it some time. It doesn't take much effort to read peoples responses to clearly see who is looking to see whom the comment was made towards and who is looking to see who may be talking to them.

I made a generalized comment and just waited to see who did what. Everyone pretty much explained them self right off as to where they fit in the group.

From the princess who couldn't hold up to a spirited debate without calling for banning Unfortunately, you're analysis has nothing to do with your favorite debate dodge. Next time you want to conduct a social experiment, go to a crowd and yell, "People in this crowd are stupid!" and see what kind of response you get. Probably the only people who will look away are those who don't want to look at someone who is acting like a daranged moron. I've never been a fan of name calling in a debate, because it proves nothing and has no value. It's a distraction from the issues that the perp doesn't have enough intelligence to discuss in a meaningful way. Watch the TV show hosts when they are getting their clock cleaned in a debate and see what they do: immediately start spitting out insulting names and labeling their competitor. It’s a method of bullying and nothing else. That some decide to begin a discussion with it makes no difference at all; the intent and results are identical.

BrownOut said:

And nobody ever won an argument by calling thinkers "eco-tards" or "eco-nuts", or trying to connect a person's argument with people who they also seek to insult ie Al Gore, which was how you first tried to trivialize my opinions. There is clearly a double standard for behavior, and it depends completely on which side of the argument you are on. I see behavior like this around every water cooler, those who go against the "group-think" are insulted, bullied and discouraged from participating. I make my arguments with passion, and I do not stand for personal comments to dissuade me from offering them. Sorry Mike if you think that's wrong, but as I don't know you, or anyone else offering advice on how I should conduct myself, I'll go with what has worked for me for as long as I've been here. If I've lost dignity with you, then it was too fragile to worry about the first place.


But I'll give the deniers their props; they always do a better job at circling their wagons and piling on. While those on our side can't ever seem to put together any kind of united front. Too bad, because this remains an important issue and it looks to be decided by whoever gets more organized than who is right.

Click to expand...

Perhaps instead of Machiavelli, Dale Carnegie should be on your future reading list:
Amazon.com: How to Win Friends & Influence People (9780671723651): Dale Carnegie: Books

**broken link removed**

ke5frf said:

Perhaps instead of Machiavelli, Dale Carnegie should be on your future reading list:

Click to expand...

Funny, but no thanks. Still not looking to make any friends.

Originally Posted by BrownOut View Post
And nobody ever won an argument by calling thinkers "eco-tards" or "eco-nuts", or trying to connect a person's argument with people who they also seek to insult ie Al Gore, which was how you first tried to trivialize my opinions. There is clearly a double standard for behavior, and it depends completely on which side of the argument you are on. I see behavior like this around every water cooler, those who go against the "group-think" are insulted, bullied and discouraged from participating. I make my arguments with passion, and I do not stand for personal comments to dissuade me from offering them. Sorry Mike if you think that's wrong, but as I don't know you, or anyone else offering advice on how I should conduct myself, I'll go with what has worked for me for as long as I've been here. If I've lost dignity with you, then it was too fragile to worry about the first place.


But I'll give the deniers their props; they always do a better job at circling their wagons and piling on. While those on our side can't ever seem to put together any kind of united front. Too bad, because this remains an important issue and it looks to be decided by whoever gets more organized than who is right.

Click to expand...

First paragraph you point out the name-calling, and unpleasant references to famous people. Second paragraph, you start off baiting, with signature 'deniers' label, which seems to apply to everyone that doesn't join the herd.

The only part of this whole thing I deny, is the disastrous results we'll all suffer, if we don't bow down today, and follow without question. I don't deny that the climate is changing, never stopped changing to begin with. I don't deny that we should be living cleaner, make more efficient use of our resources, and make some effort to clean up some of the nasty mess we've been making of our one and only planet.

The only part of this whole thing I deny, is the disastrous results we'll all suffer, if we don't bow down today, and follow without question. I don't deny that the climate is changing, never stopped changing to begin with. I don't deny that we should be living cleaner, make more efficient use of our resources, and make some effort to clean up some of the nasty mess we've been making of our one and only planet.

Click to expand...

Then I wasn't refering to you. I refer only to those who deny the work of the dedidcated scients who are trying to figure this whole thing out.

BTW:

Deny

1 : to declare untrue <deny an allegation>
2 : to refuse to admit or acknowledge : disavow <deny responsibility>
3 a : to give a negative answer to <denying the petitioners> b : to refuse to grant <deny a request> c : to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires


What about that do you find offensive? If you want, then give me a pleasant way to refer to those who deny the sience of GW and I'll use that instead, as long as you keep it short.

Funny, but no thanks. Still not looking to make any friends.

Click to expand...

And wow have you ever backed that statement up with provable examples and information given by yourself!

If the global climate change people gave as convincing examples as what you have here on this thread in regards to your not trying to make friends everyone would be solid believers in global warming!

BTW, I can't find a definition of eco tard or eco nut, but I did find this

Tard
Any person who is not developmentally disabled, but rather has what is considered normal cognitive faculties[SIC] but for whatever reason has opted out of using it.

You see? Those who use such a perjorative thinks anyone who argues against them isn't using normal cognative function.

And wow have you ever backed that statement up with provable examples and information given by yourself!

Click to expand...

I do that for those who are so cluless they need extra help. Now that you've figured it out, my work is done.

BTW, I can't find a definition of eco tard or eco nut, but I did find this

Tard
Any person who is not developmentally disabled, but rather has what is considered normal cognitive faculties[SIC] but for whatever reason has opted out of using it.

You see? Those who use such a perjorative thinks anyone who argues against them isn't using normal cognative function.
__________________

Click to expand...

Where you not the one who went off the deep end over it a few posts ago thinking it was an insult? And has been upset over it for how long thinking it was an insult?

I do that for those who are so cluless they need extra help. Now that you've figured it out, my work is done.

Click to expand...

So are we to now understand that what you have been doing this whole time is making sure that no one would like you and want you for a friend?

Anyone else finding this rather confusing besides me?

Where you not the one who went off the deep end over it a few posts ago thinking it was an insult? And has been upset over it for how long thinking it was an insult?

Click to expand...

Were you not the one complaining about my writing skills a couple nights ago?

So are we to now understand that what you have been doing this whole time is making sure that no one would like you and want you for a friend?

Click to expand...

Whatever jerks you rope, friend.

BrownOut said:

Then I wasn't refering to you. I refer only to those who deny the work of the dedidcated scients who are trying to figure this whole thing out.

BTW:

Deny

1 : to declare untrue <deny an allegation>
2 : to refuse to admit or acknowledge : disavow <deny responsibility>
3 a : to give a negative answer to <denying the petitioners> b : to refuse to grant <deny a request> c : to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires


What about that do you find offensive? If you want, then give me a pleasant way to refer to those who deny the sience of GW and I'll use that instead, as long as you keep it short.

Click to expand...

I don't find offensive, just trying to point that all your whining about the responses your use of 'GW denier' intentionally provokes. You seem to use that to side-step an issue which weakens your arguments. You use it degrade the topic of the E-mails, to name calling, as there is no place in real sciences to fix or omit data, that doesn't confirm your desired results.

In the context you use 'denier', implies that everybody who is following your parade, are all lumped together. Most of us only wish to 'deny' people like Al Gore, a chance to control a portion of our paychecks, and our lives.