Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
32 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, Faith, jar, JoeT, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Theodoric (9 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,510 Year: 18,546/19,786 Month: 966/1,705 Week: 218/518 Day: 42/50 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An inconvenient truth.... or lie?
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 106 of 191 (538669)
12-09-2009 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Taz
12-08-2009 4:52 PM


I just realized what the problem is. You have a problem with empathizing with others. Before you make your next statement, do yourself a favor and try to ask yourself how you would react to such and such situation. Nobody likes their emails published for the world to see and judge. Nobody likes their property stolen. And certainly, nobody likes to be called a liar based on some words taken out of context. You people seem to have a problem applying the same situation to your own.

Taz

I have already told others I accept the argument you make. I wasn't fully aware of all the details of this issue and maybe jumped in a bit early - living up to my name.

I will however stand by my position that the scientists and politicians don't do themselves any favours on this issue by the way they present, or fail to present, the information to the public. You talk about theft and invasion of privacy, and of course I don't mean to condone the way this information was taken and leaked, but these scientists are using huge amounts our money to carry out research on what is supposedly a problem of urgent and potentially catastrophic proportions. They are supposed to be working to save our cities and in some cases whole countries from being permanently flooded in the next few decades!

If that really is the case, there should be a formal state of global emergency! Why isn't there? Why are they more paranoid about people reading their emails than investigating the problem they are paid to do?

If they were much more upfront and clear with the public about the information they have and the measures that need to be taken, they wouldn't leave the door open for others with an agenda to cause this kind of uproar.

In a previous message I compared the global warming issue to the HIV/AIDS issue a couple of decades ago. In the latter case there was a quick no-nonsense approach. The science was quickly collated and the public were well-informed with the hard facts.

Yet we're now talking about an imminent worldwide catastrophe and what do the scientists and politicians do? They flock in their tens of thousands from all over the world for a jolly in a pretty Scandanavian town, travelling with fat expenses accounts by dozens of private jets and hundreds of limousines. What's the first thing they have to say about the imminent catastrophe? That the Maldives may disappear? That hundreds of millions of people around the world are about to lose their homes and property? No. They say: "don't look at our emails."

Well they can fuck off. In this situation they are our emails, not theirs. I can empathise with others. I can empathise very well with millions (including myself) who would lose their homes if the sea level rises by as much as they are saying it could. That's why I've been willing to pay them thousands to do their research. But when they think the priority is to whinge about someone reading their emails they really are taking the piss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Taz, posted 12-08-2009 4:52 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Taz, posted 12-09-2009 4:07 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 191 (538696)
12-09-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Vacate
12-08-2009 10:46 PM


Re: Bad conspiracies
Vacate writes:

So your goverment required industries to stop dumping toxins into the air, some did and some did not. You are upset because the polluting industries, the ones who could not make a profit without ruining your breathing air, moved on or died out. This bothers you?

Did you know that its often more profitable for such industries to move to third world countries where they can pollute to their hearts content? This must be great news for you since it frees up innocent western nations from having to pay these countries like you said earlier. Soon enough third world nations will have to pay the U.S. for all the carbon they are emitting due to the influx of industry.

I guess the UN conspiracy is not so well thought out after all. Third world nations will continue to be poor due to carbon taxes paid out to western nations. Plus we have clean air.

Sounds like a win win for the good guys if I understand your position correctly. This could all fall apart if industries just filtered out the toxins though. What would be the point of all this conspiring if our air was clean and western nations remained filthy rich?

1. Emission restrictions are not all that has driven industry from upstate NY. Big, corrupt and oppressive leftist government which mandates unfunded obligations on business, citizens, schools and local governments, etc and which is mostly representative of downstates big city interests has driven business from NY out of state, particularly upstate. Property taxes rise and taxpayers are forced out as well to find work.

2. Third world nations will pretty much run the UN under globalist Obama's New World Order agenda. LOL on them ever paying their share.

3. All businesses have been driven out; not just the ones cited for polution.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Vacate, posted 12-08-2009 10:46 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Vacate, posted 12-09-2009 11:03 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 191 (538698)
12-09-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-08-2009 11:13 AM


...Chimpanzee writes:

Having read Hooah212002's message 68, in which an explanation is given of the way the content of the email was taken out of context, I fully accept your argument.

Hi Chimpanzee. LOL. Don't be so soon convinced about the veracity of the whole mess when the head man who has been forced to resign offers a short explanation for one hand picked from the batch.

Edited by Buzsaw, : fix quote


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-08-2009 11:13 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2885 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


(1)
Message 109 of 191 (538713)
12-09-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
12-09-2009 8:45 AM


Re: Bad conspiracies
1. Emission restrictions are not all that has driven industry from upstate NY.

Ok so a world wide conspiracy of climate scientists is not all that is needed to drive industry from left leaning states to third world countries. It also takes left leaning government mandates representing the wealthy elite from down state (who apparently prefer life in third world countries and not New York?)

Property taxes rise and taxpayers are forced out as well to find work.

Where do these poor souls move to: Conservative states or third world countries? Why does the U.N. conspire to empty left leaning states as opposed to conservative states given its the conservatives who have caught on to their nefarious plans? (Or am I not versed enough in my conspiracies?)

2. Third world nations will pretty much run the UN under globalist Obama's New World Order agenda

So when do you estimate the powerful nations will allow the poorest nations to make all the decisions? Now that Obama is the leader of the New World Order does he have some sort of ability to overrule the western nations ability to govern themselves? (Additionally, who ruled the New World Order before Obama?)

Why exactly do they want the third world nations to rule? The countries generally are cesspools of filth, anarchy, and disease so unless the New World Order is just looking for cheap real estate I fail to see a motive for all this. Does Obama have so little an income that he needs to move to the third world after his presidency? Realistically, from what you say, he could just move to upstate New York once its emptied.

3. All businesses have been driven out; not just the ones cited for polution.

If they can gut a whole state without needing to invent a global conspiracy then I have to wonder why all the extra effort. It must be tough to get away with all this stuff considering how many of you folks are well versed on the goals of the New World Order.

Once the New World Order succeeds and the third world countries are westernized and the western countries are third world what has been accomplished? Third world countries aren't so much nicer than ours that a global conspiracy is required to shift the wealth to these places.

Additionally, since the industry is leaving western countries to pollute freely in third world countries, those countries are only going to get worse. Where is the desire in these places? It is quite interesting to think that global warming is actually faked, the true goal is to keep smoke stacks unfiltered in the ugliest countries on the planet so the people living in the nicest countries on the planet can become the new stars of those "dollar a day" infomercials.

Nuts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 12-09-2009 8:45 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 110 of 191 (538725)
12-09-2009 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Eye-Squared-R
12-08-2009 10:49 PM


Re: Hypothetical Effect Of Warming
Hey Rahvin,

I'm just a lurker standing on the corner (so to speak) but decided to jump in for a dip!

Welcome!

quote:
Rahvin - Msg 99 - writes:

Unfortunately for you, "common sense" often has little to do with reality...

Evaporation could indeed increase...but unfortunately water vapor is actually a significant greenhouse gas, meaning the process accelerates itself...

Large amounts of other greenhouse gases (and other things) are trapped in ice...and as the ice melts, those gasses will be released, accelerating the process further. A similar runaway warming effect was at one time hypothesized to have ben [sic] responsible for a mass extinction event, as large amounts of methane gas trapped in ice was released rapidly.


Aside from hectoring or goading, you seem to portray a high level of knowledge (or possibly confidence) on this topic.

I'm simply a layman who reads a decent amount and has a decent memory, nothing more. I'm not a climatologist.

Would you please clarify whether you believe a "runaway warming effect" has occurred on Earth as you mentioned above?

"Runaway" is a relative term. Certainly the Earth does not appear to have experienced the effects of the type of runaway global warming that Venus has experienced. However, the atmosphere of the Earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling, for various reasons. Various hypotheses that I have read include the type of cascade or chain-reaction type effects that I spoke of earlier, where warming eventually results in a greater natural output of greenhouse gasses and accellerates itself.

1) Do you believe an inferred "runaway warming event" naturally abated and reversed?

Obviously, since the Earth is now cooler than it has been at various points in its past. Warming and cooling cycles [i]are[/] natural, as I said, for a variety of reasons including biological, volcanic, meteorite impacts, and other causes. The question today is how to react to the current warming trend. The proper response depends a great deal on whether human society has greatly influenced the current trend, because if we have, we may be able to do something to stop it. If we have not, it's simply time to focus on damage control.

2) If so, would you mind detailing for me and other lurkers what (specific) natural phenomenon you believe had such a strong impact as to stop and reverse such a "runaway" warming event?

Again, the causes for cooling can be varied. As one example, volcanic eruptions are thought to contribute to clobal cooling:

quote:
Volcanic eruptions are thought to be responsible for the global cooling that has been observed for a few years after a major eruption. The amount and global extent of the cooling depend on the force of the eruption and, possibly, its latitude. When large masses of gases from the eruption reach the stratosphere, they can produce a large, widespread cooling effect. As a prime example, the effects of Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in June 1991, may have lasted a few years, serving to offset temporarily the predicted greenhouse effect.

As volcanoes erupt, they blast huge clouds into the atmosphere. These clouds are made up of particles and gases, including sulfur dioxide. Millions of tons of sulfur dioxide gas can reach the stratosphere from a major volcano. There, the sulfur dioxide converts to tiny persistent sulfuric acid (sulfate) particles, referred to as aerosols. These sulfate particles reflect energy coming from the sun, thereby preventing the sun's rays from heating the Earth.

Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer." It was a time of significant weather-related disruptions in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815 in Indonesia. The volcano threw sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, and the aerosol layer that formed led to brilliant sunsets seen around the world for several years.


In this case we'reonly talking about a few degrees of cooling globally from a given eruption, but the effects can be significant.

The Earth has also experienced various ice ages in its past, and these are theorized to be the result of multiple phenomenon:

quote:
The causes of ice ages remain controversial for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).

Maureen Raymo, William Ruddiman and others propose that the Tibetan and Colorado Plateaus are immense CO2 "scrubbers" with a capacity to remove enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor of the 40 million year Cenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 "scrubbing" capacity) occurred in the past 10 million years.


I'm trying to ascertain the depth of understanding how climate mechanisms actually work rather than suppositions.

A good instinct.

The problem is that, with the current trend in warming, we have a definite correlation with human industrialization and a corresponding dramatic increase in greenhouse gas (particularly CO2) production. Establishing causation from that correlation is somewhat more difficult, and has been the subject of much research and debate.

Unfortunately, we're current approaching a point where it really doesn't matter whether human beings are causing global warming, because the damage will already be done.

Remember though, as I said earlier, we are not talkign about the "end of teh world" or even human society. This isn't "The Day After Tomorrow." Climate change is rapid on geological timescales, but we aren't going to wake up tomorrow and find that rain forests have become frozen tundra and New York is now covered in water.

"Climate change" is exactly that. We'll see rising sea levels, and that will cause damage to coastal regions - but nobody is seriously suggesting that New York will be the next Atlantis. "Climate change" means that climates are going to change. Salinity levels will change as freshwater glaciers melt into the ocean. Oceanic temperatures will change, which combined with salinity changes can disrupt oceanic currents and thus global weather patterns. Species around the globe will be placed under new selective pressures, and the entire ecosystem will be disrupted (which is different from being destroyed). It's certainly nothing that hasn't happened before in Earth's history. Human beings have sufficient technology to adapt to the changes as a species, but the transition will involve plenty of death and money spending. Imagine if salinity changes or other oceanic effects cause a massive die-off or even simply a mass migration of fish. That's the sort of change that can result in localized famines and the destruction of entire industries.

If those sorts of changes can be prevented by lowering human emissions or taking other steps, it's certainly worthwhile to do so. Again, the question of human responsibility is not one of assigning blame or setting up absurd conspiracies like what Buz has suggested, but rahter to determine how best to minimize the damage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 12-08-2009 10:49 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 12-15-2009 1:40 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 111 of 191 (538729)
12-09-2009 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
12-05-2009 12:24 AM


Re: Global warming is real!
First, I have to applaud you for your optimism. Especially when I didn't think geology and climatology was in your realm of expertise.

quote:
A little more warming won't be too much of a problem. It would actually help most of the industrialized northern hemisphere.

I am curious where you get your information? That 'a little more warming' won't be to much of a problem is a little vague, don't you think? What amount of warming would NOT create hardships for the vast majority of species on this planet in your scenario('s)? Does your climate model 'predict' that the northern hemisphere's climate zones would just expand without any shifting or changes in rainfall patterns that would possibly be detrimental to our current use of farmland? If climate zones shift northward, would we expect there to be any 'productivity' impacts, due to the geologically 'recent' retreat of the laurentide and cordilleran ice sheets? What impact did the glaciers have on soils in the northern hemisphere? Can we expect that the short daylight periods will have an impact as we shift our agriculture northward?

quote:
The research has been hijacked by zealots out to confirm their chosen beliefs, as these recent hacks have shown.

Rather than me defending these 'zealots', as you call them, I'd think you would be more amenable to taking the time to actually reading what the e-mails were referring to and understanding the context.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 12-05-2009 12:24 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 580 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 112 of 191 (538747)
12-09-2009 3:05 PM


Nice video about the mails

Link here Check out his other videos on climate change as well.

Edited by Huntard, : Added link


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 113 of 191 (538757)
12-09-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-09-2009 5:10 AM


JUC writes:

If that really is the case, there should be a formal state of global emergency!


There is. The problem is trying to convince the conservatives to stop raping and polluting the planet. Allow me to quote your favorite person.

The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that's the Biblical view. - Ann Coulter

Why are they more paranoid about people reading their emails than investigating the problem they are paid to do?

They're not paranoid. Remember that it's the GW deniers that caused the uproar first. What were the scientists suppose to do? Just sit on their hands and said nothing? That's the same thing as admitting guilt.

Again, put yourself in their shoes. Suppose someone got a hold of your personal email and published it. Suppose someone else completely took your words out of context to make you look like a bigot. Would you just sit around and let the world go on believing you're a bigot son of a bitch or would you try to explain to the public what you really meant?

But when they think the priority is to whinge about someone reading their emails they really are taking the piss.

The issue isn't so much as reading the emails as misinterpreting the contents. Global warming is real. But the evidence for it isn't something that ordinary people can understand. Just like Einstein's theory of relativity. The evidence for it is overwhelming. In fact, our GPS system is dependent on it. And yet I often find myself having a hard time explaining to the lay person the evidence that supports the theory.

The accusations arising from the emails are preposterous. Yet, if the scientific community isn't careful, the christian right might actually win the public support to bring about the apocalypse a little sooner.

Help me understand your mind here. What's the mental block that's keeping you from thinking straight?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-09-2009 5:10 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-10-2009 6:00 AM Taz has responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 114 of 191 (538758)
12-09-2009 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
12-05-2009 2:08 PM


Re: Global warming is real!
ummm....no we do not all agree. If you'd like to read about climate issues and even how the media handles them, written by scientists doing climate research, take a gander at the link below. They even take the time to answer questions posted at the blog as often as they can.

Here is a good primer on THAT particular 'controversy'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 12-05-2009 2:08 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 115 of 191 (538788)
12-10-2009 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Taz
12-09-2009 4:07 PM


Help me understand your mind here. What's the mental block that's keeping you from thinking straight?

I made it clear in my first posts on this issue that I am quite prepared to accept the theory of global warming. I am open-minded on accepting the scientific evidence.

What I do have a problem with is the way the scientists, politicians and media who support the theory of global warming present the evidence to the public. Among other things, this has led a large section of the public to accept the general idea of climate change and global warming, but to completely misunderstand the implications.

It's no good the scientists, politicians and media just constantly talking about the problem. They need to take real emergency action. And they should have started this at least 10-20 years ago. But instead they have faffed about and left the door open to others to seize upon the confusion and create controversy.

We've all seen maps of the world showing the predictions for rising sea levels and flooding during this century. Huge areas of heavily populated land around the world that will either disappear under the sea or be regularly flooded. Now imagine if the cause of that was attributed not to global warming but to a terrorist group. We'd be spending billions and billions bombing the shit out of every Arab country, and at home we'd have our personal liberties impinged upon even further. I mean, just look at what happened on the basis of the flimsiest evidence for WMD in Iraq. So what has been done in the face of much greater evidence for a truly global catastrophe - virtually nothing. And all the big-wigs are doing is having another nice little jolly in a quaint old city.

It's the discrepancy between the absolute assurance expressed on one hand that we face a global catastrophe - and the anger directed at anyone who suggests otherwise, as in this email incident - and the total lack of real action on the other that causes many to be sceptical or to at least question whether or not these big-wigs really believe what it is they're telling us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Taz, posted 12-09-2009 4:07 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Taz, posted 12-10-2009 4:00 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded
 Message 158 by DBlevins, posted 12-15-2009 5:07 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 116 of 191 (538835)
12-10-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Eye-Squared-R
12-08-2009 11:58 PM


Eye-Squared-R writes:

Have you read some of the hijacked emails that directed others within the global warming research community to "delete" certain communications?

Are you aware that these directions to "delete" occurred before the emails were made public?

As far as I know, most people in research are proud of their communications and don't need to hide anything. What do you suppose were the reasons for this desire among certain research folks to conceal communications? Shamelessness?

- Thanks and Question Everything -
Eye-Squared-R


Ok, let's put your money where your mouth is. I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked buzsaw. Give us some quotes directly from the emails and we can discuss about them. Don't be like buzsaw and keep posting links to blogs that link to other blogs as references. I don't want to see you posting what other people think. Give us direct quotes from the emails and tell us what you think so we can have a real discussion.

PS - Blogs buzsaw linked to are people's opinions, most of which have nothing to do with reality. I'm pretty sure my imagination can do better if you want me to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 12-08-2009 11:58 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-10-2009 4:58 PM Taz has responded
 Message 156 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 12-15-2009 2:11 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 117 of 191 (538836)
12-10-2009 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-10-2009 6:00 AM


JUC writes:

...and the total lack of real action on the other that causes many to be sceptical or to at least question whether or not these big-wigs really believe what it is they're telling us.

Let me be blunt. At this point in the game, there isn't anything we can do about it. Even if tomorrow EMP bombs went off in the atmosphere around the world effectively shutting down everything technologically based, global warming will still continue on its trend. Enough damage has already been done. And at this point in the game, pretty much everything we do, like burning wood in the forest, contributes to GW.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-10-2009 6:00 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-11-2009 4:55 AM Taz has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1386 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 118 of 191 (538842)
12-10-2009 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Taz
12-10-2009 3:53 PM


I already gave a link earlier (Message 45) to all the emails involved in this incident. There is no reason people should be linking to other blogs and indirectly quoting out of context bits and pieces of these emails.

Seems to me the conspiratists do not want to play fair but rather stick to unsubstantiated innuendo.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Taz, posted 12-10-2009 3:53 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Taz, posted 12-10-2009 8:58 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 12-10-2009 10:53 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 119 of 191 (538847)
12-10-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by DevilsAdvocate
12-10-2009 4:58 PM


I didn't notice your message 45. That's why in message 77 I gave them a link you download all the emails from my account. I will keep freely distributing these emails until someone actually give me direct quotes from them to support their claim of this international fraud. They can shove these quotes up my ass all they want.

But then of course, if they can't support their claim with quotes from the emails and yet they continue to make the accusation, it is now a libel or slander, which is a lie. If they can't give me direct quotes and not apologize, I will rightly call them liars from now on.

Added by edit.

Just watched fox news last night. Hannity was saying, and I quote, "now that we've proven conclusively that global warming is a lie..."

And yet this liar couldn't even give us a single other quote from the one that's involved the word "trick" that everyone has been using. We've shown conclusively that this particular quote is taken completely out of context.

Seriously do these christians not follow their own 10 commandments? Thou shalt not lie, freakin liars.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-10-2009 4:58 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 191 (538852)
12-10-2009 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by DevilsAdvocate
12-10-2009 4:58 PM


DA writes:

There is no reason people should be linking to other blogs and indirectly quoting out of context bits and pieces of these emails.

Hi DA. LOL. Who's got time to read them all and who's to know that some of both sides of forum debates aren't getting their info from the bloggers who've done the research? Have I missed something? I haven't seen the questionable ones refuted by the non-conspiritors bringing up the context of the cited questionable ones.

ABE: BTW, about the placement of those censors which gather the data which I cited. Anyone?

Edited by Buzsaw, : Add statement


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-10-2009 4:58 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Taz, posted 12-10-2009 10:59 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-11-2009 4:54 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019