Gary O.'s Replies

Believe it or not, I am not influenced by the bogeyman that you insist ion calling 'Big Oil' I came to these conclusions a long time ago all by my lonesome. Further, as I said before, I try to to be as green as I can be and my carbon footprint is a lot smaller than most people in the US. I do this just in case I'm wrong plus it is less expensive. I actually agree with you in that we need alternative forms of energy. I'd like to get an electric vehicle as it would be cheaper for short trips to and from town and it would be less polluting as well. I'd keep my gasoline-powered vehicles but restrict their use to longer tripos. I agree with you that we should reduce single-use bottles when we can. So, there is much that we actually agree on. But I still don't accept much of the hype surrounding AGW. My favorite remains the 1977 BBC effort [i]Count Dracula[/i]. This is due, in large part. to it's fidelity to the novel. The acting was superb and the atmosphere was very dark and nicely done. You keep repeating the word 'denier', apparently hoping that the label will stick. I am not a denier. I am a skeptic, and my skepticism comes in large part due to the apocalyptic viewpoint and the hysteria of the AGW crowd. Plus, the peer-review process, while it might sound good on paper, is just a means of suppressing views that threaten the majority opinion and the reputations of the people holding to it. In other words, there is a lot of pressure to conform to the ACW hypothesis. If you don't conform, you don't get published. This strikes me as a massive conflict of interest The same thing with grants to study the climate shift. The more dire the predictions are, the more money is released to study it. This creates another conflict of interest, as big as the one that you claim for the studies arising from the energy companies. It is not as cut and dried as you think it is. kuku, do you really work for oil industry as a shill? Seriously do you detect a little bit of emotion in chrisjdel's last response to you? [quote] I'm a scientist myself. A physicist, not a climatologist, but I have a pretty good grasp of the overall situation. You simply cannot look at the vast mountains of data accumulated over the past few decades and reach an opposite conclusion. There's a spread of possible future scenarios, very much like the cone of uncertainty with the path of a hurricane. The important takeaway though: all of them are quite bad. It's just a question of how bad, how soon. [/quote] You're a physicist are you? What does that prove? One of my best friends is as well, and he is like me. He's a skeptic too. This is nothing more than an argument from authority. This is where something is argued to be true because the person saying it. In your case, you are a physicist,therefore what you say on AGW (studied by a separate discipline) is true. If this is not the case, then why bring it up? [quote]Close. The purveyors of climate denial have massive conflicts of interest, absolutely. Members of the public who buy into it are usually just ignorant of the science. They're getting fewer and fewer in number every year though. And yes, reality is what it is. AGW has been established science for a while now. What you see a lot in the current political environment is a focus on alleged biases and conspiracy theories positing ulterior motives - smoke blowing tactics that try to bring the other side down to their level of sleaziness, and obscure the only question that matters: who's telling the truth?[/quote] Okay, thank you. What you seem to think is that the AGW skeptics are sleazy and blowing smoke, while the advocates are pure and noble and good, proclaiming The Truth. Science is 100% established and the doubters are deniers just as devoid of truth as are deniers of the Holocaust. You see where I'm going with this? I'd be a little careful about making such absolute pronouncements that ALL truth is on one side and the other is totally devoid of it. Be careful: especially when you assign ulterior motive to the side that you so despise. They may be sincere and intelligent people who have looked at the data and simply drawn a different conclusion. You inferred a massive conflict of interest a few posts back. The implication was that the skeptics are paid to deny the 'science' of AGW by the energy companies. But have you considered the conflict of interest that at least some AGW advocates have? Can you guess what it is? So, the skeptics have a conflict of interest then and are not to be believed but the AGW proponents have none because the science is settled and all of the objective studies show AGW to be established science. Is this your position? Please answer the question yes or no. You can explain your answer of course but I'd be very grateful for a direct answer. [quote]Then I guess the industry shills have done their job of muddying the waters. Who are you going to trust? The people who are the architects of our entire modern world, or the billionaires and politicians who are the architects of nothing but power, influence, and wealth for themselves at everyone else's expense? If scientists and doctors were in charge of how knowledge and technology was used (instead of the money people making those choices now) we would be infinitely better off![/quote] You seem to think that we can't trust the skeptics due to the (as I believe you see it) conflict of interest that they have,. They're paid by the heartless uncaring energy companies so of course they're going to say AGW is a myth. On the other hand, we can believe what the AGW advocates tell us because these brave, pure people have studied the problem and simply tell it like it is. They have no conflict of interest, no; their only motivation is the truth. Granted, I might be over-stating it a bit but that seems to be the gist of what you believe. Am I correct? Is this what you think? I guess I'm not as trusting in the objectivity of scientists as you seem to be. She's just [b]The Item Of The Day[/b] is all. Like Hogg did, she'll fade away when people tire of her. He's a good actor, and I have liked him as he got older. That doesn't mean that I listen to or agree with him on politics, however. He should stick to what he is good at. My POV. "Anyone who believes this is quite naive. To get funding (and keep their career) scientists are pressured to obtain a certain result on "climate change," aka GloBULL Warming. See this 12-minute video for ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE disproving human-made "climate change" and why alarmists USE kids/teens to convey their propaganda: " Actually that is not my belief; my post was an attempt to draw out what the other poster thinks. Just needed him/her to clarify. Also, I understand that many of the more vocal AGW advocates seem to have much much larger 'carbon footprints' than do the vast majority of people. I have said earlier that I try to be as green as I can. Besides saving me money, I try to be a good steward of what I have. And I am still a skeptic. A major portion of the argument from the AGW advocates seems to be that we can't believe the skeptics because they are in the pay of the energy companies, therefore what they say is corrupted by the money that comes from people like the Kochs. On the other hand, we can believe the AGW advocates because they have no interest other than science. Is that a fair statement of what you think? Assuming that she is correct about AGW, and that time to act is so short, the question then becomes one of why is she lecturing the West when we in the West are doing the most to combat AGW? The people she should lecturing are the Chinese and the Indians. They put more greenhouse gasses out than anyone else. Personally, I try to live as green as I can, and I am a skeptic on AGW, not denier, but [i][b]skeptic[/b][/i]. She stands up for her beliefs. I don't agree with her wild rhetoric, as well as much of what she says, but I still respect her. Ah, yes; he has the role of 'Elder' in the book. Thank you. [quote]Who's to play Larry Underwood? He was my favorite character. [/quote] British actor Jovan Adepo. Does anyone know who 'Cobb' is? He is played by Daniel Sunjata. No; actually she doesn't. I see what you're saying now. Valid point. [quote]It's gotta be shit. I don't see them having spent the money to do a bang up job with this and the effects. [/quote] What are you talking about?