[hrothgar]

 billw55, on 2013-June-24, 09:19, said:

This type of rhetoric tends to mark *you* as a troll.

Were this my only contribution, I would agree.

However, in practice, I have been a member of the BBO forums for a decade.
I contribute frequently both in terms of bridge related content and non-bridge related content.

Dan, on the other hand, is a random individual who wandered by the forums because he likes to argue about Global Warming.
I can't recall him ever making a single post that wasn't about Climate Change.

He joined this forum because he couldn't hack it on Real Climate...

[onoway]

 hrothgar, on 2013-June-24, 07:27, said:

Whatever gets you through the night, you lying, worthless, piece of ***** troll...

wow If his views upset you so much why not just simply stop reading them? Name calling and this sort of aggressive hostility doesn't give you or your views any credit or credibility and only makes you look bad.

Also claiming that somehow you have more right to be here or to be abusive to people because you've been here longer or participated in a wider variety of threads than they have is a crock. Unless you are Fred or the official moderator you are only a guest here as are the rest of us. Please stop.

Someone once told me a few years ago that the forums were a club and anyone else who tried to participate was soon made to feel unwelcome. That hasn't been my experience but this episode seems to reflect that attitude. How sad.

[billw55]

 hrothgar, on 2013-June-24, 09:31, said:

Were this my only contribution, I would agree.

However, in practice, I have been a member of the BBO forums for a decade.
I contribute frequently both in terms of bridge related content and non-bridge related content.

Dan, on the other hand, is a random individual who wandered by the forums because he likes to argue about Global Warming.
I can't recall him ever making a single post that wasn't about Climate Change.

He joined this forum because he couldn't hack it on Real Climate...

Ah, there. When you present yourself more steadily, you are much easier to believe

I really lol'd about Al being a 911 truther. I wasn't aware of that, have you some links/backup?

[hrothgar]

 billw55, on 2013-June-24, 09:39, said:

I really lol'd about Al being a 911 truther. I wasn't aware of that, have you some links/backup?

There is plenty of content archived here on the forums.
Most recently was a post in this thread where he admitted to being a truther...

The following thread has a fairly length discussion
http://www.bridgebas...al-publication/

Here's a good representative quote from Al (from a different thread)

Quote

If you marginalize the "views" of the majority of Americans themselves, you are in trouble trying to represent the "mainstream".

Speaking of the patsy McVeigh and the involvement of certain government elements in the set-up, execution and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombings, it is reminiscent of the first WTC bombings. So many questions, so few (satisfactory) answers.

I thought Oswald did it for 40 years. The 9-11 "truther" movement got me digging and I must say that I am not surprised but somewhat disappointed in the skullduggery that continues unabated.

[dwar0123]

 onoway, on 2013-June-24, 09:38, said:

wow If his views upset you so much why not just simply stop reading them? Name calling and this sort of aggressive hostility doesn't give you or your views any credit or credibility and only makes you look bad.

Also claiming that somehow you have more right to be here or to be abusive to people because you've been here longer or participated in a wider variety of threads than they have is a crock. Unless you are Fred or the official moderator you are only a guest here as are the rest of us. Please stop.

Someone once told me a few years ago that the forums were a club and anyone else who tried to participate was soon made to feel unwelcome. That hasn't been my experience but this episode seems to reflect that attitude. How sad.

I would tend to agree, but I have come around to thinking that giving al_u_card and his ilk the dignity of respecting their opinion is damaging. They abuse that respect and this contributes to their success in propagating their poisonous ideas.

I do not suggest censorship nor do I really suggest mere name calling, but I likewise no longer feel any need to express my contempt for his ideas in a civil manner.

[Winstonm]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-June-24, 07:18, said:

I disagree. While the tobacco companies purposefully tabled their own data in favor of "made-up" data showing no health concerns, those questioning climate change are not affiliated with any company (or cartels) and are using real scientific data (as opposed to modeled data). There are several who deny that there exist a rather large contingent of scientists who do not agree with those predicting climate catastrophes - notice I said "do not agree" as oppose to "disagree." This is significant, as John and Dana's recent paper claimed that since only 3% disagreed, that the other 97% must agree - faulty logic. The shoe appears to rest on the other foot here, as the more vocal activists are the ones denying the scientific data, in favor of selected models and projections.

Taking action may be a good preventative move, in case the more alarming predictions come true. However, risking the lives of millions of people by employing expensive and questionable actions is not acceptable. This is a classic case of the ends justifying the means, except that we do not even know if the end is accurate.

What the Philip Morris Co. and others did was to spend millions of dollars to finance a fundamentalist free market ideology by locating those whom had scientific credentials but were more concerned about free market ideology than accuracy and were therefore willing to attack any idea that appeared to validate governmental regulation. The false assumption behind their ideology was that defense of free market capitalism equated to a defense of liberty itself, and that government regulation was a slippery slope that led to socialism and communism. Understanding this, it is not surprising that the initial group of credentialed scientists who signed on to work alongside the tobacco industry were Cold War physicists who earned their reputations and prestige by fighting communism.

So concerned were they about maintaining markets free of regulation, non-market effects that free markets sometimes cause were conveniently discounted as worthless.

The method this group used to fight scientific understanding and to delay regulation by way of obfuscation of facts and settled science was to appeal to public perceptions through mass market medias where accuracy of claims were rarely reviewed, so misinformation was often requoted and thus repeated and reinforced by other mass media outlets. This method was used when confronting the sciences behind acid rain, nuclear winter, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, global warming, and finally, nearly all environmental issues, even long dead ones like DDT use.

Hopefully, the minority view will not hold. Freedom to reach potential does not mean freedom from impediments. As Isaiah Berlin wrote, "Freedom for the wolves means death to the lambs."

[Al_U_Card]

Opposite opinions are often polarizing as well as tending to destabilize the viewpoint of those unable or unwilling to contemplate reality because of cognitive dissonance or preconceived notions pertaining to their mind set.

Just looking at the information available is way more than enough reason to be skeptical of those that would insist that you kowtow to their line of thinking. My opinion is just that. It will (and hopefully should) change as the information provided gives it reason to do so.

All those in favor of saving the planet by controlling the weather through [CO2] emissions need only step forward and do so. (Stopping their exhalations to reduce their carbon "footprints" would be my suggestion for certain ones...) Sane people tend to look more closely at what is being offered, especially when it leads to their (and others) detriment.

Biofuels = reducing food available for the starving.

Wind power = bird and bat killing ear and eyesores that produce irregular power.

Solar power = wasting tax dollars (Solyndra....) that could be used to advance technology.

Carbon credit schemes that reduce diversity and create palm farms in the tropics.

Carbon exchanges that allow for fraudulent abuse and tax evasion.

etc. etc.

[hrothgar]

 onoway, on 2013-June-24, 09:38, said:

Also claiming that somehow you have more right to be here or to be abusive to people because you've been here longer or participated in a wider variety of threads than they have is a crock. Unless you are Fred or the official moderator you are only a guest here as are the rest of us. Please stop.

Someone once told me a few years ago that the forums were a club and anyone else who tried to participate was soon made to feel unwelcome. That hasn't been my experience but this episode seems to reflect that attitude. How sad.

I don't claim that I have more right to be here because I have been here longer or participate in a wider variety of threads.

I do claim that the fact the Al_U_Card and Daniel_1960 only participate in Climate Change threads raises interesting questions about their presence on a bridge discussion board. I reference my own posting history to demonstrate that there sharp difference in my behavior from theirs in response to Bill55's comment that I was the one behaving like a troll.

I don't think that I have a right to be a moderator. Back during the early days of the forum, Inquiry offered me an official role as such. I responded that I was far too much of an asshole to be in that type of a position and said that I don't think that BBO would like my being formally associated with their site.

With this said and done, Inquiry and Fred's position seems to be that trolls are welcome.
Mine is that troll's are strongly undesirable.

Sadly, ignoring the troll's doesn't work
Politely refuting their arguments doesn't work

I treat them with the disdain with which I feel they deserve.

[onoway]

one other forum I used to belong to (before they started insisting on all sorts of information from participants that I felt was none of their business) ignored trolls unless they became abusive in which case they were quietly removed. They strongly believed that if nobody interacted with them eventually they went away. Seemed to be true.

OTOH just possibly someone is interested in the discussion, even if you are not. If nobody cared then nobody would stay involved. Lord knows a lot of the posts I glance over and move on as a lot of it is beyond my pay grade. It just seems to me that most trolls ..at least the ones I've seen - don't bother going to the effort that both these guys do to present their side of things. That is worth courtesy if nothing else. (can you tell I'm a Canuck? )

I can't help but think that there is a lot of splitting of hairs and playing of violins while Rome is starting to smoulder but shouting on either side isn't accomplishing anything except maybe venting frustration and if they don't go away that won't even work.

Waving stats and graphs around on either side isn't going to do anything much as people a) don't know how to interpret them and b) don't believe them anyway. Lies Damn Lies & Statistics. They DO look out the window and see absolutely unexpected floodwaters about to drown their house and they DO believe the images of bare mountains where there used to be glaciers etc. They DO have to pay attention when they aren't allowed to water lawns or wash cars`because of water scarcity (and that's going to get much much worse, simply because we've been drawing water out of nonrenewing aquifers for some time already, to say nothing of clear cutting forests and not only in Brazil).

I think for the vast majority of people climate change isn't a matter of if or not, it's a matter of whether as individuals we can really do anything meaningful now or not, and the lack of leadership in terms of conservation and the mockery of such things as the carbon exchange fiascoes lead most to think "not", or at the very least, "why should I when nobody else is."

It isn't the people such as those posting on the forums who are responsible, it's the people who pay lip service to saying climate change is something which needs to be addressed but aren't willing to do anything except play shell games until their time in office is up who are responsible for the great inertia. They're the ones who deserve your wrath as they are in a position of leadership (that is to say, in front, not necessarilly standing up).

None of them seem to have the imagination of a pebble as to how to turn the problem into the solution, (as permaculture people say). They don't seem even to be looking.It's all just finding ways to make it look like they're doing something at the same time as it's full speed ahead with what we've been doing all along. Climate change or not, anyone with the brain of a flea has to see that how we are using the earth's resources..water even more than oil, is simply not sustainable.

[Winstonm]

 onoway, on 2013-June-24, 17:09, said:

one other forum I used to belong to (before they started insisting on all sorts of information from participants that I felt was none of their business) ignored trolls unless they became abusive in which case they were quietly removed. They strongly believed that if nobody interacted with them eventually they went away. Seemed to be true.

OTOH just possibly someone is interested in the discussion. If nobody cared then nobody would stay involved. Lord knows a lot of the posts I glance over and move on as a lot of it is beyond my pay grade. It just seems to me that most trolls ..at least the ones I've seen - don't bother going to the effort that both these guys do to present their side of things.

I can't help but think that there is a lot of splitting of hairs and playing of violins while Rome is starting to smoulder but shouting on either side isn't accomplishing anything except maybe venting frustration and if they don't go away that won't even work.

Waving stats and graphs around on either side isn't going to do anything much as people a) don't know how to interpret them and b) don't believe them anyway. Lies Damn Lies & statistics. They DO look out the window and see absolutely unexpected floodwaters about to drown their house and they DO believe the images of bare mountains where there used to be glaciers etc. They DO have to pay attention when they aren't allowed to water lawns or wash carsbecause of water scarcity (and that's going to get much much worse, simple because we've been drawing water out of nonrenewing aquifers for some time already.

I think for the vast majority of people climate change isn't a matter of if or not, it's a matter of whether as individuals we can really do anything meaningful now or not, and the lack of leadership in terms of conservation and the mockery of such things as the carbon exchange fiascoes lead most to think "not", or at the very least, "why should I when nobody else is."

It isn't the people such as those posting on the forums who are responsible, it;s the people who pay lip service to saying climate change is something which needs to be addressed but aren't willing to do anything except play shell games until their time in office is up who are responsible for the great inertia.

None of them seem to have the imagination of a pebble as to how to turn the problem into the solution, (as permaculture people say). It's all just finding ways to make it look like they're doing something at the same time as it's full speed ahead with what we've been doing all along. Climate change or not, anyone with the brain of a flea has to see that how we are using the earth's resources..water even more than oil, is simply not sustainable.

I would tend to agree if it were not that many of those in power get their basic understandings of the science involved from the very people whose goal is to only obfuscate and delay regulations. I would agree with Richard that Merchants of Doubt should be required reading.

[onoway]

 Winstonm, on 2013-June-24, 17:16, said:

I would tend to agree if it were not that many of those in power get their basic understandings of the science involved from the very people whose goal is to only obfuscate and delay regulations. I would agree with Richard that Merchants of Doubt should be required reading.

I just think that yelling at people who are in a position to do something is more effective that yelling at someone in a forums. If nobody yells at them and gets their attention that the stuff they're being fed by special interest groups needs to be looked at a little closer then why would they? easier to go with the people who tell them what they want to hear.

In my experience they don't want to hear it but then at least they can't say they had no idea....

[Winstonm]

 onoway, on 2013-June-24, 17:50, said:

I just think that yelling at people who are in a position to do something is more effective that yelling at someone in a forums. If nobody yells at them and gets their attention that the stuff they're being fed by special interest groups needs to be looked at a little closer then why would they? easier to go with the people who tell them what they want to hear.

In my experience they don't want to hear it but then at least they can't say they had no idea....

I think part of the problem is that for years and years and years the scientists who worked for challenged industries were not confronted directly about their obfuscations and red herrings but were allowed to spread their claims willy-nilly throughout mass medias - the scientists who actually studied the issues did not think it proper or expedient to directly challenge these people in mass media, and many were truthfully concerned about repercussions if they did, and for those reasons there was little direct rebuttal. The working scientists did what scientists do - they published peer-reviewed articles, submitting their work to the processes of science.

The naysayers had a free run of it.

But many people have grown tired of that one-way street - and now confrontations occur in ordinary social outlets like these forums.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-June-24, 20:42, said:

- the scientists who actually studied the issues did not think it proper or expedient to directly challenge these people in mass media, and many were truthfully concerned about repercussions if they did, and for those reasons there was little direct rebuttal. The working scientists did what scientists do - they published peer-reviewed articles, submitting their work to the processes of science.

Any realistic reading of the Climategate e-mails blows that supposition out of the water...

Now that the global temperature rise has stalled (hopefully it will continue its rise and the beneficence of that temperature increase will be bestowed upon us) DESPITE the continued rise of the evil [CO2]. (The oceans have warmed and continue to release their dissolved holdings.)
The climate modelers are scurrying about saying that such a long hiatus is "normal" despite the divergence from their cherished simulations of a natural, chaotic, non-linear system that is clearly near-impossible to define and describe, let alone control.

Only the models predict disaster. The reality of the last several decades shows less intense weather and better conditions for the flourishing of life.

The real problem is the now-installed presence of the rent-seekers and their infrastructure. Real money is in play and they all want to keep their piece of the pie. So much for saving the world...

[hrothgar]

Been close to 24 hours since President Obama announced that the EPA will start regulating C02 emissions from existing power plants in the US...

Good thing that the adults are in charge...

[billw55]

 hrothgar, on 2013-June-26, 08:25, said:

Been close to 24 hours since President Obama announced that the EPA will start regulating C02 emissions from existing power plants in the US...

I am wondering what that means. Obama's carefully worded statement seems to say that the EPA will be involved, but nothing about just what exactly they will do.

[PassedOut]

 billw55, on 2013-June-26, 09:44, said:

I am wondering what that means. Obama's carefully worded statement seems to say that the EPA will be involved, but nothing about just what exactly they will do.

Obama Outlines Ambitious Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases

Quote

Mr. Obama said he would use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants.

The carbon cuts at power plants are the centerpiece of a three-pronged climate-change plan that will also involve new federal funds to advance renewable energy technology, as well as spending to fortify cities and states against the ravages of storms and droughts aggravated by a changing climate.

My own preference is to see an outline of the policy first, as we have gotten, and later compare the forthcoming details with original outline. He's clearly planning to use his executive powers to take some necessary actions. He is also working politically to enlist public support: HELP PRESIDENT OBAMA COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE

[onoway]

What's he going to do about the pipeline? Another pipeline spill in Alberta last week...if I'm not mistaken that's two in the last month. His comments would seem to be leaving that door open, certainly the oil people appear to be clapping their hands and jumping up and down today.

[Winstonm]

(emphasis added)

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 19:28, said:

Hrothgar,
As a contributed to the Realclimate site, I was invited here to specifically discuss climate. Since I play bridge here regularly, I felt that it was an appropriate venue. Since I have been posting here, not once has anyone discussed bridge. Onoway is free to call me a troll, but then again, he is a Uper.

Just to clarify, I know that no such invitation came from BBO or its employees.

[billw55]

 PassedOut, on 2013-June-26, 10:22, said:

Obama Outlines Ambitious Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases


My own preference is to see an outline of the policy first, as we have gotten, and later compare the forthcoming details with original outline. He's clearly planning to use his executive powers to take some necessary actions. He is also working politically to enlist public support: HELP PRESIDENT OBAMA COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE

I am interested in what methods will be used to cut emissions without cutting power production. Or perhaps cutting production at fossil plants is part of the plan? Anyway, the details are important, but rarely get discussed in press events.

[blackshoe]

The devil is indeed in the details. We shall see.