The troll thread

[skewbe]

Ok, some of us have been having some not so well contained urinating contests, I do feel bad about it as it is not constructive to have it scattered all around the board.

If you feel the need to blow off some steam or bait someone, then lets keep that mess contained over here. I'll start:

Exxon, 1999 confusion campaign: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/ecologist2.html

Exxon 2007 confusion campaign:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Yeah, well, I ain't got much else to do, and I can't say I dislike it either.

[trebuchet03]

There's a few threads... where no one can say didn't walk away an a$s....

I occasionally laugh though, you just can't make up some of the obscure references and goofy retorts.

[rh77]

Yes, the ALL CAPS indicates my tone correctly.

PLEASE, have an intelligent discussion about the topic. The pic was deleted, Skewbe.

Guys, the "Pub" is for off-topic discussions, which is OK. If it gets personal, e-mail or PM the opposing member.

GasSavers should be a place to discuss energy consumption topics without blatantly offending other members. Take it offline if this becomes necessary.

Thanks...

-Rick "RH77" / Moderator

[unstable bob]

Oh, my bad! When I saw "The troll thread" as the topic. I thought it was going to be about this guy:

[skewbe]

Well, I was hoping this thread would act as a sort of flypaper, to keep the other threads a little cleaner, hence the pic. But I do take Exxons activities seriously, of course they would like us to waste as much gas as possible, no speculation about it, and they don't want anyone to listen to global warming because that would have the opposite effect.

[rh77]

Originally Posted by skewbe

Well, I was hoping this thread would act as a sort of flypaper, to keep the other threads a little cleaner, hence the pic. But I do take Exxons activities seriously, of course they would like us to waste as much gas as possible, no speculation about it, and they don't want anyone to listen to global warming because that would have the opposite effect.

With the moderation that occurred last evening, I honestly don't want to downplay the importance of these issues.

I feel the same about Exxon/Mobil -- in fact, we've been boycotting them over a year now.

There have been many times I've driven out of my way when on the road, to avoid an Exxon station and to fill-up elsewhere. So far, I haven't used any of their products for 1-2 years (can't remember the last time -- I used to use Mobil standard oil, but I gave it up for Castrol GTX about a year ago or more).

Their practices are truly outrageous.

RH77

[jwxr7]

I'm not advocating anything or taking sides on issues and I hope I'm not encouraging, but this was a pretty funny sentence .

That didn't make ANY sense, or maybe I just lack the appropriate combination of brain tumors to decypher it, LOL!

[skewbe]

Hah, "THE" alternate point of view IS a "red flag" in this case and isn't even worth acknowledging in some cases, usually being rooted in mythology or lack of understanding. Some examples:

1. Mythology is a better explanation than evolution
2. The earth is only 5000 years old and dinosaurs and people lived together
3. Science should consider mythological explanations that have zero evidence to be of equal value as the evidence at hand.
4. Scientists always belive they are absolutely right, that they are not humbled and made more rigorous by past assertions that were proven false.






"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" -Sinclair Lewis

[Telco]

I still don't believe they have conclusive proof that global warming is man's fault. I feel that this is a red herring to keep people busy, scare people, ect. But that should be neither here nor there. I don't doubt there is some impact from man, but for me it isn't a black and white issue where either man is the only cause of global warming or has no effect whatsoever. I work to cut emissions on my own part for two reasons, I'm a cheap SOB and I feel that pollution is a big issue. Pollution should be cut because it has very real, very proven negative effects on both man and the environment. The difference for me here is, man is proven to cause pollution, but man has not been proven to warm the globe.

Science is not the be-all and end-all of any discussion either. A scientist has to make an assumption on something to have a starting point, then proceed to prove or disprove that assumption. The problem with this is, people don't like to be wrong, and will discard evidence that disproves their assumption, and will pad evidence that proves it. State Attorney General Nifong (not a scientist) was an extreme example of this tendency. This is why scientists must have their theories tested by independent testing. The problem, as I see it, is that most of the scientists have a belief in global warming already, whether they see it as a cash cow or just brainwashing. So if these are the scientists doing the review, where is the independent verification? There is none. Scientists are far from perfect, they can only come to conclusions over what they think they see, just like anyone else. On the other hand, all they had to do to see pollution was look at the haze over Los Angeles, take air samples over time, and see what was in the air. Thus, they proved that man polluted the air. Or, take water samples over time and measure what's in there. If there is a factory emitting a lot of mercury, and they find high levels of mercury in the water, this proves man polluted the water.

Another problem for the scientist making global warming claims is what they do not know. Most days, you can read stories in Yahoo that scientists made this discovery or that discovery about things that would affect global warming, that they did not take into account. For example, 2 weeks ago a story was put up stating that a major current was discovered south of Australia that connects all the oceans along Antarctica. They were unaware of this current as it was some 2000ft deep, but they said that this current is a major driver of the Earth's climate. This week an announcement was made about some solar wave radiation that they didn't know about. A few weeks ago they discovered that solar wind affected the atmosphere of Mars. This suggests that there may be radiation working on the Earth's atmosphere that they don't know about (they also said that the solar wind is canceled out by the Earth's magnetic field). So in my mind, these scientists claiming man's actions are the root of all global warming can't be correct because they not only aren't using all the factors affecting the Earth, they don't yet know all the factors. How can you look at a small part of a large picture you've never seen before and know what the picture is? They can't even agree on what the end result will be, some claim we are going to cook in our own juices and others claim that we'll be skiing in Texas in July. They even discard their own evidence that indicates the Earth warms and cools periodically, as they've found tropical vegetation in core samples taken from arctic regions, indicating that at some point in the past it was a lot warmer up north than it is now.

At any rate, the whole argument over whether or not global warming is fact is not one that should really be argued on this board. I think it's safe to say that everyone who is posting here cares about the environment, so it should not matter what the underlying reasons are. So skewbe is trying to go green to stop global warming and I'm trying to go green to cut pollution and save money. The goal is the same whatever the reason, so there should be no argument over motivation.

Incidentally, boycotting Exxon is only symbolic, petroleum products are fungible so it really doesn't matter to Exxon if you buy from them directly or buy from someone of a different brand that Exxon supplies to on the wholesale level.