Just a few posts ago, you said…
How in heaven’s name was anything I said a personal attack?
I think this thread is stretching the definitions of personal attack to extremes, and I’m disappointed in tomndebb for allowing it to happen. It has never been unacceptable in the past to suggest that someone was intentionally being obtuse
(I’d wager that without much trouble I could find examples of tomndebb doing just that).
Jesus, there is no need to cater to aggressive ignorance, especially given the oft-repeated mission of the SDMB.
jshore, thanks for your Science links as I’ve enjoyed reading them and other related articles I found there. I do find it curious though that Brian Soden, the primary author in both your links is quoted as saying wrt AIT;
“I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus,”.
He would appear to be at odds with Al’s claim here too in another recent article;
Hurricane activity in the Atlantic may not increase as a result of global warming, according to a new study focusing on changes in tropical wind patterns.
The findings appear to contradict a number of recent studies linking warming waters in the region to an increase in hurricane intensity and frequency. The new study suggests that increases in vertical wind sheer – differences in wind direction and speed between the upper and lower levels of the atmosphere – caused by climate change could counter-balance the affects of warming waters.
“Based on this study, there is no evidence for a strong increase in hurricane activity in the Atlantic over the next century due to global warming," says Brian Soden at the University of Miami in Florida, US, who carried out the research with colleagues."
This being more technical though, I believe I saw you in one of the other AGW threads and will go there to see if I can find clarification, or in the unlikely event I’ve something of merit to add.
I agree, especially since brazil84 is, in fact, being willfully obtuse in order to avoid conceding a point to his opposition.
The “obtuse” comment (which I ignored) was followed by a couple more posts leading in a direction I found unhealthy and I asked that that direction be reversed. Nothing more.
Further complaints about staff actions are better posted in the Pit.
Yes. The question of whether Gore uses private jets is therefore relevant. The question of whether Gore’s use of private jets is justitifed is relevant too.
The bigger questions of whether AGW is real and what can be done about it are (in my opinion) beyond the scope of this thread. In criticizing Gore in this thread, I have been trying to assume for the sake of argument that CO2 emissions do in fact pose a serious threat to the environment.
Very true. I should know better, and I apologize for bringing it up here.
I appreciate your flexibility. So it seems simple. If CO2 emissions do in fact pose a serious threat to the environment (for the purposes of this argument), then Gore’s message about reducing emissions is a very important one, and it is his tireless work to spread that message which was recognized by the Nobel committee.
On the other hand, if they were awarding him for his personal contribution to the lessening of emissions, it seems our greenish friend What Exit would be a good choice, amongst many others. But they were not doing that at all.
I am interested to know if you are concerned at all with the individual contributions of the members of the IPCC to carbon emissions. Surely they travel by plane once in a while. I bet all of ther collective farting, shopping, and vacationing must emit quite a bit of carbon.
Here’s the parking lot at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. Feel free to scan the parking lot for Hummers and Escalades and send it off to the right-wing blogs.
It’s kinda cool to have a couple dozen Nobel Peace Prize winners in town. They’ve been going up to the filthy hippies in their drum circles chanting for peace and saying " Shut the hell up, I’m the peace guy."
On the first part, good summation, that was my point all along.
On the second part, you should see some of the aging hippies I know in the same group I am active with, they really have a low carbon footprint. Just give it to Pete Seeger though, he has been fighting the good fighter for far longer than I have been alive. Ed Begley Jr. would be a good alternate choice. 
Jim
Personally, my view is that anyone who accepts the mantle of prominent leadership of a movement, institution, or organization should set a good example in his or her personal life and should be held to a very high standard. And that the Nobel committee should take this into account.
It’s just my opinion though. Maybe a lot of people think it’s no big deal if the President of General Motors drives a Hyundai to work.
I would have to know more about who they are and their individual circumstances.
What sort of monolingual advocate of redundancy names a mesa “Table”?
Redundancy is a favorite sport around here. The huge running race held on Memorial Day every year is called the Bolder Boulder.
I think it was Pierre Stone.
He wants to keep himself exposed to the competition, as a customer. Last year it was a Honda, next year a Kia. He prefers to augment his research-based understanding of the auto market with a more visceral feel for the competition’s strengths and weaknesses.
Yes, I just made all that up. But do you see how there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation, easily hidden by repeatedly taking the one bullet point out of context?
If he turned the company around, he’d get a fat bonus. Regardless of what car he drove.
But that’s not the situation we have here. What we have is the PR department of Ford claiming that the president of GM drives a Hyundai.
Well, not technically. He should be the president of GM, but the board of directors decided otherwise, and now Giddyup McSquinty is president of GM. And he, confusingly, drives a Prius.
Sure, and PR department of Ford happens to be right.
But that’s beside the point. I only brought up the GM analogy to show that personal conduct can and does matter.
Sure, and it’s possible there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for the fact that your husband is naked in bed with another woman.
“I was just doing research”
Haha.
Your analogy was weak and not really analogous at all. It is more akin with smearing than an honest analogy.
How is this latest analogy any better than the initial analogy of the Op?
They are unfair comparisons and appear to be designed to besmirch someone’s reputation.
Jim