AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Trubble

form_srcid: Trubble

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.215.209

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Trubble

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Trubble%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2011/05/25 01:09:06, Link
Author: Trubble
First post, after at least 4 years of lurking.

I just felt it was important to inform you all that CANUCKS RULE!!111[[eleventy1

Bruins or Bolts, makes no difference, they'll be road kill.

Date: 2011/06/29 00:19:53, Link
Author: Trubble
Mind if I ask for a definition of terms here? What exactly constitutes a global warming denier?

Are you a denier if you agree global warming is occurring, but that various natural causes are more to blame than human activity?

How about if you agree global warming is real, but that the impact in future will be less catastrophic than suggested by some? Is that denial?

How about if you agree global warming is occurring, and human activity is the main driver, but reversing it is impractical and we'd be better off finding ways to adapt?

And before any of you zealots jump on me, I'm not advocating any of those positions. I just find it strange that such a sharp demarcation is drawn on an area of research that is really still in its early stages.

Date: 2011/06/30 15:55:52, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (Robin @ June 29 2011,09:35)
See...this kind of defensiveness is a real clue that you have an agenda. People without agendas merely ask, "what's a global warming denier?" and then discuss the concept. By immediately distancing yourself from the issue ('no really...I don't have a dog in this fight!!!') and at the same time calling use "zealots", you've tipped your hand.


Great. That's the very reaction I wanted to preempt. My fault, I probably should have approached the counter with more care, like George placing his order with the Soup Nazi.*

I used "you zealots" as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the kind of person who would immediately see my questions as masking some kind of anti-science agenda. In retrospect, perhaps a bad choice of words, but I didn't actually think people here would be that sensitive.

My "agenda" was to try to elaborate the denier label. It seems to be thrown around pretty carelessly at times, so I was curious where people here draw the line. I gave specific examples in order to get specific answers, instead of generalities. Several people provided thoughtful answers. To them, thanks.

My own view is that global warming is real, is serious, and is at least largely caused by human activity. But I also think drastic action is impractical right now, so we should be looking at what is realistically doable. I know some would label that view as "denial", which is why I asked.

Also for the record, I've been coming to this site almost daily for about five years, mainly for the funny and to keep up with the creationism issue, which I find fascinating. I just don't make posts, because I don't have any particular expertise in science, just a layman's interest and an undergrad anthro degree.

 
Quote
Oh...and the area of research isn't in the early stages; it's been going on for quite some time.


Well, I guess it's all relative. If you're sitting in a doctor's waiting room, an hour is "quite some time." Genetics research has been going on for about a century. It seems to me global warming research didn't get serious attention until the 1980s, making it a relatively new field (my stereo speakers are older than that). Yes, I misspoke to say it's in its early stages, but I still think there's a lot more work needed on some critically important questions.

 
Quote
Tsk tsk...


Do I feel chastened? Hmmmm... No.

* For the humour-impaired or terminally suspicious, no, I'm not comparing anyone here with Nazis. It's just a Seinfeld reference. You could look it up.

Date: 2011/07/12 01:06:05, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (Robin @ July 08 2011,10:40)

Well, I was chastising you for not even doing a quick Google search before making a blanket claim.


What blanket claim are you referring to? I didn't think I had made one.

 
Quote
Given that you appeared defensive and appeared to have an agenda, it seemed that you were just making something up.


What "something" appeared to be made up? I asked a question.

 
Quote
Even though you apparently aren't starting from an agenda and are actually just a layman doesn't excuse not doing a rudimentary search. Research isn't limited to the professional scientists and really...in this day and age of information, it isn't hard just to check a few sources.


What research should I have done to determine what constitutes "climate change denial"? Maybe I could have gone to a few discussion boards and asked some participants? No, wait...

Actually, fuck it, never mind. I have no stomach for this kind of thing. It just makes me grumpy and out of sorts. I'll just go back to lurking.

Date: 2011/07/13 10:43:06, Link
Author: Trubble
I was aware of Arrhenius, thanks. He was the first to posit the link between human-generated CO2 and climate change. But his theory was not accepted by the mainstream for many decades.

Some excerpts from the wikipedia pages mentioned above:

Quote
While a few early 20th-Century scientists supported Arrhenius' work, including E. O. Hulburt and Guy Stewart Callendar, most scientific opinion disputed or ignored it through the early 1950s.


and

Quote
In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate, but the calculations were disputed. In the 1950s and 1960s, scientists increasingly thought that human activity could change the climate on a timescale of decades, but were unsure whether the net impact would be to warm or cool the climate. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. In the 1980s the consensus position formed that human activity was in the process of warming the climate...


...which is why I called it a relatively new field (keep in mind what "relatively" means -- it's not an absolute) and why I referenced the 1980s as when things got serious. On reflection, I was probably off by a decade or so.

I'm mostly interested in the nuts and bolts elements of the work, less than the theoretical underpinnings. Such as the development of reliable models that could tell us, for example, if we reduce CO2 emissions to x level, it will have y effect on sea levels, precipitation, glacier formation, or whatever. It seems to me that work is still at a relatively early stage. But I could well be ignorant about the latest developments.

Date: 2011/07/15 12:57:34, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (Dale_Husband @ July 15 2011,11:39)
Did it ever occur to you that giant oil companies, like the supermassive Standard Oil of J. D. Rockerfeller, were trying to interfer with scientific studies that threatened their economic interests even a century ago? Indeed, it was so powerful that the U S government forced it to break up. And we have evidence that ExxonMobil, a direct descendant of Standard Oil, has been funding global warming denialist groups in recent years.


I didn't know about Standard Oil trying to interfere with science a century ago, but that doesn't surprise me, given what I've read about the robber barons. Do you have a reference? I'm curious to see what studies they tried to quash.

I certainly was aware that the oil companies have given money to global warming denialists. That's well documented.

But what does that have to do with what I posted?

Date: 2011/07/15 14:26:32, Link
Author: Trubble
Thanks, Louis. My original question has been adequately answered, by several people including yourself. I think the "denier" label is sometimes applied to people who I don't think are denying the reality or seriousness of climate change, only going against the mainstream on some of the details or suggested solutions. I think that tactic is counter-productive. But no one here seems to support it, which is good.

My "sticking point" now is that I don't appreciate being accused of having some kind of dishonest agenda, or of being a "dumb sumbitch" too lazy or stupid to use Google. I said earlier I'd go back to lurking, because I don't enjoy this kind of exchange ("Jane, you ignorant slut..."), but I guess I've been sucked in now.

Anyway, my main interest is in exploring the disconnect between the scientific consensus and the public policy side. I think there are a lot of reasons why the general public is still skeptical, and some (not all) of those reasons relate to the way the scientific community overall is handling the issue. This is a teaching moment, and when a student isn't getting it, it's the teacher's responsibility to find a way to get through.

My profession is communications, so crafting messages so they'll resonate with a target audience is something I know a little about. Hence my orientation to this.

Date: 2012/01/18 15:33:12, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 18 2012,15:20)
Excessive load?


Clearly a typo. It should have read "excessive pant load."

Date: 2012/02/22 08:59:40, Link
Author: Trubble
Christ, not the "Chief Seattle's letter" myth again?

Date: 2012/02/24 02:11:55, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2012,16:25)
The Chief Seattle speech might not be accurately transcribed (:)) but it was based on the author's recollection of the speech, Seattle was noted as a great orator, and it is still a beutiful sentiment even if it was filtered through the stylistic pen of a romantic era writer.

Just sayin. It's not a myth that he gave such a speech, just that it wasn't exactly transcribed so much as interpreted some years later.

And it is beautiful.

Sorry, you're engaging in wishful thinking. I agree those are beautiful sentiments, and it would be even nicer if Chief Seattle had said them. But those were not his words. Here's a good analysis.

Date: 2012/04/17 16:38:06, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (NormOlsen @ April 17 2012,15:25)
Yes, that was some high quality satire.  Kind of like this:

David Suzuki's Anti-Human CBC

   
Quote
God created the biosphere so that humans could rule over it and make sweet, forcible love to it. He won’t allow it to be ruined, and even promised Noah there would not be another Great Flood. And while several of the species on Noah’s ark have since become extinct, there is convincing evidence that all of them were atheists and prolific masturbators.


Sorry if that's OT but it's so damn good.


I got a chuckle from Vrooman's obviously tongue-in-cheek post. Then I made the mistake of reading the comments. It appears the majority of them think he was being serious. I'm not sure what this says about the acuity of the average reader, but good christ, it says nothing good.

Date: 2012/10/12 10:33:37, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2012,14:15)
I think he's in fact referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......go_cult


From that wiki link:

"Notable examples of cargo cult activity include the...attempted construction of Western goods, such as radios made of coconuts and straw."

GILLIGAN!!! :angry:

Date: 2012/10/19 13:55:50, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 18 2012,20:46)
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 18 2012,18:12)

fuck you i am not getting that shit all over my new track suit

Um. Keiths, do you know who that guy is in the photo you posted? If so, I don't get the joke.

Date: 2012/10/19 13:57:34, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (Trubble @ Oct. 19 2012,13:55)

Sorry, I meant erasmus, not keiths. Damn, when will I get editing privileges?

Date: 2012/10/19 15:22:46, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 19 2012,14:33)
LOL

no i don't know.  who is it?  Man he sure is a hunk

A psychopathic hunk, whose face was all over the news this summer (and whose name is in the file name you uploaded, btw):

From wikipedia:
"Luka Rocco Magnotta (born Eric Clinton Kirk Newman; July 24, 1982) is a Canadian pornographic actor and model accused of killing and dismembering Lin Jun, a Chinese international student, then mailing his severed limbs to the offices of Canadian political parties and to elementary schools in another province.

"After a video allegedly depicting the murder was posted online, Magnotta fled the country, becoming the subject of an Interpol Red Notice and prompting an international manhunt. He was apprehended on June 4, 2012, in an Internet café in Berlin while reading news stories about himself.

"He was previously sought by animal rights groups for allegedly making videos of himself torturing kittens and posting them online."

It's kind of weird that his image is included on that Reactionface site.

Date: 2012/12/27 18:20:09, Link
Author: Trubble
Arrington posted in that UD thread, re. the supposed greater value of Biblical accounts of miracles:
 
Quote
But what if hundreds of unrelated people from all walks of life reported the same miraculous event? And what if they persisted in their story while being tortured to death when all they had to do to stop the torture was to recant?

I've seen this claim many times on fundy forums such as UD. Can anyone explain what it's based on? Are they really saying that a statement in an ancient book that "hundreds of people saw this" is the same thing as independent statements from hundreds of identified individuals? Surely there must be more to it than that, otherwise the claim is clearly specious, and I can't believe educated people could make it without their pants bursting into flame.

Even more shaky is Arrington's further claim that the alleged hundreds of witnesses all ended up in Rome decades later to become martyrs to their faith. Again, he's not the first fundy to make this claim. Is there any evidence of such a connection?

Thanks.

Date: 2013/04/12 17:38:14, Link
Author: Trubble
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 12 2013,16:35)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2013,15:42)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 12 2013,15:18)
There was a time when being a splitter was worse than being a Roman.

Didn't Abraham Lincoln campaign on being a splitter?

The opposite,  I believe.

Hey, I'm a Canadian and even I got that reference.

 

 

 

=====