Saturday, Oct. 24

Saturday, Oct. 24

There are 33 comments on the Lebanon Daily News story from Oct 24, 2009, titled Saturday, Oct. 24. In it, Lebanon Daily News reports that:

On Nov. 15, Americans will celebrate America Recycles Day. Recycling is a simple way in which everyone in Penn sylvania can protect the environment, preserve our natural resources and con tribute to the economic well-being of our nation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lebanon Daily News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Straight Shooter

United States

#1 Oct 24, 2009
Dr. Gebhard is entitled to his opinion on Global Warming. However, the cooling for the past 10 or so years appears factual. Also, Dr. Gebhard should be aware that there is a substantial body of creditable scientific evidence and opinion that does not believe CO2 has any material adverse effect on the earth's climate.

I recommend to those interested, the opinion of the eminent physicist, Freeman Dyson (21 honorary degrees awarded from universities like Georgetown, Princeton and Oxford). Some of Dyson’s views on global warming are contained in an article which appeared in the New York Times:“The Civil Heretic – Freeman Dyson”– March 25, 2009.

In the article, Dyson is characterized as being particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film,“An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”

Dr. Gebhard might note Dyson's characterization of Al Gore’s conclusions as “lousy science”!

Another creditable source of opposition to the politically-correct body of opinion can be found at: http://www.petitionproject.org/ where approximately 31,500 scientists have signed a petition evidencing their disagreement with the CO2-causing-Global-5204Warming hoax. Of these 31,500 scientists, approximately 9,000 have PH D’s.

SS
Buster

Holland, MI

#2 Oct 24, 2009
Don't pay Tony Gebhard any mind. He's just another federally-funded, pseudo-scientific stooge among many others with their hands out for the cash to "cure" any "crisis" that government will fund.

As the present adminstration says, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

And, if you don't have a crisis, invent one.
Anthony Gebhard

Haines City, FL

#3 Oct 24, 2009
Buster wrote:
Don't pay Tony Gebhard any mind. He's just another federally-funded, pseudo-scientific stooge among many others with their hands out for the cash to "cure" any "crisis" that government will fund.
As the present adminstration says, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
And, if you don't have a crisis, invent one.
Buster,

My work is on studying mechanisms of chemotherapeutic drug resistance in hemopoietic cancers. I'm sure you know someone or at least have heard of someone who has had leukemia. My work is completely translational to the real-world, unless you don't think cancer is worth studying, but I bet you would if you had it. And how cancer research pseudoscience, please do explain, and use fact-based evidence collected by the scientific method to which you seem to know soo much about! Also, a sizable portion of the funding in the lab in which I work is funded by outside free-market companies, e.g. Merck Pharmaceuticals. If you think I'm making up diseases, such as cancer, you give me too much credit!
Buster

Holland, MI

#4 Oct 24, 2009
Thin-skinned, too, I see.

And the major portion of the funding, the part that doesn't come from Merck, et al, comes from...where?

By the way, Tony, PhD, etc, thanks for reminding us how well-educated, important, noble and altruistic you are -- unlike the rest of us uninformed plebes with unworthy motives like wanting the government out of the areas they have already demonstrated they have no business and are certain to fail.

If we taxpayers are paying much of your salary, you would do well to treat us with a little more respect and a little less condescension.
Anthony Gebhard

Haines City, FL

#5 Oct 24, 2009
Buster wrote:
Thin-skinned, too, I see.
And the major portion of the funding, the part that doesn't come from Merck, et al, comes from...where?
By the way, Tony, PhD, etc, thanks for reminding us how well-educated, important, noble and altruistic you are -- unlike the rest of us uninformed plebes with unworthy motives like wanting the government out of the areas they have already demonstrated they have no business and are certain to fail.
If we taxpayers are paying much of your salary, you would do well to treat us with a little more respect and a little less condescension.
Buster,

What I am trying to do is clarify issues that seem to be propagated by ignorance and a lack of understanding on a topic. It seems that anybody can come on here and say vaccines are unsafe, H1N1 is a death sentence, etc. and the "flock of sheep" will buy it. I happen to know a little bit about these issues and work with these technologies in the lab on a daily basis (i.e. viruses) and I only make mention of my degrees in order to validate myself to my readers. I'm sure if I didn't list my credentials, you would attack me for not having an adequate background, it seems like a lose-lose situation with you. Maybe if you (and Americans in general) would read some of the fruits of your so called tax dollars at work ( www.pubmed.gov )instead of listening to the lay media with a clear agenda and then interjecting your own views I wouldn't have to come across as condescending!
KittyKat

Ridley Park, PA

#6 Oct 24, 2009
Anthony Gebhard wrote:
<quoted text>
Buster,
What I am trying to do is clarify issues that seem to be propagated by ignorance and a lack of understanding on a topic. It seems that anybody can come on here and say vaccines are unsafe, H1N1 is a death sentence, etc. and the "flock of sheep" will buy it. I happen to know a little bit about these issues and work with these technologies in the lab on a daily basis (i.e. viruses) and I only make mention of my degrees in order to validate myself to my readers. I'm sure if I didn't list my credentials, you would attack me for not having an adequate background, it seems like a lose-lose situation with you. Maybe if you (and Americans in general) would read some of the fruits of your so called tax dollars at work ( www.pubmed.gov )instead of listening to the lay media with a clear agenda and then interjecting your own views I wouldn't have to come across as condescending!
Just something to think about...if people perceive you as condescending chances are they are going to tune you out immediately. Please, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you refer to beliefs some people hold as "filth"?
Anthony Gebhard

Haines City, FL

#7 Oct 24, 2009
KittyKat wrote:
<quoted text>
Just something to think about...if people perceive you as condescending chances are they are going to tune you out immediately. Please, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you refer to beliefs some people hold as "filth"?
Well the people that find me condescending have already decided to tune out evidence-based thinking and substitute their own idea of reality! Maybe we are "doomed" to be a society of ignorance. The only fix to ignorance is knowledge, but we cannot help those that don't want it!
KittyKat

Ridley Park, PA

#8 Oct 24, 2009
Anthony Gebhard wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the people that find me condescending have already decided to tune out evidence-based thinking and substitute their own idea of reality! Maybe we are "doomed" to be a society of ignorance. The only fix to ignorance is knowledge, but we cannot help those that don't want it!
That's not exactly true, I find you condescending but I'm still willing to listen to your opinion, do my own research then form my own opinion. I do not mean to insult you, I don't even know you. You just come across as condescending
Anthony Gebhard

Haines City, FL

#9 Oct 24, 2009
KittyKat wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not exactly true, I find you condescending but I'm still willing to listen to your opinion, do my own research then form my own opinion. I do not mean to insult you, I don't even know you. You just come across as condescending
That's great that you are at least open-minded enough to look into the topics(hopefully from reputable sources that reflect the actual evidence). I encourage that you reference www.pubmed.gov , a lot of the stuff can be technical, but the internet is a powerful tool.
Buster

Holland, MI

#10 Oct 24, 2009
Oh, Tony, we're all unworthy. You're so smart, so superior, so insufferably condescending. Appending your honorifics to your letter only underscores it. Your writing reeks of it, and adding your snarky comments to this thread only makes you look worse.

Your insistence on using honorifics, your obvious intent to "instruct" others, and the smug certainty with which you approach people of whom you have no knowledge suggests both insecurity and an unwillingness to tolerate dissent.

And you didn't answer a direct question about who is paying you. You're dissing your bosses, here.

Bad idea, sonny.
Anthony Gebhard

Haines City, FL

#11 Oct 24, 2009
Buster wrote:
Oh, Tony, we're all unworthy. You're so smart, so superior, so insufferably condescending. Appending your honorifics to your letter only underscores it. Your writing reeks of it, and adding your snarky comments to this thread only makes you look worse.
Your insistence on using honorifics, your obvious intent to "instruct" others, and the smug certainty with which you approach people of whom you have no knowledge suggests both insecurity and an unwillingness to tolerate dissent.
And you didn't answer a direct question about who is paying you. You're dissing your bosses, here.
Bad idea, sonny.
Buster,

Obviously this comment board has been anything but constructive. To answer you question approx. 60% of my funding comes from private companies and the rest comes from an NIH grant which is publicly funded. The conclusions that are drawn from the research conducted in the laboratory in which I work is public domain and yes they are a product to a certain degree of your money. You (as in the American people) asked scientists to study cancer and effective treatments and possibly even a cure someday. We give you (as in the American public) our results. What my article aims at is to convey my frustration in those that claim our results are invalid, but then offer no counter-evidence to prove our results wrong. My question to you, is what is the problem here? Do you not think that it is worth spending money on to figure out how to procure knowledge about diseases in order to prolong life and the quality of life?
Buster

Holland, MI

#12 Oct 25, 2009
Anthony Gebhard wrote:
<quoted text>
Buster,
Obviously this comment board has been anything but constructive. To answer you question approx. 60% of my funding comes from private companies and the rest comes from an NIH grant which is publicly funded. The conclusions that are drawn from the research conducted in the laboratory in which I work is public domain and yes they are a product to a certain degree of your money. You (as in the American people) asked scientists to study cancer and effective treatments and possibly even a cure someday. We give you (as in the American public) our results. What my article aims at is to convey my frustration in those that claim our results are invalid, but then offer no counter-evidence to prove our results wrong. My question to you, is what is the problem here? Do you not think that it is worth spending money on to figure out how to procure knowledge about diseases in order to prolong life and the quality of life?
No, Tony, my problem is with people who are sucking at the public teat appointing themselves the final arbiters of the public policies that benefit them. In your case, I also have a problem with the arrogant condescension you exhibit in the things you write.

I also find it a little pathetic that on a Saturday evening, while I was out enjoying a nice dinner with friends, you stayed in to monitor what people were saying about you on a small town newspaper message board viewed by a mere handful of readers, if that.

You are a common case study. One can only imagine your experiences in local schools that now drive you to so desperately attempt to prove your superiority to those who never left Lebanon.

You have issues, young man, and working them out in this forum is a mistake. The problem is that those who remember you formed their opinions years ago, and those who dont know you are put off by your annoying air of self-importance.

Your letter is not about viruses. Its about showing the locals what an important guy little Tony has become.

Its a little creepy.
Bonehead Buster

Philadelphia, PA

#13 Oct 25, 2009
Who on these blogs could be more condescending then Buster? Buster has a proven record of disagreeing with any one he deems as liberal. Then, with no solutions, or lack of knowledge of a subject he resorts to name calling and nit picking.
Kind of like Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity and Neal Bortz.Gee Buster, do you listen to WLBR all day?
I ask you this Buster; What is Global Warming? Is there an explanation on the Heritage Foundations Web Page?
Isn't it funny how some people feel it is not Ok to spend money to help sustain life in all aspects because it will inflict a burden on our offspring? Therefore, we should ignore sources of pollution and stop what they think is unnecessary research, thus insuring a burden on our offspring.
Some people think a cleaner healthier world would be a better place for our children to live in. You can't stand that can you Buster?
Anthony Gebhard

Haines City, FL

#14 Oct 25, 2009
Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Tony, my problem is with people who are sucking at the public teat appointing themselves the final arbiters of the public policies that benefit them. In your case, I also have a problem with the arrogant condescension you exhibit in the things you write.
I also find it a little pathetic that on a Saturday evening, while I was out enjoying a nice dinner with friends, you stayed in to monitor what people were saying about you on a small town newspaper message board viewed by a mere handful of readers, if that.
You are a common case study. One can only imagine your experiences in local schools that now drive you to so desperately attempt to prove your superiority to those who never left Lebanon.
You have issues, young man, and working them out in this forum is a mistake. The problem is that those who remember you formed their opinions years ago, and those who dont know you are put off by your annoying air of self-importance.
Your letter is not about viruses. Its about showing the locals what an important guy little Tony has become.
Its a little creepy.
That's it, attack the arguer and not the argument. Obviously, you are the one who is arrogant and ignorant to suggest that I am a sociopath which was the result of a messed up childhood and was the butt of jokes in schools. Actually, I had a great time in school, was a stand-out athlete in both high school and college and was rather well-liked, so don't pretend like you know me! If you really knew me or my family, you would know that I was well raised. You say that it's creepy that I write on here on a Saturday night. However, while you were eating dinner with friends, I was working on my dissertation and reading literature on www.pubmed.gov (which I wish you would do) that will be used to for future experiments and would peak on here every once in awhile. Lets get to the real issue here, that is you refuse to be open-minded to anything that contradicts your conservative views. You attack me for writing on a local paper which no one reads, yet I see you comment on almost anything on here that has to do with social reform, so who is the creepy one ( I think this is only the 3rd comment I wrote on the comment section)??? Also, you write under the pseudonym "Buster", however if you really wanted to have a constructive argument you would reveal your real name, I have. Why won't you, are you afraid you will lose credibility (And no I wouldn't burn down your house if I knew who you were, but I don't no if the reciprocal is true).
Buster

Holland, MI

#15 Oct 25, 2009
Tony, you're way too easy. It gives you away. You have too many buttons showing, and they're too easily pushed. You become impulsively boastful, angry and defensive when simply ignoring something would do you far more good.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

You lay out a picture of perfection, yet your behavior suggests something deeper and more troubling in your life, plus, of course, it highlights your immaturity.

You will have no civil discussions with anyone until you give up the certainty of your rectitude in favor of the "open mind" you demand of others - until you can spend some time with and actually listen to people who don't agree with you without belittling them as narrow-minded unless they comply with your views.

You did the same thing the last time one of your letters appeared. But you didn't learn from it, did you?

Screwing with you is almost child's play. Your very high, but unearned self-regard masks some real issues.

The last thing most folks around here need is to be lectured to by a liberal, nanny-ish kid who thinks they're all ignorant hicks- in other words, to be lectured to by someone like you.
Anthony Gebhard

Haines City, FL

#16 Oct 25, 2009
Buster wrote:
Tony, you're way too easy. It gives you away. You have too many buttons showing, and they're too easily pushed. You become impulsively boastful, angry and defensive when simply ignoring something would do you far more good.
You just can't help yourself, can you?
You lay out a picture of perfection, yet your behavior suggests something deeper and more troubling in your life, plus, of course, it highlights your immaturity.
You will have no civil discussions with anyone until you give up the certainty of your rectitude in favor of the "open mind" you demand of others - until you can spend some time with and actually listen to people who don't agree with you without belittling them as narrow-minded unless they comply with your views.
You did the same thing the last time one of your letters appeared. But you didn't learn from it, did you?
Screwing with you is almost child's play. Your very high, but unearned self-regard masks some real issues.
The last thing most folks around here need is to be lectured to by a liberal, nanny-ish kid who thinks they're all ignorant hicks- in other words, to be lectured to by someone like you.
Well Buster, what do you propose? You say ignoring would be far more better and show maturity, but that's what has led to the rise in non-evidence based thinking in the first place (scientists just write you off as a dumb hick). I am at least giving you the benefit of the doubt by trying to have a constructive dialogue. If there ever is going to be a hope on an open forum of discourse, simply ignoring the problem isn't going to make things better. Is ignoring the facts your method Buster?
Buster

Holland, MI

#17 Oct 25, 2009
Anthony Gebhard wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Buster, what do you propose? You say ignoring would be far more better and show maturity, but that's what has led to the rise in non-evidence based thinking in the first place (scientists just write you off as a dumb hick). I am at least giving you the benefit of the doubt by trying to have a constructive dialogue. If there ever is going to be a hope on an open forum of discourse, simply ignoring the problem isn't going to make things better. Is ignoring the facts your method Buster?
No, Tony, we won't have "an open forum of discourse." It's clear that nothing short of my capitulation will satisfy you. With that attitude, you will never have "a constructive dialogue" with anyone who disagrees with you. What you have missed, to your detriment, is that I haven't disagreed with you on anything. That I likely do on much of what you have written is irrelevant.

You seem to be a promising young man. I like to see young people fulfill the promise they show early in life. I don't like to see potential wasted, even temporarily, and you show the symptoms of fatal weaknesses that could eventually hurt you, even make you a loser, unless you learn some hard lessons, and the sooner the better. Rivals and enemies will exploit your weaknesses as I have done, however less benignly. You make them obvious.

There are many people, including many very bright ones, whose life experiences inform them that "life's a b*tch and then you die." Life CAN be a b*tch, and the mortality rate is 100%, but life is much harder for those who have never developed a reasonable measure of tolerance and humility. You show none of either here - not even a glimmer.

Once upon a time, I was you, a swaggering kid with a solid academic record who knew it all. I wish someone had found a way to deliver that message to me when I finished my formal academic work. I've done pretty well, but surely not as well as if I had learned earlier what I'm trying to teach you now.

Self-admiration is self-limiting. Asserting one's superiority is destructive both socially and professionally. You should read more carefully, listen more closely, think more objectively and become more introspective.

If you do these things honestly and with tolerance and humility, you will be far happier, much more likable, more successful, and one day you will vote very much as I do, too ;-)
Anthony Gebhard

Haines City, FL

#18 Oct 25, 2009
Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Tony, we won't have "an open forum of discourse." It's clear that nothing short of my capitulation will satisfy you. With that attitude, you will never have "a constructive dialogue" with anyone who disagrees with you. What you have missed, to your detriment, is that I haven't disagreed with you on anything. That I likely do on much of what you have written is irrelevant.
You seem to be a promising young man. I like to see young people fulfill the promise they show early in life. I don't like to see potential wasted, even temporarily, and you show the symptoms of fatal weaknesses that could eventually hurt you, even make you a loser, unless you learn some hard lessons, and the sooner the better. Rivals and enemies will exploit your weaknesses as I have done, however less benignly. You make them obvious.
There are many people, including many very bright ones, whose life experiences inform them that "life's a b*tch and then you die." Life CAN be a b*tch, and the mortality rate is 100%, but life is much harder for those who have never developed a reasonable measure of tolerance and humility. You show none of either here - not even a glimmer.
Once upon a time, I was you, a swaggering kid with a solid academic record who knew it all. I wish someone had found a way to deliver that message to me when I finished my formal academic work. I've done pretty well, but surely not as well as if I had learned earlier what I'm trying to teach you now.
Self-admiration is self-limiting. Asserting one's superiority is destructive both socially and professionally. You should read more carefully, listen more closely, think more objectively and become more introspective.
If you do these things honestly and with tolerance and humility, you will be far happier, much more likable, more successful, and one day you will vote very much as I do, too ;-)
Buster,
Well I appreciate your insight and your point is noted. I have no intention of self-admiration and quite the opposite. I hate drawing attention to myself and rather prefer to stay in the background. However, I feel that a lack of evidence-based thinking has been on the rise and it requires someone to stand up for rational thinking. Some of the issues I discuss have a direct effect not only on me but on future generations. The problem has been that scientists have been hesitant to engage in a dialogue because they find the task almost futile. People cut-and-paste what evidence and truths they want in order to suit their view of life. This is fine but then they should say "I believe this although there is no evidence but it works for me". What I have a problem with are those that make extraordinary claims without any evidence and then slack a sticker on it and call it science, when it is pseudoscience. And then there are those that prey on people who are either desperate or ignorant of a fact and then those people praise these scoundrels. This seems backwards and the American public should be insulted. My goal is try to expose these fallacies so that Americans will make the right decisions. Also, I do not imply that one needs formal education in order to be knowledgeable about a subject, they just need to look at the correct sources and not a source with a clear agenda (true science is not bias towards any side). I hope this clarifies my intent.
KittyKat

Ridley Park, PA

#19 Oct 25, 2009
Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Tony, we won't have "an open forum of discourse." It's clear that nothing short of my capitulation will satisfy you. With that attitude, you will never have "a constructive dialogue" with anyone who disagrees with you. What you have missed, to your detriment, is that I haven't disagreed with you on anything. That I likely do on much of what you have written is irrelevant.
You seem to be a promising young man. I like to see young people fulfill the promise they show early in life. I don't like to see potential wasted, even temporarily, and you show the symptoms of fatal weaknesses that could eventually hurt you, even make you a loser, unless you learn some hard lessons, and the sooner the better. Rivals and enemies will exploit your weaknesses as I have done, however less benignly. You make them obvious.
There are many people, including many very bright ones, whose life experiences inform them that "life's a b*tch and then you die." Life CAN be a b*tch, and the mortality rate is 100%, but life is much harder for those who have never developed a reasonable measure of tolerance and humility. You show none of either here - not even a glimmer.
Once upon a time, I was you, a swaggering kid with a solid academic record who knew it all. I wish someone had found a way to deliver that message to me when I finished my formal academic work. I've done pretty well, but surely not as well as if I had learned earlier what I'm trying to teach you now.
Self-admiration is self-limiting. Asserting one's superiority is destructive both socially and professionally. You should read more carefully, listen more closely, think more objectively and become more introspective.
If you do these things honestly and with tolerance and humility, you will be far happier, much more likable, more successful, and one day you will vote very much as I do, too ;-)
Geez, now who's the condescending one?
Buster

Holland, MI

#20 Oct 25, 2009
Anthony Gebhard wrote:
<quoted text>
Buster,
Well I appreciate your insight and your point is noted. I have no intention of self-admiration and quite the opposite. I hate drawing attention to myself and rather prefer to stay in the background. However, I feel that a lack of evidence-based thinking has been on the rise and it requires someone to stand up for rational thinking. Some of the issues I discuss have a direct effect not only on me but on future generations. The problem has been that scientists have been hesitant to engage in a dialogue because they find the task almost futile. People cut-and-paste what evidence and truths they want in order to suit their view of life. This is fine but then they should say "I believe this although there is no evidence but it works for me". What I have a problem with are those that make extraordinary claims without any evidence and then slack a sticker on it and call it science, when it is pseudoscience. And then there are those that prey on people who are either desperate or ignorant of a fact and then those people praise these scoundrels. This seems backwards and the American public should be insulted. My goal is try to expose these fallacies so that Americans will make the right decisions. Also, I do not imply that one needs formal education in order to be knowledgeable about a subject, they just need to look at the correct sources and not a source with a clear agenda (true science is not bias towards any side). I hope this clarifies my intent.
OK, Tony, you're not ready to let it go. I get it. Your loss - at least for now.

So, who's the "evidence-based" thinker, Al Gore or Freeman Dyson?

And who gets to decide who the "correct sources" are?

My experience is that "scientists," especially those whose work is underwritten by public money to investigate things like global warming, are hardly reticent. They're eager to speak out, most usually in ways that perpetuate their funding. Global warming will be a problem for these people as long as they need a job.

What interested me most about your letter was that, while you can personally claim legitimate expertise in only one area, it offered your opinions on a number of issues, with an assumption of legitimacy for all of them because you are a "scientist."

A little humility would be a good thing.

Over and out.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Halliburton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Halliburton pleads guilty to destroying Gulf sp... (Jul '13) Nov '16 Niece of Soros 44
News Halliburton Defends Its Cement Work, Blaming BP... (Sep '10) Sep '16 Ole Miss Heroin 18
News Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq... (Mar '13) Jul '16 Czech defector 52
Rolex 30 year gift. (Jun '15) Jun '16 Lizardberry 5
UPDATE 1-Nigerian oil union shuts down Hallibur... (May '15) May '15 xxx 1
News Halliburton Profit Declines Less Than Estimated (Jul '09) May '15 swedenforever 23
News Fracking Used To Inject Nuclear Waste Undergrou... (Mar '15) Mar '15 BDV 2
More from around the web