[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…Also note federal funding not the same as funded by Big Oil obviously.
Are you saying government spending is less than big oil?
Do you have a point or are your just trying to deflect?
If you have accurate numbers post them.[/quote]
Federal funding is not a negative, unless by negative you mean conditions aren’t attached to findings of studies funded federally(other than accuracy). Even skeptics maybe receiving federal funds—the obvious difference is the commercial funds given to “skeptics” in the sole pursuit of distorting public perception (actual stated goal of Exxon’s funding)
The government doesn’t have a vested interest in scaring the beejesus out of its population with forthcoming destruction.
Big Oil may have some interest in skewing public perception (can you guess what?)
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…Also note federal funding not the same as funded by Big Oil obviously.
Are you saying government spending is less than big oil?
Do you have a point or are your just trying to deflect?
If you have accurate numbers post them.
Federal funding is not a negative, unless by negative you mean conditions aren’t attached to findings of studies funded federally(other than accuracy). Even skeptics maybe receiving federal funds—the obvious difference is the commercial funds given to “skeptics” in the sole pursuit of distorting public perception (actual stated goal of Exxon’s funding)
The government doesn’t have a vested interest in scaring the beejesus out of its population with forthcoming destruction.
Big Oil may have some interest in skewing public perception (can you guess what?)
[/quote]
You don’t get it do you? You don’t get government money if you are a skeptic.
[quote]Headdunder wrote:
Hansen was saying, in 1975, that we were entering another Ice Age. He’s a top dog in all the environmentalist GW movement. Now, he’s being paid by Soros?[/quote]
Damn, Headhunter wrong again, on both counts. What a shocker.
And Republicans HATE those whistleblowers. Oooh, that’s gotta piss you off…
And then there’s this:
[quote]…Rasool and Hansen were colleagues at NASA and "Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus…
“I was glad to let Rasool and Schneider use that program to calculate scattering by aerosols”…
“Allowing this scattering function to be used by other people does not in any way make me responsible for a climate theory.”[/quote]
Headdunder never let the facts get in the way of a good rant: OMFG !!! Global warming is a communist plot!!! Next thing you know, they’ll be putting flouride in the water!!!
Hey, me too. Big, HUGE winning issue for the Democrats, if they are smart enough to use it.
Even Newt Gingrich is on board with fighting global warming now. So any candidate who seems like they are denying the problem is going to probably lose some votes… maybe not from the 30% Bush Dead Enders like you guys, but from the ‘swing’ voters. And the Right can’t win without a lot of those votes.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Even Newt Gingrich is on board with fighting global warming now. [/quote]
Hate to be the cynic but he’s a politician and also knows its a hot-button issue in the mainstream (excuse the pun).
I have to bump orion’s remark above about choice: most investors with money will put it where there is a better than moderate chance of a successful return–this goes for politicians too if you consider their investment to be in the arena of public opinion.
I am willing to bet most investors still aren’t willing to make the a real investment in money yet to “correct” climate change. Politicians on the other hand, only bet on public opinion so it doesn’t matter if they are siding with factual science.
Don’t get me wrong, I think this debate is important but it is too soon to start talking about what, if anything, should be done in the market place.
You guys do realize that a mixed economy was like handing the keys to the kingdom to large corporations, esp banks. Now they’ve got government power to back up their agenda.
Fake dissenter: they know they are lying.
The Big Oil companies know there is global warming, but also choose to lie about it. That’s kind of fake.[/quote]
So you have proof that they don’t believe the statements they made when they made them? Otherwise, you’re pretty blatantly attacking character rather than issues/data.
Additionally, getting paid to believe and calling yourself a scientist is less fake? A leading scientist saying that ‘all hell is going to break loose’ and declaring even rather progressive scientific consensus to be ‘reticent’ sounds genuine to you?
Edit: And this is like the fifth time in two or three threads that I’ve asked for even one shred of data from you only to come back empty handed. You always veer back to these sixty mystery scientists and Exxon’s old $16M ‘bribe’ regardless of what the original query was.
Fake dissenter: they know they are lying.
The Big Oil companies know there is global warming, but also choose to lie about it. That’s kind of fake.
So you have proof that they don’t believe the statements they made when they made them? Otherwise, you’re pretty blatantly attacking character rather than issues/data.
Additionally, getting paid to believe and calling yourself a scientist is less fake? A leading scientist saying that ‘all hell is going to break loose’ and declaring even rather progressive scientific consensus to be ‘reticent’ sounds genuine to you?
Edit: And this is like the fifth time in two or three threads that I’ve asked for even one shred of data from you only to come back empty handed. You always veer back to these sixty mystery scientists and Exxon’s old $16M ‘bribe’ regardless of what the original query was.[/quote]
Well, we all know companies like BP, and Exxon DO believe the globe is warming and that greenhouse gases are amongst the reasons and that urgent action needs to be taken, on the other hand they pay millions of dollars to “skeptics” saying the opposite and/or attack those who have made the same conclusion that Exxon has (the globe is warming and greenhouse gases are a problem, and action needs to be taken.)-----hence fake dissent.
And as I’ve pointed out before (with links!) the “skeptics” (who are getting paid by a commercial interest to deliberately distort the public’s perception) http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.ht
have to use non-peer reviewed “science”, or out dated science, take quotes out of context, and most hilariously use phony charts (as in the BBC anti-global warming p.o.s.) or even phony titles (heads of depts that don’t exist, scientist not really a scientist etc.). I mean, I think its important for example to keep the last 20 years on the charts they used in swindle to make fraudulent points. Why you may ask? Perhaps because the last 20 years might have caused certain lines to go off their charts, and there by make the opposite point they made in the hilariously titled “Swindle”. And since they had to actively slice and dice those charts—I’m preeeettttyyyy sure they knew their own conclusions were…uhmmmm…false?
Well, we all know companies like BP, and Exxon DO believe the globe is warming and that greenhouse gases are amongst the reasons and that urgent action needs to be taken, on the other hand they pay millions of dollars to “skeptics” saying the opposite and/or attack those who have made the same conclusion that Exxon has (the globe is warming and greenhouse gases are a problem, and action needs to be taken.)-----hence fake dissent.[/quote]
I’ll let you in on what, apparently to you, is a secret; they still don’t give a shit about global warming. I can’t say this any more blatantly, they are oil corporations, it’s their job to sell oil. They quite literally are agreeing to global warming to shed bad PR and sell more gasoline. The CEO that accrued bad PR by funding science left and the new CEO ‘changes the company direction’ by not spending money on bad PR. Brilliant! Nobody lied, the company just changed its mind. You should be saying, “Fighting global warming my ass, it’s blatantly fake consent.”
First of all, you still didn’t hit sixty skeptics. Secondly, the UNFCCC’s expenditures for 2000-2005 were nearly ten times ($147M, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/sbi/eng/14.pdf) the amount of money Exxon spent. If you look at what Exxon spent ($16M), the people they spread it over (assuming 43 individuals), and the time they spent it(7 yrs.), they didn’t even pay a Ph.D.'s annual salary for the entire time they spent it. And that assumes no overhead costs on the part of the recipient or transfer fees. The AEI quite easily refuted the assertions brought to it. So why do you assume the science is bad for what equates to a free gas card? Because other scientists who probably actually receive similar amounts of money to bolster climate change refute it? Because AEI used suggestive tone in their advertisement? I wonder if naming the fucking Panel/Convention CLIMATE CHANGE is suggestive?
Also, many of Hansen’s claims aren’t peer reviewed and dissent with the majority. Many of his measurements aren’t actually measurements, they’ve had corrective ‘english’ applied to them. He was recently audited and forced to correct some of his data (that damned Y2K bug). And he has since amended his predictions based on even more recent data. Michael Mann even refuses (current tense) to share model algorithms and source code. The fact that there even is ‘out of date’ data, regardless of how it’s used, indicates an infantile and poorly refined science. If I learned from a 20 yr. old phlebotomy textbook or built a bridge with a 20 yr. old civil engineering skills, I wouldn’t end up with people tumbling into crevasses or exanguinating. And even then, the engineers don’t start by thinking how to make a bridge that’s standing 100 yrs. from now, they start by better predicting current events and solving current problems.
[quote]Is using misleading information deliberately a character issue?
It is for me.[/quote]
Yes, when a scientist, in all sincerity uses, the phrase ‘all hell is going to break loose’ or invokes the name of Thomas Jefferson (Who said, “I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that stones fell from the sky.” in response to hearing of meteorites) to support his claims, his credibility is shot with me. And when he happens to be an authority and pioneer in his field, I like to believe he may just be a little whacko, but a little part of me gets skeptical about his work. And when I realize that his work has been audited and revised, (and I don’t mean the usual iterative revisions his work undergoes), I can’t help but wonder how everyone else isn’t a little bit skeptical as well. Further, considering the models could be erroneous to begin with all of us should be skeptical (not to the point of being wasteful);
In discussing these embarrassing results, Wentz et al. correctly state that “the reason for the discrepancy between the observational data and the Global Climate Models[sic] is not clear.” They also rightly state that this dramatic difference between the real world of nature and the virtual world of climate modeling “has enormous impact,” concluding that the questions raised by the discrepancy “are far from being settled.”
BTW- I’m still waiting on the data that shows city/county/state municipalities profiting from ‘meeting Kyoto’.
This is absurd. Taxes and legislation to place an overemphasis on underdeveloped, inefficient, or non-existent technologies? They are environmental policies, not economic policies.
So it doesn’t matter that the 5 guys who get paid to say there is no global warming are all funded by big oil but it does matter if 1 out of all other scientists (except for 5 fake ones) is funded by Soros?
Do you ever even think about what you’re posting?
First, no one person “in Exxon’s pocket” got as much as Hansen got. As a matter of fact, if you added all five up (no matter which five individuals you’re thinking about) they didn’t get near the amount of what Hansen got.
Second, you said the last time this topic came up it was 60 oil-drenched dissenters, which you refused to name. Suddenly, it’s five to one? What happened to the vast majority and scientific consensus? Not to mention that the “one” is a pioneer in the field of what is now vast consensus and dissents with the vast consensus on top of it all.
I’m pretty convinced you haven’t thought a lick about what you’ve been posting.
What has been the economic impact of the towns/cities/states that have implemented Kyoto on their own? (hint:positive)
also:
You’re confused:
Hansen is one scientist “getting money from soros(why does this matter)”, but all other scientists also know there is global warming and aren’t getting “paid by soros”.
Yes there are 60 fake dissenters, maybe 5 or 6 are the same “scientists” always pointed out in the MSM.
And Soros is a guy that just happens to understand global warming exists, the exact same belief that Big oil companies have, but big oil pays people to lie about it. Little bit of a difference.
Hansen was saying, in 1975, that we were entering another Ice Age. He’s a top dog in all the environmentalist GW movement. Now, he’s being paid by Soros?
I’m happy he’s getting rich but hurting things like the air conditioning business (Freon) or making shuttle crews use ‘environmentally-friendly’ materials that break off and eventually kill them…not a good idea.
[/quote]
Uhh…Hansen wasn’t saying this and he didn’t get paid by Soros. Both of these made up. Painful.
[quote]FreedomFighterXL wrote:
Global warming = Democrat’s 9/11.
Serves as justification for spending billions if not trillions over time to destroy[/quote] foreign economies, while investing in technology R&D in an attempt to boost [quote]the US economy[/quote] over time.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Looks like this “global warming science” has been bought and paid for.
The Global warming scam is simply a way for America to be brought to its knees, by communists-turned-environmentalists. They knew Americans would never buy into communism, but might buy this environmentalist crap.
[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? This is a GOOD THING!
It creates jobs & new industries.
More money put into R&D. (America will be the undisputed leader in tech if this continues.)
Reduces dependencies on foreign oil sources. Not only that but it saves money and lives in the long run. Less coslty/lenghty wars over the much needed oil in the Middle East.
Promotes efficiency, less air pollution. YAY!
World economies and way of life are very much dependent on this black goo. The more self-sufficient America will become the better.
Not even along the lines of:
-Environmentalists are all tree hugging hippies.
-Real men like the smell of exhaust fumes in the morning.
-Environmentalism is eroding the foundation of society.
-Global Warming is a terrorist funded fear tactic. It hurts America.
Not even along the lines of:
-Environmentalists are all tree hugging hippies.
-Real men like the smell of exhaust fumes in the morning.
-Environmentalism is eroding the foundation of society.
-Global Warming is a terrorist funded fear tactic. It hurts America.
[quote]Arc_1mpuls3 wrote:
Wasn’t the earth more tropical millions of years ago? I could have sworn the earth was covered?
“Climates were warm, with no evidence of glaciation. As in the Triassic, there was apparently no land near either pole, and no extensive ice caps existed.”
I took that quote from wikipedia on the jurassic period. I think we have an impact in the speed at which it’s happening, but I don’t think that the recession of ice caps is neccessarily unnatural. [/quote]
That’s a good point. There are a lot of scientists (poor and unpaid by politically lobbies) that say the warming is because the earth is moving closer to the sun as part of a very large lunar cycle and not because of anything man has done or could do. Since the earth was similar to this before it makes more sense than the high C02 nonsense.