Climategate!

[sgreger1]

Many energy companies are also on the AGW bandwagon.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar all were key players in helping support washington in it's fight against global warming but are not starting to pull out because they realize this thing is a fraud.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...096420212.html

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

No one's saying there's not alterier motifs on both sides of the isle, btu for you to constantly claim that there is no such thing as corruption in the AGW side is not fair.

[justintempler]

Many energy companies are also on the AGW bandwagon.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar all were key players in helping support washington in it's fight against global warming but are not starting to pull out because they realize this thing is a fraud

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...096420212.html

Funny I can't find your conclusion anywhere in the article. Nothing in that article says anything about it being a fraud.

ConocoPhillips and BP said the companies still support legislation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions

Does that sound like they think global warming is a fraud? :roll:

Caterpillar objected in part because it would impose tariffs on goods from countries that didn't match U.S. efforts to combat climate change.

hmmm, that doesn't sound like fraud either. :roll:

BP and Conoco opposed it on the grounds that it didn't treat energy producers equally.

Nope, no fraud here. They didn't like the proposed solution. :roll:

Nothing about global warming being a fraud in your whole article.

Infact they all agree climate change is happening, what they are arguing about is what the best solution is and what it is going to cost them.

[sgreger1]

Many energy companies are also on the AGW bandwagon.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar all were key players in helping support washington in it's fight against global warming but are not starting to pull out because they realize this thing is a fraud

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...096420212.html

Funny I can't find your conclusion anywhere in the article. Nothing in that article says anything about it being a fraud.

ConocoPhillips and BP said the companies still support legislation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions

Does that sound like they think global warming is a fraud? :roll:

Caterpillar objected in part because it would impose tariffs on goods from countries that didn't match U.S. efforts to combat climate change.

hmmm, that doesn't sound like fraud either. :roll:

BP and Conoco opposed it on the grounds that it didn't treat energy producers equally.

Nope, no fraud here. They didn't like the proposed solution. :roll:

Nothing about global warming being a fraud in your whole article.

Infact they all agree climate change is happening, what they are arguing about is what the best solution is and what it is going to cost them.

That article was not on the subject of whether or not they thought it was a fraud. It was about how they are not continuing to endorse it in the same way they were. This is because the companies saw this green movement coming and decided that it would be best if they got on board to look like the good guys since they knew they would be demonized (rightfully so) as being the evil polluters. But now that they realize it's not going to catch on and no meaningful legislation will be passed they are pulling out of the deals they had signed onto.

[justintempler]

Many energy companies are also on the AGW bandwagon.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar all were key players in helping support washington in it's fight against global warming but are not starting to pull out because they realize this thing is a fraud

That article was not on the subject of whether or not they thought it was a fraud.

So you're pyshic now? They pulled out becasue they realize it's a fraud even though the article says they still believe in it?

You do realize you're talking in circles?

[Roo]

[texasmade]

i hope that's milk... :?

[Mordred]

Conspiracy? No, not really. It's all pretty much out in the open. But really, they may receive funding now, but people like McIntyre started with nothing except the desire to find out the truth. Like me, and many others, they believed the claims of the IPCC, CRU et al. sounded a bit far-fetched and wanted to check it for themselves. I don't think McIntyre had any idea how big this would become.

Professor Phil Jones, who has temporarily stood down as director of UEA's climactic research unit, is reported in today's Sunday Times to have "several times" considered suicide.

That's interesting. Why would he be doing that if he had a clear conscience? Or is he so fanatical about this issue that he would want to kill himself just to make a point? Either way, this makes me trust his judgment even less.

Every week, more shoddy science or just plain incompetence is being discovered amongst the material used by the IPCC and even staunch believers in AGW will have to agree that this is a good thing. If we make policies with global consequences, we would to well to do so on the advice of people who know the difference between 2035 and 2350. Or, more to the point, people who actually check their sources.

The issue has been overhyped, overblown and, worst of all, taken on a life of it's own. Even if there is truth to AGW, it is NOT what the IPCC and neo-communist green movements tell us, nor, more importantly, are their solutions any good. Capitalism and globalization are the usual boogeymen there, yet any clear-thinking person knows that those two have brought us the wealth and peace we have today.

The issue reminds me very strongly of the things Michael Siegel talks about. He's been an anti-tobacco guy for decades (and still is), yet he understands that shoddy science and biased studies are actually harming the anti-smoking movement. It seems to me that, like ASH, the AGW crowd doesn't understand this.

In any case, even if I turn out to be wrong, my grand-children will enjoy a nice, warm climate in 100 years time. Or why exactly is a warmer earth such a bad thing? Greenland had sub-tropical forests at one point in earth's history. Sure beats glaciers in my books.

But wait, no, warming is bad, of course. So is cooling. The status quo must be preserved. The planet must remain as it is for all eternity. No animal or plant species must be allowed to go extinct. We must preserve the earth for future generations AS IT IS TODAY. Why? Because we're afraid of change. Rather than see new opportunities, people only feel fear. But that's a completely different rant about the human condition.

[sgreger1]

Radical environmentalism is a death-cult and has a missions statement even more rediculous and unobtainable than the war in Iraq. We cannot control every bit of the earth or the climate and keep it the same forever, it cannot be done. As long as humans exist, there will be some impact on the environment, just like with any species. But then of course that is the purpose of the death cult, to make humans out to be the enemy and curb our numbers.

If they invested as much money into recycling as they do global warming, we would not have any more landfills or plastic bottles in the ocean.

You wanna know what is a real environmental problem that needs to be addressed? Trash.

Even space is filled with it. And not just regular trash, but giant sattelite trash.



That's about 6,000 satellites up there—of which only 800 remain operational—plus thousands of other objects from launches and accidents.

About 50 percent of all trackable objects are due to in-orbit explosion/collision events

[Snusmun]

Climate Science and global warming all a big fraud? So thousands of PhD scientists across the planet are all collaborating and colluding in a big fraudulent conspiratorial plot to fabricate, manipulate, and misrepresent data in order to solidify a consensus that humans are having a negative impact on climate. LOFL. This thread is a mess. Intelligent Design IS a fact my friends.....Palin 2012. :wink:

[giancarlo]

Climate Science and global warming all a big fraud? So thousands of PhD scientists across the planet are all collaborating and colluding in a big fraudulent conspiratorial plot to fabricate, manipulate, and misrepresent data in order to solidify a consensus that humans are having a negative impact on climate. LOFL. This thread is a mess. Intelligent Design IS a fact my friends.....Palin 2012. :wink:

Actually the ID argument is exactly what the Global Warming/Climate Change proponents are using. And that argument is not a scientific one.

It goes something like this...

CO2 has increased a lot since the mini-ice age.

Temperatures have gone up globally since then.

We don't know why temperatures are increasing because there are a lot of variables and we don't have sufficient technology to deal with complex systems.

It must be humans that cause the increase in CO2 because we can't figure out any other way it could happen.

---

Poor scientific argument that matches nearly identically to the ID argument.

[sgreger1]

Intelligent Design IS a fact my friends.....Palin 2012. :wink:

Lol, god if they run her for the republican ticket I swear i'll vote for Obama over her. That being said, there is more than enough evidence that the climate change debate has fallen to shady tactics and has been conquered by the 2012 the world is going to end crowd.

Is the climate changing? Yes, I would defy someone to name a time that it didn't. Is the world gonna end if we don't sell all of our worldly possessions and live in hippie communes? No probably not.

The argument I have had on this thread is that the earth has corrected for far worse agitators than humans, so not sure why theres all this alarmism. And now the politicians have jumped on board coming to save us as usual, so per the norm corruption ensues.


This is like the y2k thing, once a few years pass and the world didn't end, we can get back to normal. We need to recycle more, stop deforestation and get off oil. All the rest of this is just scientists noticing that the climate is changing, and trying to pin it on humans since they don't have sufficient technology to account for all the variables involved in predicting what the climate will be like in hundreds of years.

It is a young science and our data set doesn't go back very far, so now that they are using thermometers to measure the temp and it's not matching up with the tree ring data, we blame the usual suspects, rich people and the West.

[Snusmun]

once a few years pass and the world didn't end, we can get back to normal. We need to recycle more, stop deforestation and get off oil. .

Just curious as to what your rationale is in saying we need to stop deforestation and "get off oil"? If human behavior has no significant impact on the future climate, why stop? I'm assuming it must be economics, because clearly you have little concern about the environment based on your arguments. After all the earth has seen much worse before and we are still here...

[sgreger1]

Just curious as to what your rationale is in saying we need to stop deforestation and "get off oil"? If human behavior has no significant impact on the future climate, why stop? I'm assuming it must be economics, because clearly you have little concern about the environment based on your arguments. After all the earth has seen much worse before and we are still here...

I believe in real environmentalism. That is, recycling, finding cleaner energy sources, not building condos on every square inch of land etc. My beef isn't even so much with the science behind global warming, it's with what it's being used for by the politicians.

I am concerned about the environment, but I don't think that taxing carbon or making people buy carbon offset credits is going to fix anything. The carbon trading scheme is another vehicle by which big corporations can gain a larger amount of market-share, and basically be able to buy their way out of polluting.

I think we should get off oil for several reasons, those being:

Security: Most of the world oil is in the hands of the middle east or countries that we don't always have the best relationship with. This is a bad thing, as the flow of oil could potentially be used as a weapon against us. If they decided to get together and boycott us, it would be bad for national defense and the economy as a whole.

Science: Though I fall on the less scientific side of the AGW debate, I am very interested in science. We should be perusing alternate sources of energy because a race that still uses fire (internal combustion) to move around is behind the curve.

Supply: It will run out. If America finds another major energy source we will benefit from being the ones selling it, and will be less affected by it's shortage.

Environment: Burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. While I don't think it is creating some end of the world scenario, it is always good to do things that are beneficial to the environment. This is why I support nuclear energy, as it can create an ample amount of energy and it's waste can be tied up in a box and put away (until we can find out how to clean it up) as opposed to spewing it out into the air.


As for the pro-AGW crowd, I think all this fear-mongering about how the worlds ice is going to melt and we're going to be living like the dinosaurs until we slowly die off, is unfounded. There have been major environmental catastrophes throughout the ages, and the earth will correct it. Not that we should be careless though, I am a big supporter of greener energy and greener policies. But as far as I can see, the politicians are just suggesting we adopt the European cap and trade model , which will not solve any of our problems.

[justintempler]

I don't even care about trying to convince sgreger1, all we're doing is talking in circles.

Unfortunately for him, the thing he fears the most (taxes and regulation) is going to happen regardless of what he personally believes about climate change. It will be done for economic and national security reasons.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kjS9pU0y_JU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

The latest DoD report has got a lot to say about climate change:
http://www.defense.gov/QDR/QDR%20as%...N10%201600.pdf

http://www.trumanproject.org/files/p...mies_FINAL.pdf

For every $5 increase in the global price of crude oil represents:

•An additional $7.9 billion for Iran and President Ahmadinejad;
•An additional $4.7 billion for Venezuela and President Chavez; and,
•An additional $18 billion for Russia and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

China has already replaced the USA as Saudi Arabia's biggest oil customer.

[sgreger1]

For every $5 increase in the global price of crude oil represents:

•An additional $7.9 billion for Iran and President Ahmadinejad;
•An additional $4.7 billion for Venezuela and President Chavez; and,
•An additional $18 billion for Russia and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

China has already replaced the USA as Saudi Arabia's biggest oil customer.[/quote]


Well on this we can agree. Like I say, we need to get away from oil because our enemies own the oil supply. This is bad on several levels, such as economic and defense.

And your right, my complaining on this forum will not stop anything. I know the inevitable future holds more taxes etc, whether it be in the name of global warming or something else.

Only two things are certain in life, death and taxes. AGW accomplishes both of those certainties.

As for the science, your right, we're talking in circles. My concern is more on how we form our domestic policy than on the science behind the thing anyways. I trust the scientists will do their job and report on the findings. I am not a scientist and can only make a rough assumption based on what I see. Just like you Justin. Our conclusions are just different. In my life I have observed the corruption that is inherent in all things of this nature, and I know how politicians work. You may have a different perspective from having lived a different life, therefore your opinion may differ from mine.

In life we must all come to our own conclusions based on the little bit of information we run across. Right or wrong, it's how the human mind works.