Climategate!

[justintempler]

sgreger1,

Your arguments are all over the place. You keep looking at the smallest mistakes and grab onto things like 2035/2350 and tree ring data as proof that scientists must be in some conspiracy to pass taxes and the big evil corporations will get rich at your expense.


Republican Senator: An Energy Bill Without Carbon Regulation Would Be "Half-Assed"
Why Sen. Lindsey Graham thinks putting a price on carbon is the key to generating American jobs.

And the cap and trade argument is bullshit. There is no reason the American system has to repeat the same mistakes you keep harping about.

We already have a "carbon tax" in Alaska. And the people there are pretty happy with it.

http://www.justmeans.com/Cap-Dividen...oney/9855.html

Cap And Dividend: Show Them The Money
Kendra Pierre-Louis | Sunday 28th February 2010

Every year Alaskan residents get between $600 and $1,500 dollars as dividend payment from the Alaska Permanent Fund, a constitutionally established fund set up after the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

It's in effect a dividend off of oil revenues. Put another way, Alaskans get financial remuneration from a system which pollutes the global environment and thus have a strong disincentive to move the nation away from oil, despite the fact that the carbon dioxide emissions from said oil is causing the arctic to melt.

It also seems to lend credence to the idea that polluting activities are profitable; their sustainable cousins are not. What if, however, we could make it so people benefited not from polluting activities, but rather from environmentally sustaining ones?

California is mulling that idea over right now.

Instead of Cap and Trade, California is considering what some are calling a Cap and Dividend program: a California state panel reviewing the best way to allocate funds from a carbon control plan set to begin in 2012 are considering giving the money straight back to the people. The details are fuzzy as to whether the money would come in the form of a tax break, annual check or some combination of the two, but a California family of four would be in a position to receive as much as $1,000 dollars annually.

Hear that Alaska?

[sgreger1]

Snupy, why reply to every sentence I wrote with the same question?

I will do some research and get back to you, since you are incapable of using a search engine apparently.

Here are some scientists who do not believe in the current AGW theory, and instead think that natural causes are more to blame. You know... since this has happened before the industrial revolution and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming


The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

http://www.nipccreport.org/aboutNIPCC.html


Here is 500 peer-reviewed papers showing skepticism of man-made global warming:

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html



Another authored by 24 contributors from 14 countries:
http://www.heartland.org/books/NIPCC.html


Another 650 who are not part of the consensus:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...TOKEN=80540062


I just think it's being blown out of proportion. Most scientists (even anti AGW ones) agree the planet is experiencing a warming trend. The big disgreement is that this warming is caused by mankind. Data from the early 1800's (way before the Industrial Revolution) showed a warming trend, so there is a question as to how much warming is man made.


Let me guess, you will respond to this post by quoting every sentence and asking the same question a thousand times. Why would they lie? I don't believe they are. I believe that the data available to them has been tainted. Just my opinion. It happened with the WMD thing and we learned a lesson about how having a few subversives in the group can convince everyone to independantly verify something is happening when it is not.
I do not expect to convince either of you of this, just stating my side. I am not a scientist and neither are you, so this is nothing more than a conversation about something happening in the world. Don't get so riled up.


When I get home and have a second, I will publish a list of everything i've got. As i don't have time to paste all the links here. I believe that they rely to much on computer models that cannot accurately predict long term trends, and then when that happens, they start adjusting their findings to try and make it look like the model was correct.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla, 1934

[sgreger1]

sgreger1,

Your arguments are all over the place. You keep looking at the smallest mistakes and grab onto things like 2035/2350 and tree ring data as proof that scientists must be in some conspiracy to pass taxes and the big evil corporations will get rich at your expense.

No, I was not making the argument that since they got a few things wrong that it is all trash. Not at all. What I was saying is that if we don't allow a skeptical perspective or listen to people who are skeptics, than errors like this will occur.

The scientists said they didn't agree with a few of the predictions, and the IPCC and Pechari made fun of them and said they were just practicing vodoo science. Well those scientists were right. This doesnt mean the IPCC is full of shit, but it illustrates my point that it is healthy to have people scrutenizing the details instead of just publishing something as though it's fact without researching it, and then making fun of other scientists who disagree.

Since when in science has skepticism been a bad thing?

[justintempler]

sgreger1,

There is nothing wrong with skeptics. The problem is your skeptics don't have any explanations. They spend all their time tearing apart other people's work but when asked to present their own explantion they come up with nothing. It's not enough in science to keep harping on why the other guy is wrong. You have to come up with your own explanation.

Your skeptics are the ones using voodoo science, trying to blame it on the sun, sunspots, cosmic rays, the weather on mars, neptune, venus. volcanos....

We don't even need the manmade greenhouse argument.
We're turning the planet into one big garbage dump.

meanwhile this is where we get our oil...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VjjnEzoxEI8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed>

meanwhile this is where we get our coal...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aiSzOiGFa-0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed>

Can you honestly tell me that the people creating these toxic waste dumps shouldn't be required to pay a carbon tax?

[snupy]

Snupy, why reply to every sentence I wrote with the same question?

In the hopes that you will eventually provide something, ANYTHING, to back up the claims you make. You repeatedly refuse to do so, so I repeatedly pose the question until you do.

I will do some research and get back to you, since you are incapable of using a search engine apparently.

It's not my job to offer evidence to back up the claims you make.

Here are some scientists who do not believe in the current AGW theory, and instead think that natural causes are more to blame.

Now see, was that so hard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

How about we take a look at the very first scientist listed under the section titled 'Global warming is not occurring,' who happens to be "Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg."

What can we learn about this Mr. Ball, even if we are "incapable of using a search engine?"

Oh, why looky here:

"Timothy F. Ball
Ball and the oil industry

Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS).

Ball is also listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources.

DeSmog recently uncovered information showing that two of the founding directors of the NRSP are lobbyists for the energy sector.

Ball and the oil industry

In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the Friends of Science admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August 2006 Globe and Mail feature, FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding this fact. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS. Source

And what about the second scientist listed in that section, whose name is Rober M. Carter?

According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Carter appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community.[15] However, he has published primary research in the related field of palaeoclimatology, investigating New Zealand's climate extending back to 3.9 Ma.[16][17][18]

Carter's website states that his research "has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC)", and that he "receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments."[19] However, his external activities include being on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian think tank whose views include climate skepticism and --->whose funding includes some oil and tobacco companies<--- as well as the Australian government.[15] Source

The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer

ONE THOUSAND THANK YOUS SGREGER1!

"In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer stated that he had two meetings with Robert Balling in Pheonix for which his expenses were re-imbursed. Singer believed the the funding, which he received from Balling, originated from the Western Fuels Association.[19] Singer also admitted to working as a consultant on approximately half a dozen occasions for the Global Climate Coalition and that payments to him came either from the firm of John Shlaes, the coalition's director or the PR firm, E. Bruce Harrison, which worked for the coalition.[20] He also stated that he had undertaken consulting work on "perhaps a dozen or so" energy companies. This included work on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell, Sun, Unocal, the Electric Power Research Institute, Florida Power and the American Gas Association.[21]"Source

and Dr. Craig Idso
http://www.nipccreport.org/aboutNIPCC.html

Oh hell, he, too, sucks at the teat of the oil industry. Read it for yourself.

Sgreger1, I can not thank you enough for providing such an enormous WEALTH of evidence to back up MY claim that the oil industry is behind the denial of global warming. No wonder you hesitate to offer evidence to back up your claims and well you should.

Here's two challenges for you sgreger1:

1. Find a climate change denying 'scientist' who isn't being paid, in one way or another, by the oil industry or any other industry.

2. Tell us why ALL of the following groups should NOT be believed with respect to the evidence which supports global warming:

"^ The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.Source

[sgreger1]

Snupy,

YOUR SCIENTISTS ARE FUNDED BY THE ENERGY COMPANIES TOO. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. One side is funded by oil comapnies and the other side is funded by carbon trading and other energy companies.

Tell me something Snupy, it's not okay for oil deniers to profit from oil companies who share a similar goal, but it IS okay for pro-AGW people to have vested financial intirests in the carbon trading market?

The IPCC is funded by energy companies who want to make a fortune selling carbon credits and other products. If you claim oil money can fake science that disproves AGW, than tell me why you think money from carbon trading firms couldn't fake the science to promote AGW.

If i'm a denier, I get paid by the oil companies=bad
If i'm a supporter, I stand to make a fortune on my investments in carbon trading= good

Is that right?

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies

Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.

So tell me snupy, one industry plans to make money off denying AGW, and that is bad. Another industry plans to make money off promoting AGW, but that is good? Where is the logic in that?


The point, Snupy, is that there is funding on both sides here, and it is unfair for you to use the meme of "the oil companies are bad" (which they are) to argue your point by ONLY pointing out their funding, while completely ommitting similar funding on the pro-AGW side.

Plus, regardless of funding, the content of the science should still be the point here. Even if you did make the assertion that the peer-reviewed papers denying AGW were sponsored by the oil companies, than that would begs the question: If they can fake science to come to a predetermined observation regarding warming trends, than who is to say that the money on the other side hasn't created fake science claiming that AGW is true?


And you want to talk about the cridentials of deniers?

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

Plus the ringleader of this whole IPCC thing has a long history of working for energy companies and companies that exploit poor populations to make money. PECHARI IS THE BIG EVIL OIL EXECUTIVE YOU HATE, and he is the one making sure the AGW thing gets funded.



Snupy, read this, I know its kind of long, and tell me why you think the IPCC isn't similarly funded by corporate and energy intirests who want to promote something to make money. Tell me how the IPCC is ANY different than what you complain about when you say oil companies are funding deniers. Energy companies are funding the promotion of AGW. Is that okay in your book?

The original power base from which Dr Pachauri has built up his worldwide network of influence over the past decade is the Delhi-based Tata Energy Research Institute, of which he became director in 1981 and director-general in 2001. Now renamed The Energy Research Institute, TERI was set up in 1974 by India’s largest privately-owned business empire, the Tata Group, with interests ranging from steel, cars and energy to chemicals, telecommunications and insurance (and now best-known in the UK as the owner of Jaguar, Land Rover, Tetley Tea and Corus, Britain’s largest steel company).

Although TERI has extended its sponsorship since the name change, the two concerns are still closely linked.

In India, Tata exercises enormous political power, shown not least in the way that when it expressed its interests in developing land in the eastern states of Orissa and Jarkhand, it led to the Indian government displacing hundreds of thousands of poor tribal villagers to make way for large-scale iron mining and steelmaking projects.

Initially, when Dr Pachauri took over the running of TERI in the 1980s, his interests centred on the oil and coal industries, which may now seem odd for a man who has since become best known for his opposition to fossil fuels. He was, for instance, a director until 2003 of India Oil, the country’s largest commercial enterprise, and until this year remained as a director of the National Thermal Power Generating Corporation, its largest electricity producer.

In 2005, he set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.

However, since Pachauri became a vice-chairman of the IPCC in 1997, TERI has vastly expanded its interest in every kind of renewable or sustainable technology, in many of which the various divisions of the Tata Group have also become heavily involved, such as its project to invest $1.5 billion (£930 million) in vast wind farms.

Another project, co-financed by our own Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the German insurance firm Munich Re, is studying how India’s insurance industry, including Tata, can benefit from exploiting the supposed risks of exposure to climate change.

[snupy]

Snupy,

YOUR SCIENTISTS ARE FUNDED BY THE ENERGY COMPANIES TOO.

PROOF?

So tell me snupy, one industry plans to make money off denying AGW, and that is bad. Another industry plans to make money off promoting AGW, but that is good? Where is the logic in that?

We are not discussing industry, except where industry funding is slanting the claims of science. Which of the following scientific organizations who support global warming, is Rajendra K. Pachauri a member of?

"^ The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.Source

In what way has Rajendra K. Pachauri slanted the scientific findings of the above organizations, as the oil industry has for the scientists you quoted?

[sgreger1]

God your dense snupy. Like I detailed above, you have two sides:

Side 1: Pro-AGW; These include all the organizations you listed as well as any others not listed by you above. These people recieve funding from governments and companies that stand to make a huge profit off carbon trading going global.

Side 2: Anti-AGW; These include the sources I detailed above, as well as anyone else who is a "denier" in any official capacity. These people recieve funding by oil companies who want to maintain the status quo, and stand to make a profit by this whole AGW thing going away.


2 sides, 2 different ways to profit. The carbon trading market however is much larger than the oil market and a much larger group of industries and governments stand to make a fortune if they can get this carbon offset trading thing going, therefore the side for pro-AGW is better funded.


If you claim oil companies can get scientists to fake peer reviwed papers for their intirests, why would you be so naive to think that mulitple governments and conglomerates around the planet could not fund an equally deceptive set of peer reviewed papers to prove AGW?

More money to be made by AGW being accepted, therefore, most organizations will promote it, and in turn recieve money.

[snupy]

If you claim oil companies can get scientists to fake peer reviwed papers for their intirests, why would you be so naive to think that mulitple governments and conglomerates around the planet could not fund an equally deceptive set of peer reviewed papers to prove AGW?

Where's the proof that all 23 of these National Academies of Sciences of various nations and all 23 of the other scientific organizations have conspired to push a lie? What proof do you have to support the idea that all 46 of these professional scientific organizations are pushing a lie?

So for the second time:


Which of the following scientific organizations who support global warming, is Rajendra K. Pachauri a member of?

"^ The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.Source

In what way has Rajendra K. Pachauri slanted the scientific findings of the above organizations, as the oil industry has for the scientists you quoted?

How many times are you going to avoid the questions? Where is the proof of this conspiracy allegedly perpetrated by 46 professional scientific organizations throughout the world? If you have no proof, wouldn't it be easier to just say so, rather than repeatedly ignore and evade the questions posed?

[sgreger1]

I wish I had the time and the resources to investigate how each of those organizations gets their money, but I do not. Nor do I have the massive financial backing that the AGW side has at my disposal to investigate funding methods.


I did provide you one instance above however, that the IPCC, the real ringleader of the climate change debate, has recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of grants from TERI and other ubernational energy companies based on bogus claims like the himalayas melting in a few years.

These big companies are funding these entities even though they know a claim is false, they povide grant money anyways.


If only you maintained your objectivity enough to investigate both sides as opposed to just seeking out how "deniers" are wrong. I admit that a lot of the anti-agw people have ties to oil companies. I would only ask that you have the same level of honesty.

[tom502]

It a big conspiracy like the moon landing and 911.

[sgreger1]

It a big conspiracy like the moon landing and 911.

Moon landing was real, since we can see the lander on the moon in various pictures.
9-11 conspiracy was solved in a previous thread where it was concluded that Hulk Hogan, conspiring with Godzilla and Megadon perpetraded the act. Why do former pro-wrestlers and cliche asian monster movie stars hate freedom?

:lol:

[tom502]

You really cannot see the moon lander. The only pic I have seen that says that's what it is, could not be proof, as it was only a little dot and could be a rock.

[sgreger1]

You really cannot see the moon lander. The only pic I have seen that says that's what it is, could not be proof, as it was only a little dot and could be a rock.

Well I feel the picture pretty clearly shows the lander, and the picture was taken at the coordinates the lander was supposed to be at so it would take some pretty hard evidence to debunk this imo.

Doesn't look like a rock to me, and the trails lead right to it.

You can even see the tracks left from when they moved around.

[justintempler]

Ironic

So you trust NASA's evidence as long as it doesn't have anything to do with AGW :?:

NASA = Moon landing = Real
NASA = AGW = Fake :?: :roll: :roll:

http://climate.nasa.gov/

How does NASA fit into your carbon credit conspiracy?