28 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaIt's true that surface temperature rise at the moment does not show the same huge increase as CO2 concentration levels; one point is that over the time period of that first graph (400 000 years), there is no precedent to refer to with regards to current CO2 levels. When people make a glib claim that 'it has happened before' (not that you have), they need evidence from before this time.
For temperature, though, the difference between 1950 and 2000 is still less than one degree which is still under some of those peaks.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/16.jpg
Maybe someone can put across this side of the argument (with references - you know who you are 😠)?
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeHaving not had an extensive world wide experience of non capitalism, where does your confidence spring from in making this assertion?
I'm not saying theat without capitalism, there would be no smoke-stacks.
Just that dealing with environmental issues would be a priority, ahead of the pursuit of profit.
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by kmax87From my understanding of the nature of capitalism.
Having not had an extensive world wide experience of non capitalism, where does your confidence spring from in making this assertion?
Under capitalism, profit is the sole motivator, and all costs are to be eliminated or reduced in the constant drive to increase these profits.
Having to adopt measures which make environmental damage manageable incur a cost - it makes the production process less efficient, or involves some adaption to machinery etc etc. Capitalist enterprises will, by their nature, resist the imposition of such costs.
You can legislate to try and force these kind of measures, but you will always have tension as the capitalists try and reduce their costs.
On the other hand, when a different economic system is in place, where profit isn't the raison d'etre, then these kind of measures are likely to be readily accepted.
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeewww.exxonsecrets.org? 🙂
You are a fool.
[b]The author:
http://www.desmogblog.com/national-centre-for-policy-analysis-dont-fight-climate-change-build-big-sewalls-instead
http://www.ncpa.org/abo/staff/sburnett.html
Who he works for:
National Center for Policy Analysis
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55
If you want to stop being so ig ...[text shortened]... hind it, take a look at this article, for example:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121[/b]
29 Sep 06
2 edits
here are the links at the bottom of the heartland institute article.
did anyone notice that the congressional hearings were way back in July?
links:
The July report of the National Academy of Sciences is available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html#toc
Transcripts from the July 20 Congressional hearings will be available online at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/hearing.htm#Transcript
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeok: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734
It's true that surface temperature rise at the moment does not show the same huge increase as CO2 concentration levels; one point is that over the time period of that first graph (400 000 years), there is no precedent to refer to with regards to current CO2 levels. When people make a glib claim that 'it has happened before' (not that you have), they need ...[text shortened]... can put across this side of the argument ([b]with references - you know who you are 😠)?[/b]
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeumm ....
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/gore-movie-g/
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=23457414&CFTOKEN=48769936
you guys are laughing at dSritter for posting from the heartland institute, and proceed to post things like www.exxonsecrets.org and ..../gore-movie-g/ ....
29 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou are getting more and more confusing.
umm ....
you guys are laughing at dSritter for posting from the heartland institute, and proceed to post things like www.exxonsecrets.org and ..../gore-movie-g/ ....
One point is that the author and who he works for are sponsored by Exxon. They do not have scientific impartiality. The author does not have a history in climatology.
These are the facts that all these references support.
The other point is that dSritter was using his references to support scientific statements. His references lack credibility as I've mentioned.
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeyes, and the same for the National Academy of Sciences, apparently, and UNLIKE:
You are getting more and more confusing.
One point is that the author and who he works for are sponsored by Exxon. They do not have scientific impartiality. The author does not have a history in climatology.
These are the facts that all these references support.
The other point is that dSritter was using his references to support [b]scientific statements. His references lack credibility as I've mentioned.[/b]
Domain ID😀104380692-LROR
Domain Name:EXXONSECRETS.ORG
Created On:17-May-2004 13:33:34 UTC
Last Updated On:16-May-2006 18:37:50 UTC
Expiration Date:17-May-2007 13:33:34 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
Status😲K
Registrant ID:tutrj6LB04ZhqpGy
Registrant Name:Justine Earthrowl
Registrant Organization:Greenpeace Ltd
www.exxonsecrets.org, apparently.
29 Sep 06
here, i'll post Greenpeace's annual revenue, you can post the NPCA's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace
Type: Charity
Founded: 1971, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Headquarters: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Key people: Paul Cote
Jim Bohlen and Marie Bohlen
Irving and Dorothy Stowe
Patrick Moore
Bill Darnell
Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe
Robert Hunter
Paul Watson
Manuel Rivas
Paul Spong
Industry: Environmentalism
Products: Lobbying, research, consultancy, sustainable technology.
Revenue: $360 Million USD (2005)
Employees: 1800 (worldwide)
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotNational Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
here, i'll post Greenpeace's annual revenue, you can post the NPCA's:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55
KOCH OIL Funding National Center for Policy Analysis = $517,000
http://www.mediatransparency.org/kochaggregate.php
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Center for Policy Analysis = $2,010,000
http://www.mediatransparency.org/scaifeaggregate.php
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding National Center for Policy Analysis = $35,000
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=13
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Center for Policy Analysis = $1,069,000
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=7
29 Sep 06
Thank you for all of your kind words and encouragement. Since this thread has veered way-off its intended course, I no longer feel inclined to participate. However, my original thesis still stands: The hockey stick is buncombe and it can no longer be used in any serious argument about climate change.