15 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by John W BoothTHE CATO INSTITUTE....LIBERTY.ORG....BIG OIL....
The question is "What happens when you "follow the money" on the Climate Sceptics side?"
"It's Junk Science: Follow The Money" is perhaps a perfect bumper sticker - you could sell it to people on both sides of the debate.
So the question begs: where do the Climate Sceptics you favour get their money from?
But that could just be a left wing smear campaign....NOT!
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by whodeyAnd how does the stack up against oil and coal money? A month of earnings?
You tell us. Who stands to make a bigger killing? Is it those who promote it or those who scoff at it? As for the Chicago Climate Exchange, it is estimated to be worth around $14 trillion. What amount is the other side projected to make?
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by kmax87A week, a month, a year don't measure climate change. Neither does 136 years, and the methods of establishing climate in the past are pretty shaky.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/heat-record-climate-change.html
'THE GIST
* The average global temperature for 2010 so far is the warmest on record.
* This was the warmest June on record worldwide.
* This year's hot temperatures will become the norm as climate change continues.'
-------------------------------------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... -------------
Obviously all evidence of a statist global conspiracy.....right???
I've heard three controling factors over average global temps:
The atmosphere including greenhouse gases
The activity of the Sun
The activity of the molten center of our planet
Of the three the atmosphere is the least likely to make big changes, and CO2 is one of the less influential greenhouse gases.
What are the likely consequences of climate change if it happens?
We can look at history of cold and warm spells in a variety of places. Cold snaps usually claim many lives and make survival difficult. Extra warmth usually helps the harvest, provided enough rainfall accompanies the warmth. Warm weather eliminates some of the need to burn fossil fuels for heat, reducing C02 emissions.
Will the proposed "cap and trade" schemes actuall reduce C02 or just line the pockets of energy credit investors, like Al Gore.
What are the skeptics asking you to do? Nothing! Work, play, drive, barbecue, enjoy life. If the climate changes.......adapt.
What ar the global warming/climate change proponets asking you to do? Pay huge energy taxes, alter your life style, make them rich and you poor, and when all is said and done, their "solutions" aren't likely to make any difference anyway.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by CliffLandinOn whether people will change their minds, they obviously are reluctant to do so. Most people posting on such forums have fairly strong beliefs based on what they think are facts.
I have notice that there have been a couple threads started on the veracity of "Global Warming". Several people have made the claim that because it is colder than normal outside then Global Warming can not be true. Anyone that has put 5 minutes into looking up facts on the subject would know that is actually proof of, rather than debunking, climate chang ...[text shortened]... sn't make this a debate forum. It just makes it a pissing in the wind forum.
Thoughts?
I have changed from time to time, but not frivolously.
Examples:
For several months I believed that Tim McViegh and James Nichols planned and executed the Murrah building bombing. I now know otherwise.
For a couple of years following 9-11-01 I believed OBL and al Queda were soley responsible for the attacks that day. I am virtually certain today that it was an inside job.
Jesse Ventura states in the opening to his program on global warming that he liked and respected Al Gore and believed what Gore was preaching at the time Jesse was governor. He changed his mind after his investigation.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by normbenignSo you've gotten crazier. Maybe there's some meds for that.
On whether people will change their minds, they obviously are reluctant to do so. Most people posting on such forums have fairly strong beliefs based on what they think are facts.
I have changed from time to time, but not frivolously.
Examples:
For several months I believed that Tim McViegh and James Nichols planned and executed the Murrah bui ...[text shortened]... Gore was preaching at the time Jesse was governor. He changed his mind after his investigation.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by CliffLandin"And how does the stack up against oil and coal money?"
And how does the stack up against oil and coal money? A month of earnings?
You do understand that "oil and coal money" is earned by people mining, drilling, refining, transporting those commodities to those who need them for comfort, industry, etc. And almost nobody on the "climate change" side is suggesting that we stop burning fossil fuels.
The "cap and trade" fraud, doesn't limit use of these fuels. It just creates a new expense, and another artificial means of skimming money from we who pay it, and those from whom we buy who earn it, to people who are perpetrating an awful and cruel fraud.
We will keep burning fuel as long as we need energy for heating, cooling, cooking, and industrial energy. They don't even lose with the cap and trade schemes. It is we the final users who ends up paying the trillions that the schemers are after.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W Boothis that your only defense FMF ? you have brought this up 3 or 4 times now and no one is responding to you. instead of enlightening your self and actually follow the money you stick your head in the sand and cry and stomp your feet like a little school girl shouting "ya but,what about the other side? what about the other side? nananana":'(
As a previous poster commented or asked: what happens when you "follow the money" on the Climate Sceptics side?
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by normbenignDo you still think "nature" emits 30 times more CO2 than man?
A week, a month, a year don't measure climate change. Neither does 136 years, and the methods of establishing climate in the past are pretty shaky.
I've heard three controling factors over average global temps:
The atmosphere including greenhouse gases
The activity of the Sun
The activity of the molten center of our planet
Of the three the atmos ...[text shortened]... one, their "solutions" aren't likely to make any difference anyway.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothYou'll find out who's financing their research.
As a previous poster commented or asked: what happens when you "follow the money" on the Climate Sceptics side?
At this moment in time no scientific body of international standing actually disagrees with the fact that global warming is happening (i.e. you can see the ice caps are melting, etc.).
Quasi-scientific bodies that claim it's all malarkey have undeniable links to companies such as Exxonmobile.
Also, if you take into account people such as Richard Lindzen (from MIT) who critizise the funding of research which proves that global warming is happening... it turns out he's funded by OPEC.
Now. Travel to, for exmaple, the Maldives. Then tell us that the water level isn't rising...
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonSounds like you haven't taken a look to see what happens when you "follow the money" on the Climate Sceptics side.
instead of enlightening your self and actually follow the money you stick your head in the sand and cry and stomp your feet like a little school girl shouting "ya but,what about the other side? what about the other side?
16 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell. This is my point exactly. No one is responding to this question. And there's a reason for that.
you have brought [the question of who funds the 'sceptical science'] up 3 or 4 times now and no one is responding to you.
EDIT: I meant, none of the sceptics are responding to this question.