Scientists being paid off to discredit Global Warming and the IPCC

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Come on, to say a few derisive words against something that many people such as yourself do not believe in? Yeah they would. Who are you trying to kid?

Show the evidence then.

Let me see the bank accounts that will prove this.... If there are no bank accounts, or checks which shows a scientist was paid off to do this, this is nothing more than "another claim".


[edit on 22-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Attention big oil, industry and all others interested in the truth about A.G.W.: I haven't been paid anything at all yet. Please remit immediately.

Maybe I can retire after all!

Even if you were to produce canceled checks from Exxon to these scientists Muaddib wouldn't believe it and claim it was some sort of liberal plant or forgery. He has done it before.... he point blank refuses to believe anything that contradicts his opinions.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by grover]

The objective of this particular topic was to discuss whether scientist are getting paid off to discredit the IPCC and global warming.
The topic has swerved to debate on whether global warming is caused by man or actually exists in the first place.
Which is good because it gives me the opertunity to say this.

Global warming is real and we are all going to die unless we acknowledge its cause (burning of fossil fuels) and knuckle down to stop it.
Logically, when investigated, global warming is undeniable. Geologists have taken rock samples which can reflect the earths varieying temperature for the past 1000 years. These findings show that within the past 100 years the earths temperature has drematicaly increased. This is taking into account the worlds hot cold cycle.
The reason that this is not common knowledge and global warmings existance is debated is because acceptance of this will cripple the oil industrie. Its that simple.
Electric cars are ready to go but the oil industie is stoping it.
Scientists have undeniable proof that global warming is happening due to fossil fuels but the oil industies are using there money and power to stop the word from spreading.
Corperations do the same thing when there product is discredited by science. Mcdonalds for example, Hires nutritunists to find all the good reasons to eat mcdonalds then get PR's to use this information for the advertising campaigns through the media. Mcdonalds is obviously bad for you, yet there are now people who argue otherwise so nothing is being done about it.

We need to accept global warming is happpening right now and fight the oil industrie if we are to have any chance of stopping it.

So no evidence at all but more "claims"?...

And another member making claims without obviously knowing the facts and proclaiming the 0.28% of anthropogenic CO2 (gases emited by man) together with the natural ocurring CO2 which accounts to a whoping 0.037% to 0.038% of Earth's atmosphere is the cause for Climate Change?... Wow...

Hey avenger, perhaps we should start collecting all this money the oil companies owe us for presenting evidence that mankind did not cause Global Warming/Climate Change....


[edit on 22-3-2007 by Muaddib]

It's getting so frustrating the amount of people who are blindly believing Al Gore and all the other puppets. Rise in TEMPERATURE is whats causing CO2 to Increase! Not the other way around... Al Gore got it wrong!

As the Temperature rises (due a phenomenon of the sun, resulting in less cloud formations), the rise in sea temperature causes the CO2 to come up. Do some research.

The amount of CO2 needed to be the cause of this warming is ENORMOUS.
Animals alone cause much higher CO2 output than Humans. Dying vegetation caused more CO2 than Humans... We contribute something like 0.45% of CO2, not even 1% (which also wouldn't be NEAR enough). Do your RESEARCH!

The earth has ALWAYS been known to fluctuate between ice ages and warmer temperatures. What do you think caused all the ice ages thousands of years ago? CO2? Don't make me laugh!

...And before you come out in denial claiming "OMG YOU CRAZY PERSON! YOU MUST BE PAID TO SAY THIS", like I'm some sort of Holocaust denier, DO YOUR RESEARCH!




[edit on 22/3/07 by Navieko]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Hey avenger, perhaps we should start collecting all this money the oil companies owe us for presenting evidence that mankind did not cause Global Warming/Climate Change....

I think we deserve a raise from our "sponsors" for all the slander we've had flung at us here recently. I just had an anti-G.W. /Al Gore letter published in my local newspaper yesterday, so a big bonus for me!
Of course one of the leading anti-G.W scientists in the world had a letter published in today's paper ....about gun control. How Ironic. We all do have other interests though. Don't we?

Thank god for that.
When global warming kills us all I will die happier knowing it was the animals fault.
Phew
Its kind of coincidental that the globe has just suddenly increased in temperature in the past 100 years. But its animals that are doing it so thats ok.
Hey Maudib, I think the oil companies have paid enough money to make you have that opinion

I have to admit that the majority of my scientific information on this subject is derived from al gores movie an inconvenient truth.
I will look further into animal emissions causing global warming before continuing any scientific debate.

I will be very happy if upon further investigation it turns out to be animals causing all of this because then I can blissfully die knowing there was nothing i could do about it

A one degree F increase in temperature and .010% increase in atmospheric CO2 in one HUNDRED years won't kill anything. It is nothing but a natural variation like we scientists see in data all the time. Frankly, I'm surprised it's not more.


A.G.W. is nonsense. THINK, man, think. Common sense is not common.









[edit on 3/22/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by wadlez
Thank god for that.
When global warming kills us all I will die happier knowing it was the animals fault.
Phew
Its kind of coincidental that the globe has just suddenly increased in temperature in the past 100 years. But its animals that are doing it so thats

It would really be great if you paid more attention when reading.
Where did I say animals caused it? In fact, please tell me... where did I say CO2 causes it? I used animals as an example to prove CO2 does NOT cause the warming, so don't get that mixed up.

Warming is caused by the sun. I won't bother going into detail, as you'll probably completely misinterperet what I'd say... so may I suggest a nice little documentary to watch on Google Video.

video.google.com...

I think it's around halfway onwards where they explain the actual causes for the warming, but I suggest watching the entire thing. Only an hour and 15 minutes long.

[edit on 22/3/07 by Navieko]

Originally posted by LogansRun
.. There is far too much evidence to support mans role, however much of the evidence on "both sides" is distorted to support a higher agenda.

that's probably true, although the core issue goesa little deeper than that, imho. the question is: what passes for evidence these days? in order to be televised, you need to visualize, which in turn favors certain aspects while shutting other out completely.

there can be no dispute that climate change happens regularly, so all alarmism has to deal with that reality first , then with unreliable ice core samples and a narrow-minded focus on carbon dioxide (glaciers don't remain frozen at -60C forever).

so lets say animals and dead stuff and volacnios put in .37 co2 a year and have avereged this for millions of years ok great fact A .
FACT B along comes man who changes this drastickly buy adding in another .27 amount that has NEVER get that wow NEVER been added on a regular basis .Now earths plants animals oceans have achived a blance over these millions of years with the normal .37 amount that has been going into the air plants die relising co2 plants grow absorbing co2 GET IT a close cycly .
now other then a random rock or the sun going through a fit or the solery systom going through a glatic cloud (mostly dust) ruducing the suns out put ( can u say ice age ?) the earths temp rises 1 lowers 1 rises 1 lowers 1 over millions of years . ICE cores that HAVE (HAVE) been frozen for 200k years are i repeat are a valad sorce to study climat changes over that amoun of time ITS ic its frozen it hasent changed in compasation for 200k years .
ok so back to mans co2 out put of a messely .27 well that almost dobbling the NORMAL amount that earth has had millions of years to evolve to the cycle is no longer closed . earth can relise .37 amont of co2 a year ok we all get that BUT earth can asorbe .37 co2 a year creating a closed cycle . now add another .27 into that earth can no lONGER absorbe the full amount of co2 incressing the amount left each year .
befor its was a rock that could cause this or a volcanio that could cause this SAME problem BUT a rock hits its over and given a few years earth rebalances a volcanio blows its top thsi is LIMITED to the point the volcano stops and becomes dormant and earth once again acheaves a balance .
these things cause spickes and drops in temp that last only short times .
the only other thing is glatic dust clouds they can be light years accros and the soler system can take 20k years to go through one causing a LONG tearm drop in sunlight reaching earth causing a longgg tearm drop in tamp.
now mans been adding the extra .27 amount of co2 for 300years starting at an extra say .10 and working up to the .27 we produce now .
so this is like having dobble the amount to volcanios and animals co2 eaver year . EARTH is not evolved to cope with the extra its a simple as that it CANT asorbe the extra so it builds up .
and farher more we make this problem even worse we clear cut forest and pave it over well that forest was a co2 sink meaning it stored the stuff.
so now the place is paved over whats storing that co2 nowwwww?
Dont think co2 helps hold in more heat created from sunlight??? well if earth had no co2 at all it would be a ice cube .
every one who says this isent true says were wrong resurch it . we we have resurched it you say show us we have showed you . still dont belive it get the devices needed to see for your self or the cheeper way .
look up the temp records for alaska for the last hundred years
the sun may be a little brighter now and may cause a .1 temp change but the extra co2 mans adding will cause a 6.0 temp incress as more co2 means more heat traped and if the sun is causing a .1 incress then were realy in for it as it will happen even faster .
you keep ignoring global climat change man made all you want but I assure you your children wont be able to .

But what makes you think our .27 CO2 input is going to have a big impact? What makes you think our Earth can't handle that much? What if it can handle MUCH more? We don't know this yet.

All we know is that according to our history, CO2 was never the cause of temperature rise. So why now make the assumption that an extra .27 would change that? Wouldn't it be much less of a leap to assume it's still the same old sun causing the same old natural temperature fluctuations as it has since the beginning of the planet?

Only difference now is that there may be a lot more casualties, given that the Earth is over populated with people who will most likely not be prepared.

How many were paid off to say to credit Global Warming???

This is just the lib's trying to discredit all who oppose them..

I'm not decided one way or the other. I think we could stand to clean up our Mother earth reguardless of Global warming or not though.

Originally posted by Royal76
How many were paid off to say to credit Global Warming???

This is just the lib's trying to discredit all who oppose them..

I'm not decided one way or the other. I think we could stand to clean up our Mother earth reguardless of Global warming or not though.

Yes, we should. Just out of curiosity, what does this have to do with the libs? If a right wing think tank actually sent letters offering money to scientists to speak out against the IPCC report, how is that a liberal conspiracy? Not only that, but the group that sent out the letters are being funded by Exxon mobile according to the article.

right wing left wing, who on earth is honestly stuck in such a fallacy, i mean you must be paid for writing these things, aren't you?


yes, let's clean up our act, ban perflourates, ban mercury and give incentives for (in other words don't tax and thereby punish) investments in improved efficiency, protect the oceans, ban commercial trawling, especially bottom trawling even if only temporarily (the latter forever) and boycott any nation unwilling to stop trashing the seas.

reduce NOx emissions, move remote locations off the grid if at all possible, don't tax their investments, and so on.



what IS being done is growing sugar can for ethanol production in former rainforst territory, that's a fact, CO2 is not toxic it is the second most irrelevant type of emission, right after steam, so why demonize it? do you know how much natural gas is leaking out of pipelines every year? did you know that continental shelves are filled to the brim with methane hydrate and that they are continuously losing some gas? did you know that plants produce methane in significant quantities, which was somehow 'overlooked' until 2006?


to rephrase a recent post: we are all going to die if people continue to believe everything the media or false authorities tell them and that's the ugly truth, for a change.

Originally posted by wadlez
Thank god for that.
When global warming kills us all I will die happier knowing it was the animals fault.
Phew
Its kind of coincidental that the globe has just suddenly increased in temperature in the past 100 years. But its animals that are doing it so thats ok.

First of all, we are not "all going to die"... that's another exageration. Changes will continue happening, and yes there will be people that will die as it has happened during other Climate Changes. But unless there is an Extinction Level Event we all won't die, and neither will the world end.

Anyways, it is also kind of "coincidental" that the sun's output has increased more during the last 60 years than for the past 8,000 years +.

It is also kind of "coincidental" that the Earth's magnetic field has weakened more since 1845 and it is now 10% weaker in most locations, and up to 30% weaker in other locations which is showing signs of a pole reversal and which hasn't happened for over 770,000 years.

It is also kind of coincidental that there is evidence that the oceans are dramatically warming due to Holocene warming which started over 10,500 years ago.

It is also kind of "coincidental" that since the Earth is naturally warming the levels of water vapor among some of other trace gases increase naturally, higher water vapor levels continues to warm more the Earth...

It is also kind of "coincidental" that the geological record shows that CO2 levels lag temperature and even the current warming temperatures started increasing about 260 years before CO2 levels began to increase...

It is also kind of "coincidental" that we are also seeing Climate Changes in other planets in our solar system...

Yet there are people who want to dismiss all natural factors and want to keep on blaming mankind...

Originally posted by wadlez
Hey Maudib, I think the oil companies have paid enough money to make you have that opinion

So tell us, how much money have the liberals/greens and Communists paid you to state your opinion when you even confess not to have any knowledge whatsoever on the topic?.......

You see, when a person shows scientific knowledge and evidence which contradict the faith of some around these forums, immediately the claims of "he is being paid by oil companies to say those things" or "he is a government agent" or some other such nonsense comes up.

Originally posted by wadlez
I have to admit that the majority of my scientific information on this subject is derived from al gores movie an inconvenient truth.
I will look further into animal emissions causing global warming before continuing any scientific debate.
................

If you admit that you don't understand the topic then why try to debate it?

Animal emissions are not the main cause of warming either...

Soon enough some people will start claiming that "all Climate Changes in the past were caused by dinosaurs farting themselves to death"...

There are other natural factors and I just went over a few of them and they are the cause for such climatic changes.

Mankind has been around for less than 0.0000000001% of the time that the Earth has existed, yet some want to claim "mankind can control, or we have more power than nature, the Earth, the Sun and the Universe in general"....

[edit on 26-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Assume for a moment that Global Warming is dangerous to the health and welfare of mankind and further assume that mankind is throwing the natural balance of nature off enough (through atmospheric and other forms of pollution) to add significantly to the danger.

Now with those two assumptions under our belt it becomes imperative that mankind take some action to mitigate its contribution (as a minimum) to overall Global Warming. The debate then revolves around what actions to take and when to take them. At this point interests become revealed and one can start to follow the money trail. Who benefits and who loses when such and such actions are taken, or conversely, not taken?

Now, flip the argument over and assume, for the sake of argument, that Global Warming is not real--end of discussion and no actions need be taken. That clearly won't work, so assume it is real again, but is not dangerous to the health and welfare of mankind--end of discussion again and no actions need to be taken. HMMMN, not getting anywhere with those assumptions are we.

Let us try again. Assume Global Warming is real and is dangerous to the health and welfare of mankind, but mankind is playing no significant role in it one way or the other. That puts things in an entirely different light does it not? Now the debate can be framed around the question of whether or not mankind can do anything to mitigate Global Warming. Once again, interests become revealed and one can start to follow the money--because clearly there are those who benefit and those who do not when any action of any kind is taken by mankind.

As you can see from the above hypothetical assumptions, nothing interesting happens unless one concludes for one reason or another that mankind needs to take some sort of action to mitigate the effects of Global Warming. However, let's throw in a little political reality to the effect that one or more potential gainers or losers determins that the generally perceived moral high ground of any subsequent debate will favor the arguments of the opposition. That brings up a really interesting set of problems for the potential losers of the debate about actions to take. Their best tactic would seem to be to delay the debate for as long as possible simply because once it starts they start to lose. The proven best tactic therefore is to sow the seeds of doubt about anything and everything to do with Global Warming.

Sound anything at all like what is really happening yet?

Clearly the situation is a lot more complex than I have portrayed it above, but not so complex that one cannot start looking to follow the money.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by Astronomer70]

Clearly, if one follows the money trail, it reeks of Al Gore and his band of thieves. This entire "global warming" charade is about the government seizing more control over the individual.

Global warming proponents keep waving their carbon dioxide charts at us, but they are totally meaningless when you know that the "large" increase of CO2 they keep crying "wolf" about bumped the atmospheric CO2 all the way from about 0.035% to about 0.045%, and the "huge" temperature increase they relentlessly preach about is six tenths of one degree, (0.6 degree) C in the past 100 years! They totally ignore the most prevalent "greenhouse" gas of all: water vapor. Should we quit drinking water to reduce global warming? Others say everyone becoming vegetarian will reduce global warming. More feel-good Hollywood type ridiculous nonsense. We don't know enough about the climate system of the Earth to even know whether it will rain next week, but some people will have you believe they know what temperatures will be 100 years from now. The climate models they use to learn these "facts" must have been conceived in Disneyland. I just love the extrapolated data and the temperatures calibrated on their "growth charts" in the 100ths of a degree. Rubbish, absolute rubbish!

In my opinion, Global warming is little more than a Ponzi scheme for those who seek monetary gain through environmental alarmism. Whether this is so or not, global warming needs to be a scientific issue, not a political one. Mr. Gore has no scientific training, he needs to go back to inventing or re-inventing the internet or the government or something.

The very same environmental activist groups crying about global warming today supported the unnecessary ban of D.D.T. decades ago which has resulted in a death toll in the millions in poor, undeveloped countries. They have much more blood on their hands than caused by any war in history, in fact, than all wars in history. Bend over, Africa, here it comes again!

If we look at Occam's razor, it tells us the simplest situation is most often the best explaination for any phenomena. Quite simply, the Earth has been here much longer than humankind, is much more powerful than our feeble anthropogenic factors, Is a magnificent buffer system capable of almost unlimited self-correction. Thus global warming is a natural macrocosm.






[edit on 3/27/2007 by TheAvenger]

Some thoughts about global warming by another scientist



Why did global warming become a moral issue

[edit on 3/27/2007 by TheAvenger]