New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

page: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
RIGHT!

I was just abpout to go to bed and low an behold........I chk my homepage news and find this!

"Parents should pay climate change tax on extra kids: expert"

source:

uk.news.yahoo.com...


Life long tax for parents with more than two children to account for the Extra greenhouse gasses..........?

as if parents with more than two children don't have enough to pay for...


Somthing isent right here. Its BULL.

I don't think I need figures anymore.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by TrentReznor]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by TrentReznor]




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Your exaggerating my words to a fairly high degree. I'm sure Scientists are just like everyone else. You seem to have placed Scientists on some kind of a pedestal and having immunity to Human frailties?


Nope, I've worked with them since I was 16. I know they are human. Many are, however, the most honest, open, and attentive people. Some are assholes though, single-mindedness is often a useful trait in science.

I don't think I did misinterpret your words:


The truth is that Science does not know at this point. Science is to be forgiven for their Intellectual Dishonesty though. Without funding no Science can take place. Without exaggeration and dishonesty there is no funding. As this battle rages all we can hope is that the truth wins out in the end.


'Without exaggeration and dishonesty there is no funding'. In the other quote you essentially said they are motivated to keep the money rolling in, as I pointed out, they seem to be doing otherwise.

I can agree to an extent with the exaggeration, but this is not purposeful much of the time. We find a problem we think is important, other people might not. Dishonesty is not the general case in funding. Lawyers can lie, it's sort of their job, plumbers can BS little old grannies, no-one really cares - charge them £500 for a washer and 30 mins work.

A scientist needs their integrity. Dishonesty will see people shunned from science (a bit like Fred Singer - an author on the article in the OP). And intellectual dishonesty is not something I see very often in most scientists - although I see it a lot in climate 'obscurantists', like Fred Singer.


They are not Godlike Creatures deserving of placement on a pedestal.


Never said they were. I'm just defending scientists from BS claims of dishonesty and money-grubbing.


There are brilliant people on both sides of this debate and again I'll say that solutions can only come when the arguing stops and the cooperation begins. Science is not known for that however. Look to History for the truth. Many important discoveries are made by those who DID NOT agree with the general consensus. It takes courage to throw fate to the proverbial wind and risk funding and ridicule for the sake of truth.


Heh, that sounds like what climatology has been doing for the last 20 years or so to me. The general consensus for most of the 20th century was that CO2 had little effect. They worked against it and have found the evidence they needed.

Should we now be contrary for the sakes of it?

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TrentReznor
 


Link isn't working for me.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I think my message where drowning in the other page so here it is, please comment what you think of this?


Originally posted by Bluess
David H. Douglass is trying to back up fossil fuels. He is a remedy of the "oil industry"!

He is coauther of several articles including Meltdown for Globalwarming science, together with Patrick J. Michaels and S. Fred Singer.

Now what does that have to do with things???

Dr. Patrick Michaels:

Dr. Patrick Michaels is possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist. He has admitted receiving funding from various fossil fuel industry sources. His latest book, published in September 2004 by the Cato Institute, is titled: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
Michaels is the Chief Editor for the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (www.mtn.org...) Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases" which were published by Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." (abcnews.go.com...) ALEC advisor. www.heartland.org... and www.cato.org...

Source


S. Fred Singer

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis. Singer Letter to the Editor -Washington Post February 12, 2001 It is ironic that the attempt by two environmental activists to misrepresent my credentials [letters, Feb. 6] coincides with a sustained cold spell in the United States that set a 100-year record. As for full disclosure: My resume clearly states that consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil. S. FRED SINGER Singer is listed as a $500 plus contributer to the Center for Individual Rights. Singer's publications include "The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty" (SEPP, 1997), "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" (The Independent Institute, 1997) Singer signed the Leipzig Delcaration.

Source

And Mister David H. Douglass himself is a wellthought of Professor of physics at University of Rochester.

Well how conviniant, that he is not related to the oilindustry directly, that would have been just to obviouse!

I believe that The global warming has to do with the electromagnetics and radiations from the sun and universe too. But i also believe that Carbon dioxide has something to do with it and that it is bad for your health aswell as natures health. Atleast in the amounts we polute with every day.

So lets stop poluting...Global warming or not!

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Bluess]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TrentReznor
 


Sounds like some politics is being played here:


"Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," he wrote.

Walters, an obstetrician, made his proposal in a letter in which he criticised the government's payment of a 4,000 dollar "baby bonus" in a bid to boost the birth rate in this sparsely-populated country of 21 million people.


Doctors want less people, gov. wants more?

Also, the docs might want to check out oxygen production. The ocean produces 90% of the worlds oxygen by converting CO2. What are planting more trees going to do?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


It does seem to be a localized thing. Even though we are having a few warmer days here this winter last summer was normal and prior summers were colder than normal. None of them have been outside the historical norms. We were predicted to have a cold, dry winter but forecasting here is throwing a dart at a dartboard due to our location. Whatever is happening with Global Warming; most of Alaska is being ignored by it. I don't think local anecdotal data can be said to mean much until combined with the Big Picture of things.

I have no doubt the Earth is warming slightly. I just don't think it is yet understood making this debate based more on Politics and personal bias than absolute facts. Irregardless we need to do a better job of taking care of our environment while taking into account economics and the fact we have as much right to exist as a one of a kind fly in a pond in San Bernardino County.

The real problem is not us in the Industrialized World who are in fact changing our ways to the better. The Bogeyman is what is occurring in China, India and other developing, not yet there, Countries with massive populations. I don't see much debate about solutions to the problems that are apparent though. We all waste to much time arguing over causes rather than preventing the negative effects.

I have to say, being that I live here and travel throughout Alaska extensively; that things like Hillary flying over a small area and then making a statement like "devastation as far as the eye can see" helps peoples opinions. We who live here know the Beetle Kill is cyclical and the damage has already healed. The strong trees survive as they always have. I say this to draw contrast to the Global Warming, Sky is Falling Debate. I have also seen the fake footage taken 140 miles south of ANWR used in the debate over drilling here presented by the same people pushing the GW debate. When you see these things trust suffers. If they will lie so purposefully about one topic how can it be expected that people give them trust on other topics?

This is a complex topic with many nuances to consider. It is way over simplifying to say either there is or is not Global Warming and whether Humans are the primary cause or even if we play a measurable role as a cause.

[edit on 12/10/2007 by Blaine91555]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
What are planting more trees going to do?


Too little, too late, probably. Seaweed farms are a better choice. Turn unproductive coasts into a money-making, carbon-scrubbing enterprise without taxing people. Also works as fast as rainforests, AND it takes a much quicker time to reach optimum mass than forests.

Scientists: Seaweed Could Stem Warming

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Beachcoma]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I'm hopelessly stuck in the Middle Ground. I think both sides are presenting facts that are relevant. You have planted your feet on one side. Only time will tell the truth of it. I find the fact that the Weather can barely be forecast and that things like a Hurricane Season can not even be predicted somewhere near accurate, it is a bit of a stretch to say that the exact cause of Global Warming can be stated categorically.

The same people who are sure of Global Warming were sure we are too have a Cold, Dry Winter here in Anchorage and of course we are having a mild winter and about normal precipitation. They do not apparently understand El Nina yet so forgive me if I don't entirely buy that they understand far more complex topics completely. Does a computer even exist that could run a model of the necessary data? I don't think it does.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrentReznor
 


Financial punishment for procreation? That's the absolute height of absurdity




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TrentReznor
 



There is a thread on that news item:
Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm hopelessly stuck in the Middle Ground. I think both sides are presenting facts that are relevant.


Heh, I think the splinters from fence sitting must be painful...


I must say, you don't really come across as middling. Just slightly more expressive in your doubt.


You have planted your feet on one side. Only time will tell the truth of it. I find the fact that the Weather can barely be forecast and that things like a Hurricane Season can not even be predicted somewhere near accurate, it is a bit of a stretch to say that the exact cause of Global Warming can be stated categorically.


I've just planted my feet on the science side, following where the evidence leads. I have no reason to favour the idea of climate change apart from the weight of evidence.

I think weather forecasts and other short-term predictions are much more open to chaotic variations than long-term forecasts. Thus, I can predict quite well that next summer will be warmer than this month, but I would be less likely to be able to predict whether today will be warmer/colder than next thursday.

Without doubt we don't understand all of climate science. We would be remiss to think otherwise. But it's pretty easy to see temps are increasing along with CO2, to know that CO2 is a GHG, which therefore will increase temps. Quite simple. Making a prediction that all things being equal, increase CO2, increase temps is pretty easy.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 


Come up for air


Funding is a nasty business to be sure. I don't think it necessarily negates peoples research but it does foul the taste of the water. I don't think taking Oil Money is proof of bad science but it does make one take pause. Then again if Oil Money helps find the truth? And - it just may, who knows for sure? Big Oil has every reason to be interested in the Energy Sources of the Future. No matter the public debate they are bound to be giving to research that may not paint them in the best light now, to ensure their survival in the future. I don't think the existence or lack of a check from Exxon speaks one way or the other to the truthfulness of the science involved.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MiRRoR_MuSiC
 


It's the scientists that are now making the claims my friend - not JUST the ''enviromentalists', as you put it. Besides, most 'enviromentalists' don't get paid for their work - the majority volunteer, and are concerned citizens - and they're doing one hell of an important job.

I'd advise you to read about the science first before making these kinds of statements. Where are your sources? (credible sources, I mean..) Without sources, it's just misinformed opinion IMO.

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Is that mensa or mesa? Exxon or Enron?

Hmmmm....... get corrected...get defensive.



You've heard of Mensa?

J.

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic



[edit on 10-12-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by jimbo999

What have you proven. Its still a theory. What is the accepted science? The numbers can be considered science as data, the graphs can be considered science because they match the data. But the understanding of the data still has not been accepted as science. Assumptions have been proven incorrect over and over. Interpretation of the data is subjective. Algore based his entire movie on the acceptance of the hockey stick theory. It has since been proven incorrect as they excluded data points that did not work for the hypothesis.

Please......prove the data, then claim it science, otherwise please refer to global warming, uh, climate change, up heating and cooling....as what it is. THEORY!


Ahh..I see. So 99% of the world's enviromental scientists have warned the world's governments of the imminent danger of Glaobal Warming based on....

nothing but a theory.

Yep - right...

J.


[edit on 10-12-2007 by traderonwallst]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by lonemaverick
It's 82 degrees here right now. 20 above average for this time of the year.


Your post means nothing without telling us where you live. Come on...

common sense in arguements please!!!!


I don't know about him but I posted in another of your GW threads that in Canada the winters are much shorter and the summers unbearably hot. I imagine this will be discounted as well.


Yep - you 'enviromental apologist' you!!
Apparently, we all live in igloos up here - remember?? heh!

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 



Why thankyou!! I think that proves the point I have made - over & over again on this thread. Good find!! WHEN will people stop falling for all this oil-industry propaganda???

SHEESH!

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 


QUOTE:

'In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from EXXONMobil, including 1998 and 2000.'

Heheh...that just TOO rich! Talk about irony
Well, that's my job finished here folks - it was fun while it lasted. Another charlatan un-masked...
It's just so sad that people fall for this BS over & over again...sigh...

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Southern Ontario. Last winter the ski and snowmobile industry were in panic. They couldn't open until late January. That's 2 months late.

Unbearably hot? 100F, that's too frickin hot for here.


100 degrees??? Wow! That's bizzarre.

J.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join