yea your right on the money. Big oil is probably paying people to lie. think about it if you make billions off of free natural dead bio you would try to influence and pay any lo life to admit to a lie.

The CO2 coming out of my truck when I turn it on is not a scam.

The CO2 coming out of all vehicles, coal plants, factories, etc., is not a scam.

The rising CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere is not a scam.

The effect that the gases in our atmosphere have on Earth's temperature and climate are not a scam.

Increasing the gases in our atmosphere will increase the effects those gases have on the atmosphere, and that is not a scam.

Paying scientists off, and spreading propaganda to make people deny the truth... now that is a scam.

Originally posted by Faiol
well, this was already covered here in ATS, and this guy is not really a climate specialist

this is from OCT 9 ... today OCT 18

Once again the denial community props up a 'scientist' to prove other scientists wrong. I guess we only believe scientists who say its 'a scam', but ignore the ones who say it isnt.

pay me a bunch of money and i'll say its a scam, too.

See, this will make people think we aren't really destroying the environment. But the truth is, global warming was a good hypothesis, but then it was used to cover up the real truth. That NIBIRU is causing "global warming".

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
CO2 which is NOT a primary pollutant.

I wanted to also comment on this...

The problem is not exactly that CO2 is a pollutant (even though it is a toxic chemical, and is a problem). But when talking about climate change, the problem is that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a proven science and was discovered in 1824. You can not deny the greenhouse effect because I can show you several experiments and examples you can do at home. Also, you can calculate the temperature of the Earth if it didn't have an atmosphere, and we know the temperature is warmer on Earth because it has an atmosphere, and the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect.

Originally posted by justadood
That's not climate change. That's carbon credits. They are not the same thing. not at all.

climate change is documented and real. You can prop up random 'scientists' all you want, it only makes you ignoring the majority of them that much more obvious.

do me a favor, if your going to deny science, dont try and use science to prove your denial.

How can they prove global warming, followed by climate change, to exist if the methods the panel used were dubious at best? It should be obvious I am not attacking science, I am attacking the motives behind the methodology.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by justadood
That's not climate change. That's carbon credits. They are not the same thing. not at all.

climate change is documented and real. You can prop up random 'scientists' all you want, it only makes you ignoring the majority of them that much more obvious.

do me a favor, if your going to deny science, dont try and use science to prove your denial.

How can they prove global warming, followed by climate change, to exist if the methods the panel used were dubious at best? It should be obvious I am not attacking science, I am attacking the motives behind the methodology.

IF you questioning the reality of climate change, ten you are indeed questioning the science. merely questioning the motive does little to address any issues with the hard numbers.

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by justadood
That's not climate change. That's carbon credits. They are not the same thing. not at all.

climate change is documented and real. You can prop up random 'scientists' all you want, it only makes you ignoring the majority of them that much more obvious.

do me a favor, if your going to deny science, dont try and use science to prove your denial.

How can they prove global warming, followed by climate change, to exist if the methods the panel used were dubious at best? It should be obvious I am not attacking science, I am attacking the motives behind the methodology.

IF you questioning the reality of climate change, ten you are indeed questioning the science. merely questioning the motive does little to address any issues with the hard numbers.

Science by itself does not lie but people cherry-picking data to support THEIR hypothesis usually leads to distorted conclusions of what is or is not true. I have no idea if the earth is warming up or not and I am not obliged to believe "them" if I smell foul-play along the way.

The earth warming up(if indeed it is) could be due more to natural factors than man-made factors. I will be the first to admit we are not taking care of our planet but big corporations do more damage to the enviroment than any single reckfull person can.

I thought that Mr Al Gore was the one who started pushing this global warming stuff around. So much so that he even got a Nobel prize for it. Talk about people who nominate these people. They don't know any better either.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Science by itself does not lie but people cherry-picking data to support THEIR hypothesis usually leads to distorted conclusions of what is or is not true. I have no idea if the earth is warming up or not and I am not obliged to believe "them" if I smell foul-play along the way.

I agree. That is EXACTLY what I see the denier camp doing. they cherry pick data to prove their pre-determined position.

The earth warming up(if indeed it is) could be due more to natural factors than man-made factors. I will be the first to admit we are not taking care of our planet but big corporations do more damage to the enviroment than any single reckfull person can.

that is an interesting theory. why dont you get thousands of world-renowned scientists to agree with it? Then it will be more than your own opinion.

Originally posted by Brothers
I thought that Mr Al Gore was the one who started pushing this global warming stuff around. So much so that he even got a Nobel prize for it. Talk about people who nominate these people. They don't know any better either.

well, if that's what you think, then you are only illustrating your ignorance on the topic. Al gore didn't 'invent' climate change. He merely brought it to the public consciousness. Try doing a little research to base your opinion on.