Unmasking Climate Deception - Fossil Fuel Companies' Deceptions Revealed

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

the source and the article you provided are total bull# and hardly worth anything... did you even do a little research on the website that "gave us" this info? wow... what a bull# find.

a reply to: nomdeterreur

Looking at the OP's opening post and then comparing it to your rebuttal, I think it is more likely that BH has done FAR more research than you on this topic. Somehow, I have doubts that your research extends past sharing Facebook articles.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

There aren't even sources listed in the article ... anyone can "intercept" "leaked" memos (or just make them up)... i seems that the cap and trade agenda is still trying to convince people that humans are heating up the planet... what a joke... these "scientists" should be shot for trying to manipulate world markets by telling people they are the reason for the nonexistent heating of the planet... have you even tried googling "climate gate"?

originally posted by: nomdeterreur
a reply to: Krazysh0t

ummm are you stupid? go research this topic for yourself... dont rely on me or the OP... no one is trying to convince YOU of anything.... so, get over yourself.

Ah yes the tried and true method of the troll with no supporting argument, "go google it yourself". You still haven't provided any counterpoints besides, "nuh huh! You're wrong. I'm right!"

Here, I googled climate gate for you (for the thousandth time thanks to deniers such as yourself always assuming I don't know anything about this scandal):
Debunkin g Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."

A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.

Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."

An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Every single one of those points is a link in that article that takes you to its sources. Keep up the Facebook shares though, you are doing your confirmation bias proud.

originally posted by: nomdeterreur
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

the source and the article you provided are total bull# and hardly worth anything...

Well, good thing you showed up to let us know! Whew! I guess everything is going to be fine. Thanks for the valuable input and multiple sources you listed to set us all straight!

did you even do a little research on the website that "gave us" this info?

Well. Gosh, I know the Union of Concerned Scientists was founded in 1969 by people from a group called... MIT, I think... along with a Nobel laureate... Jeez! You're right! What a bunch of crap I'm full of!

Have a nice day!

a reply to: Cuervo

I think he is referring to the real world which we live in. In your world tomorrow are we going to wake up and magically replace the hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, buses, ships, manufacturing facilities that rely on fossil fuels to solar/wind power?

If you want your current standard of living to not go back to 19th century standards, we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time.

Climate change? If it comes from the mouth of a liberal or our government...it is a lie.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I was just looking over your links, and didn't see anything substantial. They were able to come up with basically two guys linked to Exxon that have some sort of relevance in climate science. The other links on those pages went nowhere.

As for the OP source, the latest dossiers from UCS are laughable compared to climategate. The first dossier was talking about an email from a former Exxon employee that didn't even state any damning information. Another was showing a presentation showing the current war being waged against the fossil fuel industry. Not one slide showed anything nefarious other than to make people aware of increased taxes being forced onto them by these CO2 regulations. I see nothing wrong with that. If that is the best they have, that is truly pitiful.

Almost all of the funding in the entire climate science community is payed for by tax payers around the world being distributed via different government organizations, and grants. So there really isn't much comparison in regards to corruption in the climate science community when you focus on where the money actually comes from. Do you really think someone is going to get funding from the federal government if the study they are working on goes against the IPCC?

This isn't rocket science...this is climate science, which really needs to be reclassified as political science.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Climate change? If it comes from the mouth of a liberal or our government...it is a lie.

Another post of brilliance from the science denialism camp.

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I was just looking over your links, and didn't see anything substantial. They were able to come up with basically two guys linked to Exxon that have some sort of relevance in climate science. The other links on those pages went nowhere.

As for the OP source, the latest dossiers from UCS are laughable compared to climategate. The first dossier was talking about an email from a former Exxon employee that didn't even state any damning information. Another was showing a presentation showing the current war being waged against the fossil fuel industry. Not one slide showed anything nefarious other than to make people aware of increased taxes being forced onto them by these CO2 regulations. I see nothing wrong with that. If that is the best they have, that is truly pitiful.

The OP source literally shows that some scientists are on Exxon's payroll to push climate denialism. Which is EXACTLY what you are accusing all other scientists in the world of being for the government... Which is more likely, two scientists having no morals and letting cash dictate their science results or EVERY OTHER scientist being on the dole? I would have thought the answer was beyond obvious.

Almost all of the funding in the entire climate science community is payed for by tax payers around the world being distributed via different government organizations, and grants. So there really isn't much comparison in regards to corruption in the climate science community when you focus on where the money actually comes from. Do you really think someone is going to get funding from the federal government if the study they are working on goes against the IPCC?

Scientists don't receive funding for predetermined results. Scientists just pitch ideas for studies, get the grant money, conduct the study, then publish the results. There is no way the government could know ahead of time the direction the study is going in.

This isn't rocket science...this is climate science, which really needs to be reclassified as political science.

No, not really. Because of the science denialism conspiracy pushed by the oil industry, it is a political debate in THIS country and this country alone. Outside of this country, they've accepted this as real science already. Though keep buying into a blatant conspiracy.

originally posted by: nomdeterreur
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

There aren't even sources listed in the article ...

The left button on your mouse is for clicking.

You can follow links that way..

Source documents (PDFs)

##Email from Former Exxon Employee Lenny Bernstein
##Deception Dossier #1: Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Smithsonian Contracts
##Deception Dossier #2: American Petroleum Institute’s “Roadmap” Memo
##Deception Dossier #3: Western States Petroleum Association’s Deception Campaign
##Deception Dossier #4: Forged Letters from the Coal Industry to Members of Congress
##Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham
##Deception Dossier #6: Deception by the American Legislative Exchange Council
##Deception Dossier #7: The Global Climate Coalition’s 1995 Primer on Climate Change Science
##Deception Dossiers: All Documents

High-Resolution Graphics (JPGs)

##Deception Dossier #1: Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Smithsonian Contracts
##Deception Dossier #2: American Petroleum Institute’s “Roadmap” Memo
##Deception Dossier #3: Western States Petroleum Association’s Deception Campaign
##Deception Dossier #4: Forged Letters from the Coal Industry to Members of Congress
##Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham
##Deception Dossier #6: Deception by the American Legislative Exchange Council
##Deception Dossier #7: The Global Climate Coalition’s 1995 Primer on Climate Change Science

See here for the docs
www.ucsusa.org...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

99.9% of studies that get funded start out with the bias that AGW already exists. Are you really that clueless?

Also, this is old news. It was the Smithsonian who should have disclosed any funding Soon got.

Climategate was so much worse than this crap. For being so evil and powerful, I am surprised the Oil companies have done so little to combat the war being waged on them.

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Krazysh0t

99.9% of studies that get funded start out with the bias that AGW already exists. Are you really that clueless?

That doesn't mean that the studies are setting out to further prove it.

Also, this is old news. It was the Smithsonian who should have disclosed any funding Soon got.

So that suddenly excuses Soon for being a stooge of the oil industry?

Climategate was so much worse than this crap. For being so evil and powerful, I am surprised the Oil companies have done so little to combat the war being waged on them.

Climate gate was a non issue... Did you miss the evidence I posted earlier on this VERY page debunking Climate gate?

People who still think Climategate was an issue obviously don't care about updating themselves with new information as it comes along. Every time I get into a debate with a denier it's always, "but what about Climategate!" or, "You just need to research Climategate!" Newsflash: I already have. Stop latching onto proven hoaxes.

Also, where have you been? The oil companies are doing EVERY THING they CAN to combat the "war being raged on them". Hence the OP showing the oil companies buying out scientists. The fact that this debate even exists in the first place is a testament to the oil industry fighting back. You know, it's likely that Climategate itself was manufactured by the oil industry.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Greven

But what would you replace gas with? We still have to move around.

If there was an alternative, wouldn't we at least know about it by now?

Well, electric cars are getting pretty good but really if we replaced coal plants with geothermal which is even cheaper than coal we would make a huge dent in the problem.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Greven

But what would you replace gas with? We still have to move around.

If there was an alternative, wouldn't we at least know about it by now?

Oh come on. We have the technology. If governments spent their billions in subsidies from old energy to homes and businesses instead and made people independent of the grid utilising wind and solar there would be no need for these huge centralised power stations. There is more than enough energy shining down and blowing past every single roof to replace centralised power generation. That energy can also re-charge your second car battery which you switch over when you get home.

And please don't drag out some old school economist who will state "micro generation cannot provide for our energy needs". Instead listen to the experts on this, quite a few are German. They will state that we are perfectly capable of generating all our energy using "green" technologies.

This hasn't happened because centralised power is taxable and controllable. Micro generation isn't taxable and it also empowers the people to be self reliant.

The unit cost of manufacture of green tech would plummet if it was taken seriously.

a reply to: Benevolent Hereticmaybe but next thing have to worry about will be carbon tax. which i feel that should be paid for by the oil companies and coal companies not the individuals

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

out of curiosity, what is your alternative plan?

Greven is exactly right. It's too late for an alternative plan. We're screwed.

The time for change was 20 years ago. People today live with short term vision only. They're only concerned with what's happening in the next few minutes. They can block out the reality of the future with the satisfaction of short-term gain - all for money... The love of money.

The best thing we COULD have done would have been to cut our use of fossil fuels drastically (regardless of the impact) and put huge efforts into alternative fuels and power sources, as so many have said all along.

I feel sorry for people with children and grandchildren who are going to have to live through what's coming... And to know "we" brought it on ourselves is the worst part. Talking alternatives at this point is moot.

Best thing we can do now is to start building massive domes because within a few decades, our planet will not be liveable. I think TPTB may have already been building massive underground bunkers for years to at least preserve some human life, but I'm not sure if underground will even be the answer, because it may be a thousand years or more before the gases clear our atmosphere to a liveable stage again.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
The unit cost of manufacture of green tech would plummet if it was taken seriously.

Yea, instead companies like to exploit carbon credits to produce MORE harmful gases than before.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Earth 2.0, baby! We got a few decades we got the tech and know-where to point some of us at. Booyah!