Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says 2

Hmm, Sally, and where do you suppose "climate scientists" get their funding from?
 
Oil companies. They hire environmentalists, the same environmentalists that pressure people into buying fuel-efficient cars, having less oil consumption and so on. Combine that with the rising costs of oil.... Why are oil companies hiring the very same people that one would think would HURT their business, and continue to let them sprout off that kind of information? Because it behooves them in a twisted, twisted sense...

Doesn't take much to see the connections. And that's from having a family that work on the oil-rigs...
 
Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil
WASHINGTON -- Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon MobilA group promoting skepticism over widely-accredited climate change science has a web of connections to influential oil giant Exxon-Mobil, Raw Story has found.

The organization is called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), apparently named after the UN coalition International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An investigation into the group reveals its numerous links to Exxon-Mobil, a vehement opponent of climate legislation and notorious among scientists for funding global warming skeptics.

"Exxon-Mobil essentially funds people to lie," Joseph Romm, lauded climate expert and author of the blog Climate Progress, told Raw Story. "It's important for people to understand that they pay off the overwhelming majority of groups in the area of junk science."

The NIPCC's signature report, "Climate Change Reconsidered," disputes the notion that global warming is human-caused, insisting in its policy summary that "Nature, not human activity, rules the planet." Many of its assertions have been challenged by, among others, the scientists' blog RealClimate.

The report was released and promoted this summer by the Heartland Institute, a think tank that claims to support "common-sense environmentalism" as opposed to "more extreme environmental activism." It alleges that "Global warming is a prime example of the alarmism that characterizes much of the environmental movement."
Story continues below...

"To call global warming a hoax is to question every scientific journal, every scientific academy, and buy into the most extreme conspiracy theories," Romm said.

Heartland has received at least $676,500 from Exxon-Mobil since 1998, the year Exxon launched a campaign to oppose the Kyoto Treaty, according to official documents of the two groups that have been compiled and reproduced by the website ExxonSecrets.org. Also, the institute's self-described Government Relations Adviser Walter F. Buchholtz has been a lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil, the Washington Post reported in 2004.

The study's two principal authors and NIPCC leaders S Fred Singer and Craig D Idso are both associated with various organizations that have gotten generous funding from Exxon-Mobil.

Singer has researched and published for the Cato Institute, which has accepted $125,000 in grants from Exxon-Mobil since 1998. Other professional affiliations include the National Center for Policy Analysis, Frontiers of Freedom, and American Council on Science and Health -- which have accepted contributions of $540,000, $1.27 million and $150,000, respectively, from Exxon.

Although some praise him as a hero, Singer has been slammed by many fellow climate scientists as "a fraud, a charlatan and a showman" for his unorthodox views and research.

His co-author Idso is founder, board chairman and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, whose mission statement is to "separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change." The organization has taken $100,000 in funding from Exxon since 1998, according to the oil company's reports.

Idso is also affiliated with the George Marshall Institute, which has reportedly won $840,000 from Exxon.

Exxon-Mobil has spent more money lobbying Congress in the last two years than any enterprise other than the Chamber of Commerce, dishing out $29 million in 2008 and over $20 million so far in 2009 to legislators. It's among the top 10 biggest spenders of lobbying cash since 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

"Exxon has waged certainly the biggest, most concerted, and most extreme disinformation campaign on this issue," Romm told Raw Story. "The trouble is they don't have to win the argument -- all they have to do is blow smoke and cast doubt, and they've accomplished their end."

In a recent incident, hackers exposed private emails exchanged between climate scientists. Some said the revealed information didn't add up to a conspiracy, while others declared it definitive proof that anthropogenic global warming is made-up.

The Senate will soon take up the mantle on climate bill that the House narrowly passed this summer, and a heated debate is likely to occur in Congress over the nature of the threat and the type of action that needs to be taken.

"I think we're going to pass it, but it's going to be an epic struggle," Romm said.

Republican Sen. Orrin Harch has referenced the NIPCC report, calling it a "Comprehensive scientific answer to the IPCC [sic] Reports." Various blogs, such the conservative Free Republic, have touted this report as evidence that "global warming is not a crisis, and never was."
Click to expand...

lolity! :laugh2:
 
There are billions of dollars to be made in this "global warming" based on lies and groundless fear mongering. I'd understand if it made good economic sense and stewardship but this isn't the case when it comes to believing that man is the cause of global warming. It makes NO economic sense to address this when it has not been scientificially proven. A modeled result isn't proof. Using fear by ratcheting it up as an impetus to get what politicians want done is a red flag in of itself.
 
kokonut said:
There are billions of dollars to be made in this "global warming" based on lies and groundless fear mongering. I'd understand if it made good economic sense and stewardship but this isn't the case when it comes to believing that man is the cause of global warming. It makes NO economic sense to address this when it has not been scientificially proven. A modeled result isn't proof. Using fear by ratcheting it up as an impetus to get what politicians want done is a red flag in of itself.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what you just said there. :dizzy:

does anyone do??????
 
flip said:
What the science says:
"Arctic sea ice has been retreating over the past 30 years. The rate of retreat is accelerating and in fact is exceeding most models' forecasts."
Click to expand...

Accelerating? Watch this 30 year time lapse of the arctic ice exanding and retreating.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8SGs_gnFk]YouTube - Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978 to 2009[/ame]

Though you do know that the 2009 sea ice extent was larger than it was in 2008 and 2007? And it was slightly bigger than the one in 2005 by the 3rd week in Sept which is the approximate time for least amount of sea ice extent every year? How can it be "accelerating" (a doom and gloom word there) when sea ice extent had a greater extent in its areal coverage than the September 2005 coverage?

seaice_extent.htm


What's more, do you have data that goes beyond the 30 year? How can one say it is "accelerating" using only 30 years worth of data? There is no real long term baseline data here to make the proper assessment on whether ice extent has accelerated or not over the last 50, 100, 200 or more years.
 
Last edited:
Elders.

I know the people in Cambridge Bay are complaining the ice is melting too fast every year. No, not that the ice is disappearing... but rather the seasons are getting shorter compared to when their ancestors hunted.
 
souggy said:
Elders.

I know the people in Cambridge Bay are complaining the ice is melting too fast every year. No, not that the ice is disappearing... but rather the seasons are getting shorter compared to when their ancestors hunted.
Click to expand...

Cambridge Bay is also near along the Northwest Passage (lower portion) for ships (when its ice free for a short time) and was discovered by Roald Amundsen back in 1906. He made the ice-free trip using a wooden ship in his three year trip to find the "holy grail" Northwest Passage. That passage was ice free then. So, what's the big deal?
 
Jiro said:
I have absolutely no idea what you just said there. :dizzy:

does anyone do??????
Click to expand...

Kokonut, where is your nobel prize? If not so it show that you aren't smarter as scientist does.
 
Foxrac said:
Kokonut, where is your nobel prize? If not so it show that you aren't smarter as scientist does.
Click to expand...

I can't help people if they are unable understand some of the basic of science. And I certainly cannot help those who cannot see the constant drum beat that Earth is gonna fry if we don't do something about the rising CO2 concentration. They've been hitting the drums since the late 90s. Just as well it has been shown that CO2 concentration rise is in poor correlation with that of temperature rise (which is quite small by the way) even for the last 14 years. With a best line fit R^2 of 0.5 hardly constitute a positive correlation. A 0.8 or better would be more like it.
 
I wouldn't calll tweaking and misusing data blatantly for a political agenda in the effort to fool people a minor thing. Especially if its going to cost taxpayers several trillion dollars in the process just to and lower temperature a tenth of a degree. Pure folly and madness.
 
You have to admit... trying to reduce CO2 emissions is a lot better idea than launching mirrors and lenses into space to deflect solar rays. Man... imagine what happen if we FUBAR on that plan and got a result entirely different than calculated.
 
souggy said:
You have to admit... trying to reduce CO2 emissions is a lot better idea than launching mirrors and lenses into space to deflect solar rays. Man... imagine what happen if we FUBAR on that plan and got a result entirely different than calculated.
Click to expand...

At a cost of several trillion dollars on U.S. taxpayers' dime where according to calculations it would only (theoretically, again) reduce temperature down a few tenths of a degree a Celsius over several decades in the attempt to lower CO2 concentration which is based on nothing more than a theory rather than a fact. So, no, it's not better. In fact, both of those ideas are pure idiocy.
 
kokonut said:
Accelerating? Watch this 30 year time lapse of the arctic ice exanding and retreating.
YouTube - Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978 to 2009

Though you do know that the 2009 sea ice extent was larger than it was in 2008 and 2007? And it was slightly bigger than the one in 2005 by the 3rd week in Sept which is the approximate time for least amount of sea ice extent every year? How can it be "accelerating" (a doom and gloom word there) when sea ice extent had a greater extent in its areal coverage than the September 2005 coverage?

seaice_extent.htm


What's more, do you have data that goes beyond the 30 year? How can one say it is "accelerating" using only 30 years worth of data? There is no real long term baseline data here to make the proper assessment on whether ice extent has accelerated or not over the last 50, 100, 200 or more years.
Click to expand...

Other video but more detailed.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXhcKyYOb9Y&feature=related]YouTube - The Arctic Ice Melt for 2008[/ame]

The ice is melting so faster than before, unlike in 25 years ago that where ice is melting so slower.
 
The problem is that you have only 30 years worth of continuous satellite imagery and not 50, 100, 200 or 500 years worth of sea ice data to see the highest and lowest sea ice extent over a longer period of time. We're only seeing a window of time spanning a mere 30 years. It was only 13,000 to 15,000 years ago we had ice sheets that extended all the way to the northern parts of the United States (geographically speaking) before it began retreating as Earth gradually warmed up. That's the indisputable fact.

Of course we had in the more recent periods when it was warmer than today. Examples like the Garibaldi Glacier near B.C. Canada where retreating glaciers revealed 7,000 year old perfectly preserved tree stumps with their roots still in the soil. Trees that were once part of an ancient forest. An indication of a time when it was much warmer you had mature forest growing in abundance. This glacier began retreating from it's maximum extent only some 200 years ago. It took awhile to retreat to this point exposing ancient tree stumps.
 
Back
Top