Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

[xrtoronto]

Originally posted by Skuzzy

Our board seems to be getting ripe with this method of posting for some reason. People, if you want to discuss something, the DISCUSS it, let's stop with the simple cut and paste operations berift of any substance from the thread starter.

[lasersailor184]

Maybe because we aren't necessarily causing global warming?


All anybody is doing is guessing as to what is CAUSING global warming.  There's no real proof or evidence for us doing it.  It's just that the people who believe we are doing it are louder then the people who don't believe we're causing it.

[Tarmac]

You will be assimilated.  Get in line.

[Angus]

Many steps of denialism are at the job.
Such as:
1 ain't happening
2 happened before
3 not us, nothing to do with us
4 nothing we will do about it so it's pointless trying to do anything

etc etc.

and :
5 We're stopping the next ice-age.

[lukster]

"Demand"



Only royalty US companies bow to is the almighty dollar.

[Jackal1]

Hehe. Exxon could have gotten really pesky and asked them who had offered to up their next round of grants and funding.

I can see why Exxon would not want to acknowledge climate change, but why would average Joe citizen deny our contribution to global warming?

Oh I don`t know..maybe because man`s contribution, if any, to the theory of global warming is based on a bunch of total smoke screens that cannot be supported nor proven by the hired guns who have took the money and ran to do the reports and so called findings of positive scientific data only to have them shot down one by one or upon closer scrutiny found to be based on nothing in the nature of proof or feasability.
That or if Joe Citizen would take the time to actualy look into the real goals of such groups, instead of the thinly veiled banner they are trying to hide behind and found out that The Wizard Of Oz had a better cover story than these cats.....or if old Joe were to actualy take the time to look into the claim that ALL are in agreement on this subject is far from the truth and leaning towards the opposite.............maybe that would explain it.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Many steps of denialism are at the job.
Such as:
1 ain't happening
2 happened before
3 not us, nothing to do with us
4 nothing we will do about it so it's pointless trying to do anything

etc etc.

and :
5 We're stopping the next ice-age.

Hehe. The denial would fall to the global warming for lunch bunch. So called proof, they don`t have. So called data and reports are based on non-proven, non-supported nor agreed upon statements. All of which are being denied by the "pay for say" groupies..................... but they can`t come up with anything more positive than maybe/maybe not...could be/could not be...Ifs.........possibly/possibly not........but mainly, "Keep sending the money and we will do more reports and studies. what would you like the outcome to say and who is the highest bidder".

[lukster]

Governments that keep themselves in power by ensuring that something will need regulating/controlling are about as objective and trustworthy as an oil company.

[john9001]

boycot exxon, burn your cars, ride horses, eat tofu, save the planet.

on second thought, burning cars would contribute to global warning, so just turn your cars into flower pots or chicken coops.

[Angus]

I will rather take the words of worldwide scientists who have no particular interests in the matter, backed up with measurements, than the words of those sponsored by companies who's direct profit will be affected with the promotation of the others.
There is no profit for governments to promote the issue of global warming, - it's trouble.
For an oil company, the reaction to fight CO2 emission means immediate trouble.
The money there is big.

So, there will be those sides.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
I will rather take the words of worldwide scientists who have no particular interests in the matter

If you ever find one of these it will make history. It will be the first. They have all been paid and paid well to come up with the desired statements. You just got to look into who is funding who and............. why?
If I was going to put any faith in any of them, it wouldn`t be the hired guns of the global warming for lunch bunch, "pay for sayers". They have had to change their tune so many times from the start of original statements, all down through the line, in attempt to keep a faint glimmer of credibility, they would make a good juke box. The only thing that they have shown is an unproven, unsubstantiated, highly debatable theory for the effect of a non-supported and non-proven , off the wall, doomsday fairy tale. They have also tryed to state, as fact, the cause of something that cannot even be agreed upon or  as a reality. The weather on earth is changing. Well no kidding. It has always been in a constant state of change.
They have exactly nada, zilch to prove the cause other than smoke and mirrors. They would find it much more agreeable if people would simply ignore this fact, turn off their brains, and not look any further than what they have stated. The main thing being........keep those grants and paychecks coming in and please include your desired outcome.
It`s Mo Money, Mo Money.
If I had to choose a cause, I would also rather pick one that had some kind of goal that had a snowball`s chance in hell of making any difference, one way or the other instead of one who only has vague suggestions that can clearly be seen through as unworkable and having the outcome equal to cutting your own throat for the number one target nation of the whole fiasco.
It`s a circus. A comical circus with no elephants, no cotton candy, no lions, tigers or bears, no tatooed lady, nothing but clowns with big pockets.

[Ripsnort]

Who are the British scientists funded by?

As the Great Bob Dylan once sang..."You gotta serve somebody.."

[mora]

A question to the denialists. Do you think there is a worldwide scientist conspiracy behind the man made global warming fuss? If there is, then who's behind it and what is there to gain for them?

If there's no conspiracy involved I'll have to go with the opinion of the vast majority of the scientists.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by mora
If there's no conspiracy involved I'll have to go with the opinion of the vast majority of the scientists.

Copernicus was not in the vast majority.

Let's quash debate legislatively.  That is true to the scientific method.

[mora]

I don't think it's written in the Bible that man made CO2 emissions are the cause of the global warming,  it's not an age old belief. The Royal Society is not a legislative body.