Author Topic: Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial (Read 3256 times)

Angus · « **Reply #30 on:** September 21, 2006, 08:25:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Thirty years ago we were causing the next ice age, according to scientists.

Scientists adore the sort of funding brought on by "the next crisis" they predict just like government adores power brought on by the same, and they need each other to perpetuate the cycle.

WOOT? Never heard that one.
20 years ago however, there was an intense discussion about global warming, and that we'd bee starting to see something out of the ordinary, starting in the more delicate areas of the globe, typically the arctic, in about 20 years or so.
Maybe just a lucky guess. The discussion involved melting glaciers, changing habitats of animals, and changes to vegetation.
So, it turned quite true, so I don't have a problem with that.
Exxon can pay all the money in the world, but it won't change what I see.
And:
"Over the last 15 years more than $40 billion has been spent worldwide on climate change research, yet the role of humans in the past century's modest warming remains controversial. In fact, the mysteries of climate change have deepened, if anything."

Why would that be? Are them soddy scientists needing something to study? Well pardon me, but there's plenty to do.
Is NASA in that number? Or was it promoted by Exxon?

lazs2 · « **Reply #31 on:** September 21, 2006, 09:18:06 AM »

yeah... we sure don't want any of that pesky free speech now do we?

LOL... If we don't like what you say we will shut you down anyway that we can.

They ostracize and remove funding from scientists that don't tow the global warming line and then... when the scientists find other ways to get their message out... they try to stop em again..

all the while... they won't even say how much or how soon... just that it is happening and that we need to do something no matter how little affect it has...

We need to fund them and pay for all the silly ideas they get no matter how flakey the science and we need to shut down anyone who opposes them?

are we really that stupid?

lazs

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #32 on:** September 21, 2006, 10:58:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -dead-
Given the Xian penchant for ignoring scientific consensus and digging out the few who disagree, and the break-down on this board, you should probably reframe it for consistency:

Global Warming Alarmists =

Global Warming Maybes =

Global Warming Denialists =

Actually,

Global Warming Alarmists =

Global Warming Maybes =

Global Warming Denialists =

lukster · « **Reply #33 on:** September 21, 2006, 11:11:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually,

Global Warming Alarmists =

Global Warming Maybes =

Global Warming Denialists =

Hehe, I stand by my original labels.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #34 on:** September 21, 2006, 11:22:24 AM »

Why don't you just answer a simple question with your obviously superior wit Jackal1.

Oh wait, you can't.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 21, 2006, 11:55:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Why don't you just answer a simple question with your obviously superior wit Jackal1.

Oh wait, you can't.

Tell ya what Ripley ole bud, things have been going along nicely in this debate, here and in the other thread. If you wish to be the one who starts commenting like a teen on saturday night you can pee up a rope.

Your question has been answered here and in the other thread on the subject. If you do not wish to take the time to look at the answer, then you are not too interested at all.
I can cook the meal, hand you a plate and silverware, but I`ll be damned if I`m gonna hand feed you.
There is no superior wit implied hoss. What there has been dished up is a wealth of information that might otherwise be overlooked.......from both sides of the coin.

john9001 · « **Reply #36 on:** September 21, 2006, 12:26:19 PM »

angus needs to be worried about global warning, iceland will melt and disappear.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #37 on:** September 21, 2006, 12:33:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
angus needs to be worried about global warning, iceland will melt and disappear.

If the worse comes we are going to ship Angus to Texas where we will partner up and go into the cattle and salted horsemeat business together.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #38 on:** September 21, 2006, 01:05:54 PM »

Quit circling around the issue and validate your claims.

What exactly do the international society of scientists have to gain from this? And if they are not directly benefiting from being alarmists, who is funding the conspiracy you claim? And how will they benefit from it monetarily?

Simple questin, fast simple answer. If you can't answer, don't give any excuses either as above.

lazs2 · « **Reply #39 on:** September 21, 2006, 02:52:43 PM »

ripley... are you saying that they will not get huge lucrative grants to study the horrors of global warming?

Who pays em? In the end... does it matter?

You look at both sides data and both sides rebuttal of the others data and you make up your mind... that is 100 times more healthy than shutting down debate from one side...

You don't like their data? attack and disprove it.

Most of us looking at the thing come to the conclusion that none of the scientists on either side really knows much about what is going on.

One thing is certain... something this important to my freedom and lifestyle....

I want to hear both sides.

lazs

AKH · « **Reply #40 on:** September 21, 2006, 05:38:50 PM »

ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids.

Source

Clutz · « **Reply #41 on:** September 21, 2006, 05:51:59 PM »

I live in southern Louisiana. There are refineries all over here. Now if u drive by one of them and look at all the crap the are pumping in the air day after day year after year and then look into the sky and use a bit of imagination to figure the volume of earths atmosphere, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure if u wrap a carbon dioxide blanket around the earth it is going to warm up. The last five hottest years recorded since weather record have been kept are 2001 to 2005. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html

Now that being said, this is the rub. This is the fear. In chemistry many reactions happen exponentially. Sometimes by making minute changes, drastic results can happen.

I saw this super brain scientist on one of the learning channels a couple of years ago. He had a test model in a plexie glass case to replicate evaporation and perception of earths oceans and seas. Now this guy didn't have an agenda, he was just a scientist saying look at what happens when I do this. As he increased the temperature in his model not much happened for the first few degrees. Then he went up another few degrees and not much happened again. Then he went up another few degrees and all of a sudden there was drastic change. All of a sudden earth was uninhabitable. It had to do with the salinity of the water changing at a certain point and how this played into the revolving process of evaporation and precipitation. I can quite remember the science of the reaction. But I do remember within his model we were all dead meat.

Reactions within the realms of chemistry can be quite astounding. Look what happens to gunpowder when u put a spark to it or what happen to water when u cool it from 35 degrees F to 32 degrees F. Not much change makes a big big difference.

To say we don't know what will happen within our environment is one thing, to pretend like its not a possibility is just ignorant.

john9001 · « **Reply #42 on:** September 21, 2006, 07:27:59 PM »

"But I do remember within his model we were all dead meat.'

computer models are funny things, if you don't get the results you wanted, you change the model until you do.

Pongo · « **Reply #43 on:** September 21, 2006, 09:51:37 PM »

At one point last year there was clear lane to sail right to the north pole.

Clutz · « **Reply #44 on:** September 21, 2006, 10:36:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
At one point last year there was clear lane to sail right to the north pole.

Yes, this may be true as well. Now that u mention it I remember seeing on one of the learning channels some photos of vast icy area's somewhere up north that were taking by recon WWII airplanes in the 1940's. They went back to that area about 4 years ago and took pictures and that area is not icy anymore. It's all dry land. This plays into what I was saying about the oceans salinity, I think. As it becomes more diluted because of melting ice, it has less saline in its solution and this affects how it evaporates and then condenses. Then add in the exponential factor as I mentioned and this is all not good at all. Theoretically speaking or even hypothetically speaking. Obviously there are any number of factors that could play into this scenario. What gets me is they say were are headed for another ice age, so to me that would mean lets keep it warm,