Author Topic: Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial (Read 3257 times)

IgnorantJoe · « **Reply #45 on:** September 21, 2006, 11:00:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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.

Again I ask, I wonder who is funding these people and what would happen if they said, 'Nothing here, move along.' ?

No particular interest? Surely you jest? Do you think scientist who find nothing is the matter get funding?

rpm · « **Reply #46 on:** September 21, 2006, 11:16:00 PM »

Humans have dumped more waste and chemicals into the atmosphere in the last 100 years than all the previous years combined. Why would we be responsable for climate change?

Debonair · « **Reply #47 on:** September 22, 2006, 12:47:34 AM »

in that case we're responisble for butterflies & pretty sunsets too

us

Angus · « **Reply #48 on:** September 22, 2006, 02:50:51 AM »

Quote

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

No, it's solid. Best case scenario, one will grow wine grapes while Texas will be uninhabitable. Worst case: it will join the group of countries above boiling point.

And as for Ignorant Joe said, the answer is : No one in particular. Very often the governments, some times the public, some times institutions.
Pretty much the same setup as the fight was with the tobacco companies.

And what Clutz said, -

Who is funding him?

lazs2 · « **Reply #49 on:** September 22, 2006, 02:55:12 PM »

If the oil companies hire scientists and they come up with data you don't like then...

prove it is wrong. or.....I guess you could just burn em as witches.

I want to hear both sides no matter where it is coming from. If it is false then it will become apparent.

It seems the religious global warming funded scientists are afraid of any opposition....

Why do you suppose that is?

lazs

AKH · « **Reply #50 on:** September 22, 2006, 03:31:01 PM »

Is secondary cigarette smoke harmful or not?

Jackal1 · « **Reply #51 on:** September 23, 2006, 12:56:55 AM »

"There is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming of the past century. We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science"

Statement of Principle, signed by 55 of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, issued prior to the 1992 Rio Summit.

Angus · « **Reply #52 on:** September 23, 2006, 03:27:38 AM »

That's old

Angus · « **Reply #53 on:** September 23, 2006, 03:29:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
If the oil companies hire scientists and they come up with data you don't like then...

prove it is wrong. or.....I guess you could just burn em as witches.

I want to hear both sides no matter where it is coming from. If it is false then it will become apparent.

It seems the religious global warming funded scientists are afraid of any opposition....

Why do you suppose that is?

lazs

I don't like the princip. They hire scientists who only promote data in their interests. Just like the tobacco industry did. And what came out there?

lazs2 · « **Reply #54 on:** September 23, 2006, 09:58:07 AM »

well... with smoking we did see the effects of "scientists" that ran amuck with their "secondary smoke" theories and such... we have seen alarmist scientists for as long as anyone can remember...

Milk? good for you or bad? eggs? meat? needed or not?

I have found that scientists pretty much act like the mostly liberals that they are... if they don't get their point across or... no one cares... they up the danger...

They fabricate and add on danger.... they allways have had a large element of alarmists and doom and gloomers and have not been above fabricating evidence in the past.

If you can't trust the oil company scientists.... how is it that you can trust the grant fund ones when.... they all went to the same schools and they all have the same methods supposedly?

We should all be dead anyway of the new ice age predicted in the 70's by your alarmists or... the global winter that carl friggin sagen precicted would happen if the sadman lit even half of kuwaits oil fields on fire.

Face it... the doomsday scientists have allways been the most unreliable group of scientists ever to grace the planet. They have allways been wrong.

And... at least the oil companies are hiring scientists that have backgrounds in climate and climate change and plants and such..

lazs

AKH · « **Reply #55 on:** September 23, 2006, 01:02:43 PM »

Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking (Also Known as Exposure to Secondhand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS)
Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health
National Cancer Institute
Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Cognitive Abilities among U.S. Children and Adolescents
International Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Child Health
Secondhand Smoke: Review of evidence since 1998

Quote

In January 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared environmental tobacco smoke (also called ETS, secondhand smoke or passive smoke) a known human carcinogen. It was classified as an environmental toxin equivalent to asbestos and other hazardous substances. The EPA's report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," calls ETS a serious and substantial health risk for nonsmokers, particularly children.

Unfortunately, in 1998 a U.S. district judge in North Carolina, acting on a lawsuit filed by the tobacco industry, overlooked an enormous body of scientific evidence and ruled that the EPA based its 1993 report on inadequate science, failing to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between secondhand smoke and diseases. The EPA is appealing the decision to a higher court. Shortly after the decision, evidence was found that the tobacco industry had paid several scientists to make false claims about environmental tobacco smoke.

Source

AKH · « **Reply #56 on:** September 23, 2006, 01:23:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jackal1
"There is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming of the past century. We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science"

Statement of Principle, signed by 55 of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, issued prior to the 1992 Rio Summit.

Envirotruth.org - brought to you by ExxonMobil
Evidence

lazs2 · « **Reply #57 on:** September 23, 2006, 01:29:48 PM »

akh... no one ever said that breathing any kind of smoke is good for you but...

Most of the alarmist scientists all said that it was WORSE than just smoking the damn cig! they can't help themselves... they allways exaggerate.

They aren't telling us that the earth is going through a warming cycle and that we are probly contributing to it in some small way.... they are saying that we caused it and that doom is less than decades away and all because of man... it is all mans fault and only giving them huge sums of money will save us.

lazs

AKH · « **Reply #58 on:** September 23, 2006, 01:42:28 PM »

That's just your opinion unless you can give some reputable sources to support your claims.

lazs2 · « **Reply #59 on:** September 23, 2006, 01:56:43 PM »

here in America we all heard that second hand smoke was worse for you than actualy smoking the cig. they even had commercials on it. America led the way in crucifying the tobaco companies.

Everyone heard carl nut job sagan say that lighting kuwaits oil fields would cause a nuclear winter.

If we let your scientists have total and uncontested say.. they will run amuck.

If the oil company scientists are wrong then simply show the evidence.

if the evidence is compelling enough then people will not listen to them.

What is the problem? You got something against free speach? If your scientists are right and can show us some tangible proof and some clear cut methods to make a real difference.... how could anyone dissagree?

You act as tho the proof is allready there.. you strangely wonder how people can see it and not be alarmed..

might I suggest that the "proof" is conjecture and that not enough is known yet for all of us to let the scientists change our way of life?

if there is fault it is that your side is not getting their point across with enough irrefuteable evidence.

lazs