Author Topic: Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial (Read 4649 times)

AKH · « **Reply #90 on:** September 24, 2006, 12:59:45 PM »

Let's talk about nefarious petitions then:

Quote

The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.

The document reads as follows: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson's organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson's 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

The paper maintained that: "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz - as he had just reminded his correspondents - was once president.

Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences released this statement: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies, and the petition had established a major presence on the internet. Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited - by global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #91 on:** September 25, 2006, 11:04:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
yeah.. these are the noble scientists you want to go unchalenged...

Not knowing anything about climate didn't stop sagan... not knowing anything about climate doesn't stop the huge group of scientists who are on your side but have no experiance in climate. In fact.. the thing started in the 80's... are you saying they had a crystal ball... there was no evidence... or... maybe they simply had an agenda that they continued with...

"The activities of the Union of Concerned Scientists deserve special mention. That widely supported organization was originally devoted to nuclear disarmament. As the cold war began to end, the group began to actively oppose nuclear power generation. Their position was unpopular with many physicists. Over the past few years, the organization has turned to the battle against global warming in a particularly hysterical manner. In 1989 the group began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. Most recipients who did not sign were solicited at least twice more. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. Interestingly, the petition had two pages, and on the second page there was a call for renewed consideration of nuclear power. When the petition was published in the New York Times, however, the second page was omitted. In any event, that document helped solidify the public perception that "all scientists'' agreed with the disaster scenario. Such a disturbing abuse of scientific authority was not unnoticed. At the 1990 annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Frank Press, the academy's president, warned the membership against lending their credibility to issues about which they had no special knowledge. Special reference was made to the published petition. In my opinion what the petition did show was that the need to fight "global warming'' has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience--a dogma to which scientists are not immune. "

Hehe. Classic.

That one even has Angus falling back to Saganisms.

There are billyuuuuns and billyuuuuuuns................ ..............
Sagan was one of the most repeated guests on the Carson show. At one time, for quite a while, it seemed that he was a quest at least once a week.
Carl ole boy never did figure out the reason that Carson kept having him on was because he made such a great fall guy for the jokes. At one point I think Ed was even worried about losijng his job to Sagan.

Quote

Sagan had a point, and if he was right our global warming is bigger than we think.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #92 on:** September 25, 2006, 11:05:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
We have to install fart collectors to teh cows. It's a doublewin situation. You stop tons of methane going up in the air and you can burn it for heat.

Hehe. I knew you had it in you.
Thanks for joining the game.

AKH · « **Reply #93 on:** September 25, 2006, 12:19:23 PM »

"Human activities are transforming the global environment, and these global changes have many faces: ozone depletion, tropical deforestation, acid deposition, and increased atmospheric concentrations of gases that trap heat and may warm the global climate. For many of these troubling transformations, data and analyses are fragmentary, scientific understanding is incomplete, and long-term implications are unknown. Yet, even against a continuing background of uncertainty, it is abundantly clear that human activities - burning fossil fuels, emitting pollutants from industry, and clearing forests that are the habitats for plant and animal species, for example - now match or even surpass natural processes as agents of change in the planetary environment."

Frank Press, President, National Academy of Sciences, in the Preface to "One Earth, One Future: Our Changing Global Environment", National Academy of Sciences, 1990.

Angus · « **Reply #94 on:** September 25, 2006, 01:10:42 PM »

Jackal:
Is this :

Your last ammo in the debate?

And as for ruminants causing global warming (which isn't happening in thefirst place

) it must be something to do with the industrial revolution, for they surely were around for a long time....before.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #95 on:** September 28, 2006, 02:38:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Jackal:
Is this :

Your last ammo in the debate?

Naw, that was just a freebie.

What debate?

Angus · « **Reply #96 on:** September 28, 2006, 02:55:02 AM »

Teh cow fart debate, silly!
Been trying them cans, but the cow's always make a quick escape

Jackal1 · « **Reply #97 on:** September 28, 2006, 09:57:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Teh cow fart debate, silly!
Been trying them cans, but the cow's always make a quick escape

Hehe. Gotta talk real sweet to em.

lazs2 · « **Reply #98 on:** September 29, 2006, 11:52:13 AM »

Akh...

If man disapeared instantly from the earth...

What would the planets climate look like in the century that followed?

If you can't answer this question then there is no reason to listen to you or your "scientists".

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #99 on:** September 29, 2006, 05:51:43 PM »

Can you answer what you are in 10 years with accuracy?
A fattie, a rotting corpse, ashes, or just a guy?
Be a "Scientist" and answer.
Nothing with probability will do, just an accurate answer.

IgnorantJoe · « **Reply #100 on:** September 30, 2006, 01:18:58 AM »

Does anyone else find Angus's absolute conviction disturbing?

Anyone else glad he's not leading a religion? Or is he?

lukster · « **Reply #101 on:** September 30, 2006, 01:45:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by IgnorantJoe
Does anyone else find Angus's absolute conviction disturbing?

Anyone else glad he's not leading a religion? Or is he?

Nah, not disturbing, perhaps naive. He wants to believe. I think everyone needs to believe in something.

Angus · « **Reply #102 on:** September 30, 2006, 03:37:46 AM »

Call it what you like. I also belive that water is wet.

AKH · « **Reply #103 on:** September 30, 2006, 07:55:59 AM »

Start here...

"my" scientists? I tell you what - let's compare lists of internationally recognised scientific institutions that support both arguments. Your list should be pretty easy to do...

lazs2 · « **Reply #104 on:** September 30, 2006, 10:19:57 AM »

akh... would you agree that a "scientist" who is not in the field of climate or pollution should not be listened to any more than anyone else?

If you add water that has more salt or less salt to the ocean you are polluting it. everything we do is pollution.

I am simply asking for you to name what things we are doing that is causing the earth to heat up and how much it is doing so and..... what exact steps are needed to stop it.

I would also like for someone to tell me that the myriad of sacrafices that are asked of us and the tons of money poured into it will have some effect... that they will stop or slow, by some measurable degree... the warming.

What will our sacrafices achieve? How will they compare to the normal fluctuations in global climate?

If we suddenly started dropping a tenth of a degree a decade would we then be free to continue on with our lives or would this be some new "crisis" that we would have to look to these "scientists" to overcome for us?

I don't trust em. They do not appear to be playing very honestly. They appear to me to know a lot less about it than they pretend to and... they all have their hand out for the fame and power and money.

So long as they come off like this to people who are not of their cult.... then you will get people like me who look at them with distrust.

lazs