- Last post
- 560 Responses
biznutty - I did a brief check on that team of "scientists"
H. Leighton Steward is the spokesman for Plants Need CO2 and the registrant of their website. According to its corporate Certificate of Formation, Steward is a director at EOG Resources, an oil and gas company formerly known as Enron Oil and Gas Company, where he earned $617,151 in 2008. Steward also serves as an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute. 
Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.
Dr. Fred Singer
In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded by the Tobacco Institute over a risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke.  At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.
In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top Five Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top Five Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top Five Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.
Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change
As the world focused on President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a small group of determined scientists gathered in a Senate office building to present evidence backing their claim that climate change is caused not by man but by nature, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the hope for a greener planet.
“Nature, not human activity rules the planet,” said Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist and research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. “And once you’ve decided that on the basis of evidence, then everything else falls into place.”
- these people are paid industry shills. they're not presenting an scientific argument they're presenting misinformation.eieio
- how the fuck do you know man? show me the proofbliznutty
- I just read the article, they're being scientific its just getting together and saying what the industry people paid them foreieio
- *not scientific.eieio
America is the slow kid in the class keeping everyone back with its idiocy
Lets get one thing straight, we are all stupid. Even with years of science and information, our knowledge means nothing. We don't know what the hell is going on, we have minimal understanding of our planet and it's surroundings. It's safe to say we don't know what's going on, and as long we keep reproducing at the rate we do, then overpopulation will be a key point in the demise of our human race. We're greedy, thoughtless and primitive in our ways. When will we learn to just get along? When will we realise that we surely can't keep taking from the planet, without giving something back. It's a cycle, everything is connected. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but my optimism grows as I see people coming together, getting on with there lives, keeping things simple, not being fueled by pathetic conspiracy theories and paranoid ambitions. We all want more and more, instead of just better things. Religion is something a lot of people believe in, but a rational human being would question the truth behind a story written hundreds of years ago. Maybe it does set good ethics in some as it offers a set belief in something. Science is constantly developing.
Global warming may or may not be a danger to us all, but until we start to understand we can't change the world but we can change the way we live, things will never really change. We'll just get more and more confused by the fact we literally haven't got a clue.
Enjoy your day, idiots!
i found the recent changes in the US Chamber of Commerce interesting.
Companies such as Apple, GE and other leaving the chamber because of its foot-dragging on climate action.
"Two weeks ago, the largest electric utility company Exelon did not renew its membership of the Chamber, announcing that "inaction on climate is not an option".
This week, New York Times and Washington Post featured full-page ads from big companies and environmentalists calling upon the US Senate to "pass clean energy legislation with a cap on greenhouse gas emissions this year."
The ads were signed by, among others, Dow, Exelon, United Technologies, Duke Energy, GE, Weyerhauser, Constellation Energy, Interface, PSEG, Deutsche Bank, Entergy, Johnson Controls and NRG."
global warming blog...
it snowed this past weekend in denver.. loveland ski resort down the road had its earliest opening day in 40 years.. they are still doing coat programs in every major U.S. city for people because its cold in the winter. very fucking cold.. in fact i'm cold now.. why are you guys screamng global warming trying to pick my pocket?
- i think the bandwagon has changed to "climate change" nowephix
- i gotcha so it could be global cooling or warming.. doesn't matter really..i like the new spin :Dbliznutty
- The entire world is the USA to you, that is more telling than anything.DrBombay
- Is LA still on fire?joeth
- pretty! i wonder what it looked like in 1800, or 1700? i imagine it filled the screen eh? so is that global warming...sigg
- from all the horse drawn carriages? or the earths natural cycle that happens over and over again...sigg
- over millions upon millions of years. only in the past 100 or so have we actually documented these changes.sigg
- ice age anyone? did man made global warming end that or was it the earths natural cycle? hmm.sigg
- i agree 100% that we need to recycle, reuse and reduce more but global warming... nope.sigg
- you are not a scientist.DrBombay
- neither are you, yet your opinion is somehow more valid then? fuck you asshole.sigg
- you are truly an asshole rick. go fuck yourself you non scientist prick.sigg
- sigg fails at life. such anger and insecurity.spifflink
Im on boat with change is going to happen, cooler or hotter. If it gets hot it will then likely cool, or vice versa. But i am on the fence about how drastic human involvement will be too global temperature change. Its a pretty big world with many events effecting everything, human and non human, then likely also some cosmic factors of flares, gamma radiation bursts, changing rotations, axis, electromagnetic fields.....and i find it hard to believe the hype that if we continue our path we will alter temperature enough to ruin us. I just don't see us as being that significant, and we can't continue using fossil fuels at current rates with growth curves since their just isnt enough. And since our population growth is still rising even if their was a temperature change through human faults and tons died, then i'd call that balancing things out. But still just seems like some modern day doomsday profiteering. Perhaps religion has lost its fizzle.
- You are not a scientist.DrBombay
- I love how you're so sure its also these other factors more so than the man-made CO2.Mimio
- gamma radiation bursts are interesting scientists have theories that a neutron star collision fried our ozone and caused a mass extinctiondeathboy
- possibly cause one of the recorded mass extinction. electromagnetic field protects us, and if that weakens radiation increasesdeathboy
- we get pummeled with more cosmic radiation shit.deathboy
The Denial Machine
In the past few years, a hurricane has engulfed the debate about global warming. This scientific issue has become a rhetorical firestorm with science pitted against spin and inflammatory words on both sides. This documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies.
I mean cmon, even the oil company execs now admit it...
The chairman and chief executive of ConocoPhillips (COP), the nation's third-largest oil company, acknowledged this month that fossil fuels—his company's core product—are permanently warming the Earth. "The science has become quite compelling," Mulva said in an interview with BusinessWeek.com. "We've been studying this for quite a number of years. That is happening."
Exxon Mobil Chairman Rex Tillerson told a world energy conference today that "there is no question that the world's climate is getting warmer," and said that technological advances and a global strategy will be needed to combat the rise in carbon emissions.
Are they in on the conspiracy as well?
- well its hard to deny anything a human does has absolutely 0 consequencedeathboy
- sure burning fossil fuels is largely bad, but is that miniscule in relativity to large spans of time and other events?deathboy
- sure reuse recycle be efficient and all that. Or buy into the greenwash move and turn it into a buck spinning the same stuff.deathboy
- Its quite profitable and the gov is on board for tax breaks & grants. but beware of the competition amongst your peersdeathboy
- you slam that template over green energy but not fossil fuels, interesting bias.DrBombay
Also this idea that you can't get a grant to prove global warming false...
You don't get grants to prove anything true or false, isn't the point of the grant to find out what the truth is?
"Uh, yeah, I'd like a grant for 70k, and at the end of my two year study I will have proven global warming false."
Not how it works.
I guess you're right, raf, scientists have no idea what they're doing and everything is a 50/50 guess.
For the record joeth: you have just agreed they have no idea what they're doing, it's a 50/50 guess..
To be completely fair to both sides, we must say that there's a 50/50 chance that global warming is man-made.
You want to leave the fate of the planet up to a coin toss?