Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- utopian3
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pulls out of COP27 climate summit.
- raf0
- raf0
- Is this really credible? http://longrangeweat…ukit
- http://www.spokesman…
"Harris is not a trained scientist – he studied insurance law in college"ukit - and your oil exec is trained?..deathboy
- what the fuck are you on aboutspifflink
- Nairn0
btw, I defer my usual stance of wanting the Last Word.
there is no point.
Goodbye, once interesting thread.
- ukit0
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.
- _niko0
I think people are taking this way too seriously, on both sides, the earth goes through warming and cooling periods naturally, we happened to be responsible for accelerating this current one probably but who gives a fuck? A lot worse has and will happen on its own (and we survived just fine).
We can blame cars or factories in China or farting cows, but I don't see anything being done about it (other than a lot of finger pointing and complaining) nor think there is anything that can be done about it.
- you don't seem to get it mate:
I just want to watch the whole world burnGeorgesIV - are you implying the world is older than 6,000 years?monospaced
- You and your witchcraft. Obama will drone you for spreading facts.Dillinger
- Food will disappear. It's a big deal whether it is human made or natural.freedom
- you don't seem to get it mate:
- utopian1
Climate sticker shock: Arctic thaw could cost $60 trillion
http://www.nature.com/nature/jou…
- mg331
I bet I've commented as such a few times in this thread in the past, but the thing that really blows my mind is how poor, relatively uneducated people who deny climate change blindly support corporations that are mass-polluters, that in no way have their best interests in mind. All because of their politics. They're so dumb that they'll support money-hungry corporations who are the biggest producers of pollution and biggest collective causes of manmade climate change. And at the same time, in my experience, these people are the biggest anti-corporate, anti-big corporation people out there.
I don't even know if I explained that correctly, but it's one of the more bizarre things to me in the whole mess.
- part of it has to do with how their politics are intertwined with their religious beliefsmonospaced
- bliznutty0
thanks lowimpakt - now give me your industry information on these scientists:
Timothy F. Ball, Robert M. Carter, Vincent R. Gray,Hendrik Tennekes, Antonino Zichichi, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Sallie Baliunas, George V. Chilingar, Ian Clark, David Douglass, Don Easterbrook, William M. Gray, William Kininmonth, George Kukla, William Happer, Tad Murty, Tim Patterson, Ian Plimer, Harrison Schmitt, Tom Segalstad, Nir Shaviv, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Philip Stott, Henrik Svensmark, Jan Veizer, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Claude Allègre, Robert C. Balling, Jr., John Christy,Petr Chylek, William R. Cotton, David Deming, Chris de Freitas, Richard Lindzen, Craig D. Idso,Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels,
- utopian2
Sad that no one was listening or caring then...and no one is listening or caring today!
Fuck All Humanity!
- ukit0
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
- 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
- peersdeathboy
- you slam that template over green energy but not fossil fuels, interesting bias.DrBombay
- monospaced1
Saw this reposted on another site, taken from a comment in a reddit thread (apologies for not having the original source or reference link), and it really got me thinking and seeing connections.
"American Evangelical Christianity (AEC) is intrinsically intertwined with the Republican Party. Please note that this isn't American Christianity in general, it's just the one that is the most vocal and thus the one that you, as a foreigner, see on television. The intertwining was a conscious decision made by the Republicans somewhere around three decades ago (although there were ties before that). Grover Norquist and others put together a strategy wherein business would back social conservative candidates, while single-issue groups (pro-life groups, NRA) would support low taxes and deregulation. The idea was that business would supply the money to win elections, while the single-issue folks would supply the energy needed to get people out to the polls. This is how the GOP is able to stay viable in elections even as the percentage of rank-and-file Republicans decreases.
As a result, issues that are for the most part unrelated to Biblical principles (like gun rights or global warming), or anti-thetical to Biblical principles (like cutting welfare) become framed as Biblical issues by a lobby that is incredibly shrewd at doing so. Even if one accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming, one can bypass the idea that something should be done about in any of the following ways:
In Genesis, God gave Adam dominion over the Earth, thus the Earth is ours to do with it what we please
Christ will return within our lifetime, and therefore there is no reason to act on global warming
We are being punished for straying from the Bible, and a return to Biblical principles will, by itself, reverse global warming"
- uan0
- eieio0
The Denial Machine
http://video.google.ca/videoplay…
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.
- raf0
The government gives you instructions what to do in case of biohazard (a broken eco-friendly light bulb):
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spill…
How come the old, un-eco-friendly light bulbs did not require such measures?
- lowimpakt0
raf - i pointed out that there are products in people's homes that are toxic - most homes have glass thermometers that have massively higher quantities of mercury in them - these can break?
why no start a campaign against thermometers?
why not campaign against people eating fish (as the highest source of ingested mercury) or high-fructose corn syrup?
i find the whole logic of your conspiracy to be flawed and based on ideology rather than fact/logic.
from wiki
Causes
The consumption of fish is by far the most significant source of ingestion-related mercury exposure in humans, although plants and livestock also contain mercury due to bioaccumulation of mercury from soil, water and atmosphere, and due to biomagnification by ingesting other mercury-containing organisms.[4] Exposure to mercury can occur from breathing contaminated air;[5] from eating foods containing mercury residues from processing, such as can occur with high-fructose corn syrup;[6] from exposure to mercury vapor in mercury amalgam dental restorations;[7] and from improper use or disposal of mercury and mercury-containing objects, for example, after spills of elemental mercury or improper disposal of fluorescent lamps.[8]
Human-generated sources such as coal plants emit approximately half of atmospheric mercury, with natural sources such as volcanoes responsible for the remainder. An estimated two-thirds of human-generated mercury comes from stationary combustion, mostly of coal. Other important human-generated sources include gold production, non-ferrous metal production, cement production, waste disposal, human crematoria, caustic soda production, pig iron and steel production, mercury production (mostly for batteries), and biomass burning.[9]
Mercury and many of its chemical compounds, especially organomercury compounds, can also be readily absorbed through direct contact with bare, or in some cases (such as dimethylmercury) insufficiently protected, skin. Mercury and its compounds are commonly used in chemical laboratories, hospitals, dental clinics, and facilities involved in the production of items such as fluorescent light bulbs, batteries, and explosives.[10]
- in short - you're not weighing up the risk rationally.lowimpakt
