Global Warming

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 545 Responses
  • lowimpakt0

    this is pretty funny. an ad funded by Leighton Steward from Biznutty's article above.

    "So who's behind "CO2 is green" and this advert? One of its founders is H Leighton Steward who, until his retirement in 2000, was the vice chairman of Burlington Resources, a Houston-based oil and gas company bought by ConocoPhillips in 2006. Steward received the American Petroleum Institute's Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement in 2001 and remains an honorary director of the oil industry lobby group. In other words, we can conclude that this man boasts a particular pedigree within the oil industry.

    The Washington Post (which admits it has taken a half-page advert from the "CO2 is green" group) is reporting that Steward, along with some associates, is now trying to establish the group as a charity:

    Steward has joined forces with Corbin J Robertson Jr, chief executive of and leading shareholder in Natural Resource Partners, a Houston-based owner of coal resources that lets other companies mine in return for royalties. Its revenues were $291m [£184m] in 2008. They have formed two groups – CO2 Is Green designated for advocacy and Plants Need CO2 for education – with about $1m. Plants Need CO2 has applied for 501(c)(3) tax status, so that contributions would qualify as charitable donations, said Natural Resource Partners general counsel Wyatt L Hogan, who also serves on the group's board."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/enviro…

  • 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,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis…

  • lowimpakt0

    ok - lets see.

    first on the list.... Timothy F.Ball

    ex-head of "Friends of Science". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fri…

    Friends of Science has been criticized as an Astroturfing organization[4][5] with close links to the oil and gas industry.[6] Their funding sources are unclear; MP John Godfrey said, "Financial links between the petroleum industry and climate change skeptic groups in the United States are well documented... We need more transparency about who is behind this campaign in Canada."[7] They themselves say their "efforts to bring balance to the climate change debate are being restricted because of our lack of funding. We have mostly relied upon the good nature of our members, with some contributions from Charitable Foundations. There has also been some funding from “big oil”. But they seldom smile on us. They appear to believe that marketing is more important than historical climate information...Your support is essential for getting things done! Without it, we will probably have to shut down operations within the year."[8]

    Funds do not come directly from industry donors but are instead solicited for the Calgary Foundation, a charitable funds administrator which maintains a policy of not disclosing the identity of donors. The donations are then passed on to the Science Education Fund, an account at the University of Calgary set up by Prof. Barry Cooper. In the final step, the Science Education Fund uses those funds to support the activities of the Friends of Science.[9] Friends of Science does not disclose details of their funding sources, though Cooper has stated that their funds are "not exclusively from the oil and gas industry."

    • yet Al Gore is innocent.. i seebliznutty
    • It's Al Gore against the world to you, what a fucking maroon.DrBombay
    • Timothy Ball is for hire. He also said second hand cigarette smoke and pollutants were harmless to humansMimio
    • maroon! hahajimzyk
  • lowimpakt0

    do we really need to go through each one or should we deal with the majority of peer reviewed science and the reputable scientific institutes that have actual scientific reputation to uphold?

  • DrBombay0

    You can find a group that will say anything...
    http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_d…

    • True that, ie. those guys: http://nobelprize.or…raf
    • Who really gives a shit about the nobel peace prize? I sure don't.DrBombay
    • thats because you are a simpleton.sigg
    • Not sure what the NPP has to do with this conversation, but please go on.DrBombay
    • What does Flat Earth Society then?raf
    • Where are you going with this?DrBombay
  • DrBombay1

    It is funny to me that a self proclaimed anarchist finds himself siding with republicans all the time. It just seems odd to me.

    • the size of your massive mellon seams odd to me.sigg
    • yu mispeled mellon and seams, dummmmeeeDrBombay
  • designbot0

    Let's just concur there is indeed a very real debate within the scientific community. There's lots of misinformation happening on both sides. I remember digging into a pro man made global warming article and finding out the study was funded and organized by an environmental organization!

    I say let both sides get the proper media attention and let the conclusion be arrived at based on the best minds in discussion and research about it. What I saw personally in the past, is lots of one-sided media hype on the issue. The BBC article I posted is at least evidence ( I think) that the opposing side (against the idea of man made global warming) is actually starting to gain more credibility and momentum.

    • So an Env org cares about the environment and an oil company cares about what?DrBombay
    • it hasn't been a real debate since like the 60s, its been fact and the corporations and governments just went to denial mode.eieio
    • That's false...plain and simple. Otherwise how to you explain all the contrary information and opposing views from the scientific community?designbot
    • Rick, the point he's making is that both have an obvious stake in the outcome. In fact, their survival depends on the outcome.mathinc
    • If it is "fact" how do you explain all the contrary information and opposing views from the scientific community?designbot
    • oops...double post.designbot
    • Tommy, what I said makes no sense whatsoever?DrBombay
    • It makes sense if you're trying to explain the concept of good and evil to a 5 year old. But in this case, no.mathinc
    • If you think it's as easy as saying that environmental org produces agenda-less fact, you're wrong.mathinc
    • It seems silly to be shocked that a manmade global warming study was sponsored by an Env organization.DrBombay
    • I thought KFC sponsored them all!!! OMGWTF!DrBombay
    • Who is shocked? .. the way I read designbots post is that there IS misinformation on both sides.mathinc
    • Is the word "shocked" really a deal-breaker in my statement?DrBombay
    • Talking to you is like riding a merry-go-round on acid.mathinc
    • so its "media hype" when they disagree with you? wtf?spifflink
  • eieio0

    If I was a scientist why the fuck would I make up man made climate info to get grants when I can just deny it and get tonnes from oil companies? You can't really prove a negative in the scientific world and the non-man-made climate change theory as being elaborated on by corporate science shills is just that. It was first a real fact and issue but now its reverse psycology and false and meaningless debate.

    • FACT: c02 emmissions imbalance the greenhouse effect warming the earth gradually on average.eieio
  • lowimpakt0

    i have a long memory and this is all very similar to the pre-CFC bans when we realised were messing up the ozone. the same people were rolled out to obscure the issue by saying the "debate" was still open or that the science was flawed.

    in that case the lobby groups and lunatic fringe lost out and the real science and politics won.

    the same is happening with climate change. on the basis of the majority of reputable, peer reviewed scientific evidence, politics has decided to act.

    OK back in the day of CFC's the solution was easy, replace one technology/chemical with another - no major shift in anything. The fact is now with climate change the solution is more complicated and it rubs up against large lobby agendas and individual ideologies.

    so my message to DB and others is that keep thinking/dreaming to yourself that the debate is still open while the rest of us get on with sorting out the atual problems.

    • climate change was invented to distract environmentalist from focusing on the real issue of chemical toxins being pumped into our water ways and chemtrails in our airPrototype_a
  • designbot0

    On the flip side anytime contrary evidence or articles are posted you all claim "misinformation". This is the mindset that most conspiracy theorists have.....it's like you can't even open your mind to the possibility that there is indeed opposing views within the scientific community. All I'm saying is there is a real debate happening, if you think it's been "proven since the 60's" then you have already closed yourself off to any real discussion.

    • misinformation comes out of bullshit sources like you guys post. No conspiracy just denial.eieio
    • I've posted some very credible articles in here in the past many times...always to be answered with the same old BS responses like "misinformation"designbot
    • like "misinformation".designbot
    • no you post bullshit plain and simple. you should be more critical with your sources.eieio
    • btw, your comment reeks of bias. Are you saying all the contrary info is "bullshit"?designbot
    • And your comment doesn't reek of bias? gimme a break db.DrBombay
    • You try to come off as unbiased but you obviously don't believe that man made climate change.DrBombay
    • I'm not being biased I'm being straight up. There's a difference.eieio
    • No, you're right I don't believe in man made global warming...and you obviously do, so what's your point?designbot
    • Oh so you're info is "straight up" and not "bullshit" like the stuff I post right? Gimme a break.designbot
    • Everyone is biased, don't nitpick about others biases when you yourself have one.DrBombay
    • ok .eieio
    • We both have our biases Dr.B, it's human nature. To be as unbiased as possible we first have to recognize this.designbot
    • If I wasn't open for a discussion, I wouldn't have come back to this dreadful thread.designbot
    • My bias pollutes less. So I see that being the better bias :DDrBombay
    • What exactly are you arguing for though, status quo? What would be a favorable outcome for you?DrBombay
    • See you assume I pollute more than you? Just because I question man made global warming?designbot
    • Taking care of the environment for me ethical issue....I do it because I know it's right, not because of some propaganda or fear tactic from the media.designbot
    • fear tactic.designbot
    • And on the same note, being opposed to the idea of global warming does not change the way I live.designbot
    • I just don't see the end being favorable. I'm not a scientist. This green shit aint going away.DrBombay
    • We agree on that...it's just the means by which people come to this conclusion green = good that we disagree on.designbot
    • So we agree on everything except the way to feel about it... That's rather retarded.DrBombay
    • hahadesignbot
  • bliznutty0

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations. The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.[3]

    ** becomes very skeptical..

    • its like 100 times better than 'Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change'. basically means private self interested group.eieio
    • ....its a private self interested group.eieio
  • version30

    i think a point that would be awesome if we could make it would be simply the health issue.

    regardless if the planet is warming or not, the toxins released by automobiles, kills. carbon monoxide poisoning anyone? The chemicals released by kodak and other film development chemical manufacturers seep into soil and contaminate water supplies supplied that we then consume.

    These animal foodstuffs become infused with carcinogens regardless of our intent to consume them. Soon i believe it will be near impossible to manufacture or produce any truly naturally healthy even "organic" foodstuffs. If the soil and water itself are contaminated, how can our caloric intake not in turn be infected as well?

  • raf0

    Look of some of the outcomes of Global Warming Propaganda:

    CO₂ – a natural part of the air we breathe, a substance which increase in the atmosphere boosts global flora, was deemed a pollutant. On this basis we are being brainwashed with ideas like "carbon footprint" and a concept that by using electrical/fossil generated power we damage the Earth climate.

    Based on those, we are given stuff like:

    Ban on incandescent bulbs taking place now in Europe, USA and Australia. The bulbs are being forcibly replaced by CFL bulbs which not only produce ugly-coloured, unhealthy type of light (attributed to many medical conditions). They also pose a biohazard, as they contain mercury. They cannot be disposed of in a normal way and if broken, special measures have to be taken in your home (ones in place for a biohazard incident, literally). People are unaware of the risk and most are plain lazy – they throw them away in the bin, and as a result they poison ground waters.

    How in the world is this eco – friendly?

    On the economy side... CFL are only more economical if they're used in intervals longer than 40 minutes – before that they warm up taking more power than incandescent bulbs.
    Now, I am a conscious citizen, I only turn the light on when I need to. For instance, my bathroom light is rarely on for longer than 40 minutes.
    Speaking of light bulb longevity.. a CFL just died in my apartment after a year of use (yes, the one in the bathroom). Where do I throw it away? No, really, tell me where. I live in Dublin. As I said, I'm a conscious citizen. I keep it with old batteries for the time being. But I bet 90% of people don't give a shit and they put mercury in the ground, polluting the shit of future generations.

    How is this environmentally friendly?

    Are we being screwed or what?

    • Look 'at', not 'of'raf
    • "before that they warm up taking more power than incandescent bulbs."?joeth
    • Never heard this. Can you prove it?joeth
    • no he can't. who says CFLs are THE authoritative solution? and there is a balance to be had with co2. excess co2 above optimal levels IS pollution.spifflink
    • levels IS pollutionspifflink
  • lowimpakt0

    raf - i pointed out to you before that more mercury is produced by coal fired power stations when making energy to run standard lightbulbs and that up to 90% of the energy is wasted as heat.

    how is that remotely sensible?

    • I'd rather have mercury around a plant than in thin glass tubes at home where kids areraf
    • especially near heavy batteries that could easily break them...version3
    • that shit from coal plants get put into the atmosphere and settles into groundwater.spifflink
  • version31

    how can we expect what caused the problem to solve the problem?

    • what problem? when's the last time you actually checked the weather or went outside?bliznutty
    • I look outside, it cold outside, no globo wahmings!!!DrBombay
    • entire crops have been destroyed because a fraction of a degree in average temperature growtheieio
    • i referred to my own comment of chemical contaminationversion3
  • raf0

    @lowimpakt – I don't support coal fired power stations.

    We live in times when regular people build houses with solar panels and geothermal installations, they actually sell energy back to the grid.
    Can they haz a lightbulb? No, the nazis won't let them buy one.

  • lowimpakt0

    yea raf - tough luck with that - i know you don't like the idea that the state may have to protect the environment and people's health and you'll go to any lengths to compare any state intervention to the nazis or the communists but the fact is that markets change and the state has a role in that.

    the fact you don't pay attention to the vast range of products that get phased out of the market and get fixated on lightbulbs is pretty strange to me.

    when we have some evidence that these bulbs are worse for human health or the environment we can discuss it further.

  • lowimpakt0

    and why all the sudden fuss about lightbulbs when parents have been shoving mercury thermometers into kids mouths and up their asses for decades?

    :)

    • ...and directly injecting it into their infants (vaccinations) for decades as well.designbot
    • How many light bulb sockets do you have vs asshole sockets?mathinc
    • vaccinations? not used for a while now.spifflink
  • raf0

    That's the thing: they are forcibly introducing a toxic product that will poison the environment.
    They are not protecting the environment, as you suggest. They are protecting large corporations who invested in CFL technology.

    I would like to hear about the vast range of products that get phased out (a. k. a. banned)...



    • Never heard of CFL caused headaches? I've experienced them myself.raf
    • Just because companies and governments are pushing a wave of 'green' yet imperfect products doesn't mean there isn't a real issue of man made climate change. is that what you're implying raf ?eieio
    • ...isn't a real man made climate issue. Is that what you're implying?eieio
  • lowimpakt0

    "they" "forcibly" ??

    By"they" I assume you mean the European Commission. Why would "they" on the one hand force a toxic product on people at the will of the big bad corporations and on the other hand develop massively complex legislation that forces chemical companies to publish safety data information on the chemical they release into the market? (information which they don't currently make public)

    you do know there are tens of thousands of chemicals on the market that aren't properly regulated? who is responsible for checking the safety/toxicity of these chemicals individually and in combination? you? the chemical companies? jesus?

    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/…

    why would "they" have decades developing comprehensive product safety regulations (such as the CE scheme) and monitoring systems that have encouraged industry to increasingly protect human health and the environment only to force through a toxic product on people?

    why would "they" develop comprehensive legislation phasing out specific hazardous substances (cadmium, lead, hexavalent chromium etc) from electronic products (tvs, computers etc etc) only to force a toxic product on people?

    • ever heard of "RoundUp"GeorgesII
    • You tell me why. My guess is: money. Everyone uses light bulbs, it is a market worth billions.raf