Jump to content
Political Forums
Sign in to follow this  
jbg

Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not

Recommended Posts

TimG    17
So, you're telling me I have to itemize all the money that think tanks and lobby groups get from oil and coal companies, while you have no proof that Al Gore really is going to spend 300 million on an ad campaign....you call him a shyster and a liar, yet when it's convenient for your rhetoric, you'll take his word on it!
I am saying you have no credibility so if you want to make a claim then you better back it up. If you say that Al Gore didn't spend the 300 million then provide some evidence. If you say that oil companies spend millions funding climate sceptics then provide some evidence.
Did you read Jeffrey Sinclair's Counterpunch report that a lot of that Sourcewatch article's information is based on? You would have discovered that Big Oil is also one of the funders for Big Green:
I made the point that oil companies spend a lot of money supporting green inititiates in my first post. You are simply confirming this. But it does not change the fact that Big Green still outspends Big Oil (where Big Oil refers to only the money being spent on climate scepticism). Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avro    0

This has to be one of the DUMBEST post ever!

Just a sampling of people who has done climate science research.By way of the "peer reviewed" process.It is from the list you irrationally disparaged:

Roy Spencer, University of Alabama

Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2

Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1

S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1

That is enough to prove your post was dead on arrival.

Talk about dumb.....have you ever really looked into the consensus.....ever?

I frickin doubt it.....I will help you if you are interested otherwise enjoy the flat earth.

Psst....btw Singer and the Idso's are not climate scientist's.

So two out of thousands.....you win....NOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sunsettommy    0

Talk about dumb.....have you ever really looked into the consensus.....ever?

I frickin doubt it.....I will help you if you are interested otherwise enjoy the flat earth.

Psst....btw Singer and the Idso's are not climate scientist's.

So two out of thousands.....you win....NOT.

Your fact free post is noted for what it is.

Nothing.

Fred Singer Bio is HERE.From Wikipedia:

Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is the author or editor of several books including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.[2]

Singer has had a varied career, serving in the armed forces, government, and academia. He designed mines for the U.S. Navy during World War II, before completing his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in 1948 and working as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London.[3] He became a leading figure in early space research, was involved in the development of earth observation satellites, and in 1962 established the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center. He was the founding dean of the University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1964, and held several government positions, including deputy assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, and chief scientist for the Department of Transportation. He held a professorship with the University of Virginia from 1971 until 1994, and with George Mason University until 2000.[4]

bolding my emphasis

Unusually prominent Scientist.

Not convinced yet?

Try Roy Spencer.From HERE.From Wikipedia:

Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. Spencer's research suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.[1][2]

bolding mine

I suggest that you slink away,before the troll master finds you.

You are really ignorant.

Edited by sunsettommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sunsettommy    0
Talk about dumb.....have you ever really looked into the consensus.....ever?

Yeah about 22 years ago.When the first mutterings of the consensus claptrap first showed up.

It is worthless then and it is worthless now.

Try the idea of following validated empirical science research instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sunsettommy    0

More about Fred Singer:

1951: Design of early satellites

Singer's MOUSE satellite, which he designed in the early 1950's.[14]

The New York Times wrote in 1962 that Singer was one of the first scientists to urge the launching of earth satellites for scientific observation during the 1950s.[15] He designed the first instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone, and in 1951 or 1952 designed the MOUSE—the Minimal Orbital Unmanned Satellite, Earth. It weighed 100 pounds (45 kg), and according to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum contained Geiger counters for measuring cosmic rays, photo cells for scanning the earth, telemetry electronics for sending data back to earth, a magnetic data storage device, and rudimentary solar energy cells. The Baltimore News Post reported in 1957 that had Singer's arguments about the need for satellites been heeded, the U.S. could have beaten Russia by launching the first earth satellite.[14] He also invented the backscatter photometer ozone-monitoring instrument for early versions of weather satellites.[16

emphasis mine

AND,

1962: National Weather Center and University of Miami

In 1962, on leave from the university, Singer was named as the first director of meteorological satellite services for the National Weather Satellite Center, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and directed a program for using satellites to forecast the weather.[15

LINK

Edited by sunsettommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sunsettommy    0
sunsettommy    0

Here is another rebuttal against the Exxon funding claims:

Rebuttal to "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"

Excerpt:

When confronted with the irrefutable fact that an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skeptic arguments, desperate alarmists like Christian will always turn to whatever smear they can come up with, in this case the tired old one that the authors were "funded" by oil companies. What is falsely implied is that these scientists are corrupt and oil companies are paying them to be skeptical. This is an easy argument to prove, you simply need to show that these scientists changed their position on AGW after receiving a monetary donation from an oil company. Alarmists never show this because they cannot. These scientists all held a skeptical position prior to receiving any monetary donations. Any monetary donations these scientists received was because the donor agreed with the scientific position that the scientist already held. Alarmists cannot comprehend this irrefutable logic because they emotionally refuse to accept that there are credentialed scientists who do not share their beliefs.

All of Christian's lies are completely debunked in this article,

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

Edited by sunsettommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avro    0

Yeah about 22 years ago.When the first mutterings of the consensus claptrap first showed up.

It is worthless then and it is worthless now.

Try the idea of following validated empirical science research instead.

Just request an education and I will replyand stop pretending you know the facts ya stupid ass hammer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your fact free post is noted for what it is.

Nothing.

Fred Singer Bio is HERE.From Wikipedia:

bolding my emphasis

Unusually prominent Scientist.

Not convinced yet?

Try Roy Spencer.From HERE.From Wikipedia:

bolding mine

I suggest that you slink away,before the troll master finds you.

You are really ignorant.

Wow.

So now your argument is that it's all bunk because there are some "eminent scientists" who say so!

If that is your argument (and it now is) how can you account for the "eminent scientists"--of far greater numbers--who argue roughly the opposite points?

You are using an argument from authority....but this very method undermines your own assertions. Good work. Nice job.

It's as if I used Howard Zinn to "prove" that all war heroes are anti-war.

It would appear you're actually a mole determined to undermine the "sceptics'" credibility, by offering intentionally bad arguments which in fact point in the opposite direction of what you appear to be arguing.

Edited by bloodyminded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oleg Bach    0

LOL,

how about dropping the CO2 is pollution claptrap.And concentrate on REAL environmental concerns instead?

Those that want material prosperity should be forced to clean up after themselves - But that is impossible - Look at China...what's the point of being prosperous if you can not breathe.....am I the only one who sees that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sunsettommy    0

Bloodyminded incredibly writes:

Wow.

So now your argument is that it's all bunk because there are some "eminent scientists" who say so!

If that is your argument (and it now is) how can you account for the "eminent scientists"--of far greater numbers--who argue roughly the opposite points?

You are using an argument from authority....but this very method undermines your own assertions. Good work. Nice job.

It's as if I used Howard Zinn to "prove" that all war heroes are anti-war.

It would appear you're actually a mole determined to undermine the "sceptics'" credibility, by offering intentionally bad arguments which in fact point in the opposite direction of what you appear to be arguing.

To help you catch up in the thread:

Post 223 Avro wrote:

Wow, there's a shock.

Signed by zero climate scientitsts.

Like going to your mechanic for a second opinion on protate cancer.

My reply at post 225:

This has to be one of the DUMBEST post ever!

Just a sampling of people who has done climate science research.By way of the "peer reviewed" process.It is from the list you irrationally disparaged:

Roy Spencer, University of Alabama

Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2

Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1

S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1

That is enough to prove your post was dead on arrival.

In one easy post.I was able to show that a selected few I chose are indeed climate scientists and have had peer reviewed climate science papers published.

But Avro does not when to stop making a fool of himself with his next post to me,228:

Talk about dumb.....have you ever really looked into the consensus.....ever?

I frickin doubt it.....I will help you if you are interested otherwise enjoy the flat earth.

Psst....btw Singer and the Idso's are not climate scientist's.

So two out of thousands.....you win....NOT.

Therefore I then went to the mat by irrefutably showing that they are indeed climate scientists.

In several postings 229,231,232,233.I was able to show that both Fred Singer and Roy Spencer are climate scientists.

You are badly mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sunsettommy    0

Those that want material prosperity should be forced to clean up after themselves - But that is impossible - Look at China...what's the point of being prosperous if you can not breathe.....am I the only one who sees that?

???

You write confusingly.

CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere.It has no possibility of being an environmental pollutant.

We have no problem breathing.What you exhale is CO2,that is well above the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Wikipedia

The permanent gases in gas we exhale are roughly 4% to 5% more carbon dioxide and 4% to 5% less oxygen than was inhaled. Additionally vapors and trace gases are present: 5% water vapor, several parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, 1 part per million (ppm) of ammonia and less than 1 ppm of acetone, methanol, ethanol (unless ethanol has been ingested, in which case much higher concentrations would occur in the breath, cf. Breathalyzer) and other volatile organic compounds. The exact amount of exhaled oxygen and carbon dioxide varies according to the fitness, energy expenditure and diet of that particular person.

I think you need to think things through more clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloodyminded incredibly writes:

To help you catch up in the thread:

Post 223 Avro wrote:

My reply at post 225:

In one easy post.I was able to show that a selected few I chose are indeed climate scientists and have had peer reviewed climate science papers published.

But Avro does not when to stop making a fool of himself with his next post to me,228:

Therefore I then went to the mat by irrefutably showing that they are indeed climate scientists.

In several postings 229,231,232,233.I was able to show that both Fred Singer and Roy Spencer are climate scientists.

You are badly mistaken.

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. You don't count on climate scientists for your "knowledge," but on someone with a bachelor's degree in molecular biology, who has since worked for Shell Oil and the PR industry, as a "professional speaker."

I bow to your impeccable sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sunsettommy    0

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. You don't count on climate scientists for your "knowledge," but on someone with a bachelor's degree in molecular biology, who has since worked for Shell Oil and the PR industry, as a "professional speaker."

I bow to your impeccable sources.

bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You are just like Avro who seems to prefer babbling.Than to make rational,coherent comments.

I have no idea what particular person you seem to be referring to.Since it comes across as a generic person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You are just like Avro who seems to prefer babbling.Than to make rational,coherent comments.

I have no idea what particular person you seem to be referring to.Since it comes across as a generic person.

Hey, man, you're the one who linked us to her site.

You don't even know who your own sources are?

And so I can take it for granted--yes?--that you haven't bothered to read the refutations of her "bullet-proof points," as she arrogantly terms them. If you don't read the debates and refutations of the sources you use (an elementary "really should do" for anyone honestly wishing to understand any serious issue), you evince a religious faith in your stance. Awesome.

Edited by bloodyminded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sunsettommy    0

Hey, man, you're the one who linked us to her site.

You don't even know who your own sources are?

I have posted more than a dozen links in this thread alone.

Is it so hard for YOU to post the reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TimG    17

These battles over "lists of scientists" are rather silly.

The fact is a majority of climate scientists buy into the political agenda that accompanies the alarm. A minority do not. The majority have not proven their case - they acknowledge that and they only say we know enough to "act now". The trouble is climate scientists are not qualified to determine is "acting now" is actually economically and technically feasible. That is job for economists, engineers and politicians. So the political positions of climate scientists is largely irrelevent when determining what to do (if anything).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted more than a dozen links in this thread alone.

Is it so hard for YOU to post the reference?

Joanne Nova.

Clearly you don't bother to look into any of your own sources. Maybe you didn't even read it, who can say?

Edited by bloodyminded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×