• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

I am sure man made global warming fairy tale believers do the same thing. This is why I find it amusing when these man made global warming fairy tale religious zealots whine and cry how big oil is funding some anti-man made global warming fairy tale study.

Could you be anymore of a partisan hack?

As I already said: I'm against secret lobbying in a democratic society. Government bribery needs limitations applied, including that every dollar should be traceable so we know who is behind it.
 
Could you be anymore of a partisan hack?

As I already said: I'm against secret lobbying in a democratic society. Government bribery needs limitations applied, including that every dollar should be traceable so we know who is behind it.

Ok, so dress every congress critter in NASCAR style jump suits with sponsor patches so we know who bought them. I can see that.....
 
It really is no more, or less than what the MSM, and other outlets do on a daily basis to right leaning sources, and stories....The press is largely unbelievable on both sides of the spectrum these days. On a scale of 1-10 I'd say it was misleading at a level of maybe 2.

It said no warming. There was warming.

Well, there really is a question about where these data collecting sensors are placed, as well as you explaining what in the world science has to do with discrediting dissent?
That's not what the "climategate" emails were about. The bloggers tried to tell you it was referring to a decline in global temperatures that was being hidden. It wasn't. And since the issue being discussed was actually published in previous papers, even calling it "hidden" is quite a stretch. I, for one, wouldn't publish information or questions I wanted "hidden." The supposed "suppression of peer review?" The emails quite clearly indicate the reason behind trying to keep a particular paper out of a particular report: It was deeply flawed. Trenberth's "travesty" that they "couldn't account for the lack of warming?" Not a hidden opinion either, he published a paper too. And the response emails indicate this was his personal opinion, because several of the other scientists basically said "check in on this other research by these folks. We can account for it."

But none of these things are made apparent to you in the blogs, on Rush Limbaugh's show, etc. They counted on the fact that you'd never, ever check for yourself.

Do we really want to cling to theory that has many holes poked into it, solely to put into place control measures over peoples lives including everything from taxes, to how cool, or warm they keep their house, to what they purchase, to taking land, to telling them what kind of toilet, or light bulb they can buy for God's sake? Come on man....

Many of the "holes" are either fabricated or inaccurate, and you're grossly exaggerating what is being proposed.

There are definitely uncertainties, but that's the case in literally every scientific field.
 
Last edited:
It said no warming. There was warming.


That's not what the "climategate" emails were about. The bloggers tried to tell you it was referring to a decline in global temperatures that was being hidden. It wasn't. And since the issue being discussed was actually published in previous papers, even calling it "hidden" is quite a stretch. I, for one, wouldn't publish information or questions I wanted "hidden." The supposed "suppression of peer review?" The emails quite clearly indicate the reason behind trying to keep a particular paper out of a particular report: It was deeply flawed. Trenberth's "travesty" that they "couldn't account for the lack of warming?" Not a hidden opinion either, he published a paper too. And the response emails indicate this was his personal opinion, because several of the other scientists basically said "check in on this other research by these folks. We can account for it."

But none of these things are made apparent to you in the blogs, on Rush Limbaugh's show, etc. They counted on the fact that you'd never, ever check for yourself.



Many of the "holes" are either fabricated or inaccurate, and you're grossly exaggerating what is being proposed.

There are definitely uncertainties, but that's the case in literally every scientific field.


Well, like I said it has been discussed so many times that I am not going through it again...But suffice to say that the moment GW went from science, to global political wealth redistribution, it ceased to be science anymore.
 
Could you be anymore of a partisan hack?

As I already said: I'm against secret lobbying in a democratic society. Government bribery needs limitations applied, including that every dollar should be traceable so we know who is behind it.

The partisan hack is the one presenting the article as though its only anti-man made global warming fairy tale studies that are funded by those who do not believe in the man made global warming fairy tale. Man made global warming fairy tale studies are funded by people who believe in man made global warming fairy tale religion, but yet we are led to believe that these people are somehow unbiased.
 
Well, like I said it has been discussed so many times that I am not going through it again...But suffice to say that the moment GW went from science, to global political wealth redistribution, it ceased to be science anymore.

You brought up East Angalia, not me. Now you run away from discussing it.

The science goes on. Pretend all you like, though.
 
The partisan hack is the one presenting the article as though its only anti-man made global warming fairy tale studies that are funded by those who do not believe in the man made global warming fairy tale. Man made global warming fairy tale studies are funded by people who believe in man made global warming fairy tale religion, but yet we are led to believe that these people are somehow unbiased.

Einstein got paid by people who believe in physics.
 
You brought up East Angalia, not me. Now you run away from discussing it.

The science goes on. Pretend all you like, though.

Well, if AGW is so set in concrete, and so widely accepted, then I am sure the most basic tenant of scientific theory is easily obtained for us to see in peer reviewed documentation, and that is reproduction of the theory in a practical laboratory controlled setting. Show me the study that proves that man made Co2 is effecting the internal temp of the planet.
 
Well, if AGW is so set in concrete, and so widely accepted, then I am sure the most basic tenant of scientific theory is easily obtained for us to see in peer reviewed documentation, and that is reproduction of the theory in a practical laboratory controlled setting. Show me the study that proves that man made Co2 is effecting the internal temp of the planet.

Science isn't done with single laboratory experiments. I'll have to show you dozens, if not hundreds of papers. Because thats how science works.

I can easily demonstrate:
1) Greenhouse gases absorb a certain area of the EM spectrum. Trivial physics, long since proven.
2) This is the same radiation the earth emits. Also trivial.
3) When the absorption of this radiation increases, surface temperature increases. (Hell, you can try that at home with two sealed boxes and a co2 canister)
4) This effect is observed in the real world. Outgoing radiation at this wavelength is decreasing, while downward radiation increases, indicating it is reflecting back down as expected.
5) The amount of said radiation reflecting downwards is changing in proportion to the increase in greenhouse gases.
6) The increase in co2 is a result of burning fossil fuels, as opposed to respiration or volcanic activity and whatnot. This is demonstrable due to the isotope ratios being different from burnt fossil fuel carbon.

So all this tells you there definitely is a non-zero impact on global temperatures. I'm sure that's no surprise. The far trickier question is how much temperature change, and what impacts there might be from that change. It's a complicated question, so the answer will be complicated and there will always be a range of uncertainty. I could post a hundred papers, can I expect you'll read them?
 
Science isn't done with single laboratory experiments. I'll have to show you dozens, if not hundreds of papers. Because thats how science works.

I can easily demonstrate:
1) Greenhouse gases absorb a certain area of the EM spectrum. Trivial physics, long since proven.
2) This is the same radiation the earth emits. Also trivial.
3) When the absorption of this radiation increases, surface temperature increases. (Hell, you can try that at home with two sealed boxes and a co2 canister)
4) This effect is observed in the real world. Outgoing radiation at this wavelength is decreasing, while downward radiation increases, indicating it is reflecting back down as expected.
5) The amount of said radiation reflecting downwards is changing in proportion to the increase in greenhouse gases.
6) The increase in co2 is a result of burning fossil fuels, as opposed to respiration or volcanic activity and whatnot. This is demonstrable due to the isotope ratios being different from burnt fossil fuel carbon.

So all this tells you there definitely is a non-zero impact on global temperatures. I'm sure that's no surprise. The far trickier question is how much temperature change, and what impacts there might be from that change. It's a complicated question, so the answer will be complicated and there will always be a range of uncertainty. I could post a hundred papers, can I expect you'll read them?


Are there other contributors that are more detrimental to global temp, say water vapor?

What is the impact of volcano's on GW, in relation to man's contribution if any?
 
Are there other contributors that are more detrimental to global temp, say water vapor?

What is the impact of volcano's on GW, in relation to man's contribution if any?

According to the USGS, quite small. Human CO2 emissions are much higher. In fact, major eruptions have a temporary cooling effect due to the increased reflection of high altitude ash.

Water vapor is the biggest contributor to the total greenhouse effect. However, the CHANGE in the greenhouse effect is being driven by co2. (And to a smaller extent, methane and some others)

To head off the objection, nobody is saying "greenhouse effect is bad." Without it, we'd be a ball of ice. It's the change in the greenhouse effect causing a change in temperature that is concerning. If the ocean were to spontaneously spit out its dissolved co2, that would also be troublesome. (and probably a lot harder to deal with... Put a big tarp over the whole thing??)
 
According to the USGS, quite small. Human CO2 emissions are much higher. In fact, major eruptions have a temporary cooling effect due to the increased reflection of high altitude ash.

Water vapor is the biggest contributor to the total greenhouse effect. However, the CHANGE in the greenhouse effect is being driven by co2. (And to a smaller extent, methane and some others)

To head off the objection, nobody is saying "greenhouse effect is bad." Without it, we'd be a ball of ice. It's the change in the greenhouse effect causing a change in temperature that is concerning. If the ocean were to spontaneously spit out its dissolved co2, that would also be troublesome. (and probably a lot harder to deal with... Put a big tarp over the whole thing??)

Ok, and if these hypothisis' are true, what effect will taxing my use of electricity, or gas to high heaven, while still allowing me to use it have on this? Nothing. But a picking of my pocket.
 
The partisan hack is the one presenting the article as though its only anti-man made global warming fairy tale studies that are funded by those who do not believe in the man made global warming fairy tale. Man made global warming fairy tale studies are funded by people who believe in man made global warming fairy tale religion, but yet we are led to believe that these people are somehow unbiased.

Don't blame others for your behavior. Take responsibility.
 
Einstein got paid by people who believe in physics.

True. But no one ever went you can't trust Einstein, his studies are funded by such and such company that allegedly cares about physics(the way many made global warming fairy tale believes act as though big oil give a rats ass about global warming and climate change in general,as though billions of people are just going to stop using oil if global warming is caused by people instead of nature) or his studies are funded by people who believe the same **** he does as though that is somehow a disqualifier. But studies that contradict the man made global warming fairy tale religion are dismissed as biased, even though all pro man made global warming fairy tale studies are funded by people who believe in the man made global warming fairy tale religion.
 
Don't blame others for your behavior. Take responsibility.

What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China? My behavior doesn't have anything to do with this thread.
 
Ok, and if these hypothisis' are true, what effect will taxing my use of electricity, or gas to high heaven, while still allowing me to use it have on this? Nothing. But a picking of my pocket.

1) Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. Nuclear, wind, and solar don't emit CO2 during operations.
2) The revenue can be put towards building electrical infrastructure for the above.
3) Consumption of a product actually is affected by its price.
 
True. But no one ever went you can't trust Einstein, his studies are funded by such and such company that allegedly cares about physics(the way many made global warming fairy tale believes act as though big oil give a rats ass about global warming and climate change in general,as though billions of people are just going to stop using oil if global warming is caused by people instead of nature) or his studies are funded by people who believe the same **** he does as though that is somehow a disqualifier. But studies that contradict the man made global warming fairy tale religion are dismissed as biased, even though all pro man made global warming fairy tale studies are funded by people who believe in the man made global warming fairy tale religion.

Bad science is dismissed for being bad science. Good science isn't dismissed. Take a look at skeptics like Svensmark or Friis-Christensen. They aren't just dismissed.
 
1) Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. Nuclear, wind, and solar don't emit CO2 during operations.
2) The revenue can be put towards building electrical infrastructure for the above.
3) Consumption of a product actually is affected by its price.

Hydroelectric (from rivers and tides) is clean too. ;)
 
1) Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. Nuclear, wind, and solar don't emit CO2 during operations.

However, none of these are developed enough to take the place of our traditional energy. And the outlook is that none of the will be in our lifetimes. So, choking off access to traditional energy in the hopes that another will magically over night be able to take its place before we are able to account for reliability, or stability is silly.

2) The revenue can be put towards building electrical infrastructure for the above.

Cart before the horse no? So, can I assume this is an admission that the current pricing of things like gas, electric, deisel fuel is all a tax for building what you think will be the fuel of the future? Don't you see how backwards this is, and how a policy like this is hurting the poor, and middle classes? Food is higher, goods are higher, poverty is up, and for what? So you libs can tax the living crap out of us on a hypothetical maybe? That's crap.

3) Consumption of a product actually is affected by its price.

And there is that control aspect...I wish liberals would stay the hell out of my life, and what I do.
 
It seems pretty clear those who head up the study of AGW are predisposed to it's existence.

Really, NOTHING leaves this earth and overtime is recycled and re-used.

The water you drink, Recycled, the molecules of your body, Recycled, the O2 you breathe, recycled the Co2 you exhale, recycled.

Hell on a cellular level no one is over 10 years old give or take.

Your not going to convince the majority of society when you combine "objective" data with a carbon selling scam that the world is in danger.

Even if we could damage it it would be short term.
 
I wonder if George Carlin was on the payroll....?

 
However, none of these are developed enough to take the place of our traditional energy. And the outlook is that none of the will be in our lifetimes. So, choking off access to traditional energy in the hopes that another will magically over night be able to take its place before we are able to account for reliability, or stability is silly.



Cart before the horse no? So, can I assume this is an admission that the current pricing of things like gas, electric, deisel fuel is all a tax for building what you think will be the fuel of the future? Don't you see how backwards this is, and how a policy like this is hurting the poor, and middle classes? Food is higher, goods are higher, poverty is up, and for what? So you libs can tax the living crap out of us on a hypothetical maybe? That's crap.



And there is that control aspect...I wish liberals would stay the hell out of my life, and what I do.

Ahh, I forget sometimes that conservatives tend to be absolutist thinkers, so that any outside influence counts as "control."

If that's your belief, every single aspect of your life is already controlled by big scary government. In fact, your consumption of gasoline is already under government control because there's gasoline taxes. Your choice in airline flights is controlled because there's a tax on airline tickets. Your very employment is under government control because there are income and payroll taxes. It works the other way too. You get tax breaks for mortgage payments, having children, etc. Therefore the government controls how many children you have, right?

If you think nuclear power isn't ready to take over baseline generation, I don't know what to tell you. Because you don't live on the same planet I do.
 
I wonder if George Carlin was on the payroll....?



I don't give a crap what happens to penguins. I give a crap what happens to corn, because I eat corn.
 
Back
Top Bottom