• 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!

U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'[W;96]

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

jmotivator said:
Seimens, a "leader" in Green Tech, funds millions in climate research annually.
Click to expand...

And? What does this prove?

The climate scientists like James Hansen have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in awards and speaking fees for advocating government solutions to the problem they are defining (nice work if you can get it!).
Click to expand...

And? What does this prove?

Al Gore spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.
Click to expand...

And? What does this prove?

Richard Branson spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.
Click to expand...

And? What does this prove?

To hear you people talk none of the billions of dollars spent annually on climate research ever goes to a single scientist...
Click to expand...

Jeepers creepers, this is not the argument. Of course millions are spent funding research. That is not my argument.

Once again, like a broken record:

For years, I've read that climate scientists have taken money for research to push foward an agenda created by the donor and not by science itself. Not once has anyone ever offered any evidence of these supposed sinister dealings. NOT ONCE. Yet, unbelievably, it seems that the deniers universally belive this myth. Why do you think that is?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Let's see, how do we scare 6 billion people into accepting a global tax?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
And? What does this prove?



And? What does this prove?



And? What does this prove?



And? What does this prove?



Jeepers creepers, this is not the argument. Of course millions are spent funding research. That is not my argument.

Once again, like a broken record:

For years, I've read that climate scientists have taken money for research to push foward an agenda created by the donor and not by science itself. Not once has anyone ever offered any evidence of these supposed sinister dealings. NOT ONCE. Yet, unbelievably, it seems that the deniers universally belive this myth. Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...


*sigh* How much money do you suppose would be spent on climate studies if there was no perceived problem?

Hint: In 1988 The total spent on climate science was about $100 million in the US. It is now over $8 billion... or roughly a 8000% increase over 25 years. Do you suppose that climate scientists are eager to slash their budgets back to "no threat" level?
 
Montecresto said:
(Reuters) - A United Nations panel of experts met on Monday to review a draft report that raises the probability that climate change is man-made to 95 percent and warns of ever more extreme weather unless governments take strong action.

Scientists and officials from more than 110 governments began a four-day meeting in Stockholm to edit and approve the 31-page draft that also tries to explain a "hiatus" in the pace of global warming this century despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Click to expand...
I read the first 5 words and immediately thought oxymoron.

I can't wait to read their edits of the report and explanation of the "prophetic error" discovered in their religious doctrine.
 
EdwinWillers said:
I read the first 5 words and immediately thought oxymoron.

I can't wait to read their edits of the report and explanation of the "prophetic error" discovered in their religious doctrine.
Click to expand...

I've always enjoyed reading science fiction. Would this qualify? :mrgreen:
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Lord of Planar said:
Molecule per molecular is an illusion created by the alarmist. It is a metric that should never be used. It is not representative an any realistic output.

If that is what you meant, your 10 times is still invalid, as CH4, at current levels, is more than 30 times stronger.

Why don't you just admit it. These alarmist numbers are silly.
Click to expand...

Get a hold of this article, criticize it, and then we will talk:

Christianson, G. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200 year story of global warming. Walker and Company
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

jmotivator said:
*sigh* How much money do you suppose would be spent on climate studies if there was no perceived problem?

Hint: In 1988 The total spent on climate science was about $100 million in the US. It is now over $8 billion... or roughly a 8000% increase over 25 years. Do you suppose that climate scientists are eager to slash their budgets back to "no threat" level?
Click to expand...

:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal

I don't even know why I am still trying to get you to understand this simple, yet asinine, distortion of fact that deniers love to spew. One more time...

People donate to cancer, AIDS, and other issues (such as environmental causes). They do it because they are either directly affected or they believe it's a noble cause. That said, their donation should not affect results and as far as I know, they don't. However some here at DP (in fact many on the denier side) have no issues claiming that their funding comes with a clause. A clause to skew results so they can directly benefit. As an example, you claim Seimens is a green company. Do you think they fund research by paying off climate scientists to skew results so they can sell more solar panels? And/or, do you think climate scientists worldwide have unilaterally schemed together to make up this silly think called Global Warming/Climate Change so they can get money for their research and become stinking rich and famous?
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal

I don't even know why I am still trying to get you to understand this simple, yet asinine, distortion of fact that deniers love to spew. One more time...

People donate to cancer, AIDS, and other issues (such as environmental causes). They do it because they are either directly affected or they believe it's a noble cause. That said, their donation should not affect results and as far as I know, they don't. However some here at DP (in fact many on the denier side) have no issues claiming that their funding comes with a clause. A clause to skew results so they can directly benefit. As an example, you claim Seimens is a green company. Do you think they fund research by paying off climate scientists to skew results so they can sell more solar panels? And/or, do you think climate scientists worldwide have unilaterally schemed together to make up this silly think called Global Warming/Climate Change so they can get money for their research and become stinking rich and famous?
Click to expand...

I see, so those reports that you label as sourcing out of denial, is perfectly fine to disregard because it doesn't reach the conclusion you find accepted, and to bring in whom their research funding comes from never crossed your keyboard eh?

Yeah ok.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal

I don't even know why I am still trying to get you to understand this simple, yet asinine, distortion of fact that deniers love to spew. One more time...

People donate to cancer, AIDS, and other issues (such as environmental causes). They do it because they are either directly affected or they believe it's a noble cause. That said, their donation should not affect results and as far as I know, they don't. However some here at DP (in fact many on the denier side) have no issues claiming that their funding comes with a clause. A clause to skew results so they can directly benefit. As an example, you claim Seimens is a green company. Do you think they fund research by paying off climate scientists to skew results so they can sell more solar panels? And/or, do you think climate scientists worldwide have unilaterally schemed together to make up this silly think called Global Warming/Climate Change so they can get money for their research and become stinking rich and famous?
Click to expand...

Do you apply this logic for research that was paid for by corporations?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal

I don't even know why I am still trying to get you to understand this simple, yet asinine, distortion of fact that deniers love to spew. One more time...

People donate to cancer, AIDS, and other issues (such as environmental causes). They do it because they are either directly affected or they believe it's a noble cause. That said, their donation should not affect results and as far as I know, they don't. However some here at DP (in fact many on the denier side) have no issues claiming that their funding comes with a clause. A clause to skew results so they can directly benefit. As an example, you claim Seimens is a green company. Do you think they fund research by paying off climate scientists to skew results so they can sell more solar panels? And/or, do you think climate scientists worldwide have unilaterally schemed together to make up this silly think called Global Warming/Climate Change so they can get money for their research and become stinking rich and famous?
Click to expand...


First, there is no "unilateral" in climate science, you are just making the bogus consensus argument in a different way.

I believe Seimens funds research that it believes will support its bottom line. But this brings up an interesting question: What would you say of a skeptical scientist who is funded by, say, the coal industry?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change, then to "Obama", and then just say it went on vacation. That way if anyone questions you, you can just call them racist and point out Bush went on vacations too.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

jmotivator said:
First, there is no "unilateral" in climate science, you are just making the bogus consensus argument in a different way.
Click to expand...

It's not bogus.

I believe Seimens funds research that it believes will support its bottom line.
Click to expand...

Well **** me sideways until Sunday, what a convincing argument!1!!!!111!! Heck, why should "I believe" not be taken seriously?!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!111111


But this brings up an interesting question: What would you say of a skeptical scientist who is funded by, say, the coal industry?
Click to expand...

The coal/oil industries are known for propaganda. Think tanks with an agenda, like "The Heritage Foundation" are known for pushing their policies. Here's a link with a good collection of groups and think tanks that are big players Climate Change denial machine:

Petroleum and Propaganda: The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry :: Monthly Review
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
It's not bogus.



Well **** me sideways until Sunday, what a convincing argument!1!!!!111!! Heck, why should "I believe" not be taken seriously?!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!111111

The coal/oil industries are known for propaganda. Think tanks with an agenda, like "The Heritage Foundation" are known for pushing their policies. Here's a link with a good collection of groups and think tanks that are big players Climate Change denial machine:

Petroleum and Propaganda: The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry :: Monthly Review
Click to expand...


HAH! How did I know you would make that specious argument?

Twist: Seimens manufactures coal fired power plants.... Your head asplode.

You are simply a biased observer and have proved yourself to be so. You are quick to dismiss any conflict of interest on the side of Green technology ecause you assume them to be green and therefor virtuous, and then you assume that a traditional energy company is oure evil and untrustworthy.. even though they are the SAME FRACKING COMPANY*..

There is no breaking through your entrenched biases.

Notice that your linked book is making ominous insinuations of nefarious acts by Exxon Mobile because they spent $16million over the course of 7 years on organizations that aren't cheerleaders for AGW. This may seem like a lot until you consider that the US government alone spend $1.7 million a day, every day, 365 days on AGW R&D.. so they match 7 years of Exxon Mobile funding in just under 10 days.

And tat is just the US Government. Not counting the UN, or Europe, or the legion of private funding sources like Greenpeace and Sierra Club.

* - See what I did their?!:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Got a link? I've been looking for that!
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't. It has probably been discontinues almost immediately after available anyway.

One moment...

I just zipped the folder to 125,847 KB. I just use a yahoo email account and don't know what my limit is. I can try sending it to you, or is there a place I can upload it here?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
Get a hold of this article, criticize it, and then we will talk:

Christianson, G. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200 year story of global warming. Walker and Company
Click to expand...

Found the first chapter available online. Didn't peak my interest at all.

I assume you own a copy. How about telling me where it disagrees with me and how. I assume you disagree with my points.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Sorry, I don't. It has probably been discontinues almost immediately after available anyway.

One moment...

I just zipped the folder to 125,847 KB. I just use a yahoo email account and don't know what my limit is. I can try sending it to you, or is there a place I can upload it here?
Click to expand...

Depending on the format, something like drop box or google docs might work.

edit: is this the one?
Access: The “leaked” IPCC AR5 draft Summary for Policymakers | Watts Up With That?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

jmotivator said:
*sigh* How much money do you suppose would be spent on climate studies if there was no perceived problem?

Hint: In 1988 The total spent on climate science was about $100 million in the US. It is now over $8 billion... or roughly a 8000% increase over 25 years. Do you suppose that climate scientists are eager to slash their budgets back to "no threat" level?
Click to expand...
Don't forget profit.

Let's not forget that companies like Seimens, that make huge profits making wind power generation, solar, etc. It's natural that they want to support individuals (with grants) who will produce studies that promotes their products.

You warmers claim big oil are those who deny AGW... Follow the money, and see who promotes the AGW agenda, and why.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
Give me an example.
Click to expand...



Middleground said:
It's not bogus.



Well **** me sideways until Sunday, what a convincing argument!1!!!!111!! Heck, why should "I believe" not be taken seriously?!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!111111




The coal/oil industries are known for propaganda. Think tanks with an agenda, like "The Heritage Foundation" are known for pushing their policies. Here's a link with a good collection of groups and think tanks that are big players Climate Change denial machine:

Petroleum and Propaganda: The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry :: Monthly Review
Click to expand...

You've provided your own example.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Lord of Planar said:
Found the first chapter available online. Didn't peak my interest at all.

I assume you own a copy. How about telling me where it disagrees with me and how. I assume you disagree with my points.
Click to expand...

Well briefly it mentions that carbon is more widely spread than methane. But as I said, molecule for molecule methane is 10 times worse than carbon. I based my position on this assertion. Hence if you want to criticize my position you need to deal with that study first.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
Well briefly it mentions that carbon is more widely spread than methane. But as I said, molecule for molecule methane is 10 times worse than carbon. I based my position on this assertion. Hence if you want to criticize my position you need to deal with that study first.
Click to expand...
I already addressed this, but it looks like the problems experienced at this forum deleted that post.

I already dealt with how that is wrong anyway. It's obvious you are having someone else tell you what to believe.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Lord of Planar said:
I already addressed this, but it looks like the problems experienced at this forum deleted that post.
Click to expand...

I am trying to make people aware of other AGW gases like Methane. Prior to most of the posts here being deleted, did you read that other article of Jorgenson that I told you about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom