• 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!

Green/communist's method and goal

Helix said:
i don't care about your stupid bet. it's not possible to manipulate the reality of climate change by putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la."
Click to expand...

Methinks his cheese done slid off his cracker.

:screwy
 
Jack Hays said:
My point is the fossil fuel industry is not in the climate debate.
Click to expand...

They are funding every denier with the least bit of scientific credentials they can find to keep as many of us as possible blind to how much they have to lose when we stop using their toxic products. It's working well with you, for sure. Look at the l8nk I gave you above. Virtually every major denialist group and "think tank" is being funded at least in part by one or more oil companies.

How can you NOT know that?
 
Jack Hays said:
They are not connected to any of the most significant skeptic sites or scientists.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are, and I've provided you with ample proof of that, both here and on previous threads. How deep in denial are you?

Denial is an acronym: Don't Even kNow I Am Lying.
 
longview said:
For the most part, people and scientist who are skeptical, are skeptical for good cause.
The proponents of man caused catastrophic climate change, want to make quite a few changes
which will affect peoples quality of life, and limit peoples energy choices.
The bases of the proposed limits on how people choose to live is based on nothing
more than modeled outputs which seem to use unrealistic assumptions for their inputs.
I realize this is all very abstract, but consider that homes in South Australia are being disconnected from the
electrical grid because they cannot pay the much higher electrical bills.
Electricity Bills in South Australia and Other Australian States Skyrocket - IER
Not having electricity is not really all that abstract, and would impact most peoples lifestyles.
Click to expand...

Yes, dealing with climate change would be expensive and would impact a lot of people's lifestyles.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's a labor of love (and truth).
Click to expand...

Love= Yes, I believe that you and your buddies have a great big boner for these lies.
Truth= Yes, I believe you really believe the steaming pile of parrot droppings, most Birch Society types are true believers.
 
longview said:
For the most part, people and scientist who are skeptical, are skeptical for good cause.
The proponents of man caused catastrophic climate change, want to make quite a few changes
which will affect peoples quality of life, and limit peoples energy choices.
The bases of the proposed limits on how people choose to live is based on nothing
more than modeled outputs which seem to use unrealistic assumptions for their inputs.
I realize this is all very abstract, but consider that homes in South Australia are being disconnected from the
electrical grid because they cannot pay the much higher electrical bills.
Electricity Bills in South Australia and Other Australian States Skyrocket - IER
Not having electricity is not really all that abstract, and would impact most peoples lifestyles.
Click to expand...

The IER is the successor organization to the Institute for Humane Studies of Texas, an advocacy group established in 1984 by billionaire businessman and political donor Charles Koch.
After failing to pay the Texas state franchise tax, IHST lost its charter in 1989, and was later rebranded as the Institute for Energy Research, or IER, under the presidency of Robert L. Bradley Jr., the former director of public policy analysis for Enron.

Hmmmm, interesting that a former Enron exec would be concerned about Australians being plunged into darkness without electricity, considering the fact that Enron, with the blessings of George W. Bush and the State of Texas, committed an almost two year running act of war against the State of California, plunging the state into darkness repeatedly and then laughing about it with other energy traders.

"The Grandma Millie Tape"


How's that lovely "non-aggression pact" working out for ya?
 
Idiometer said:
They are funding every denier with the least bit of scientific credentials they can find to keep as many of us as possible blind to how much they have to lose when we stop using their toxic products. It's working well with you, for sure. Look at the l8nk I gave you above. Virtually every major denialist group and "think tank" is being funded at least in part by one or more oil companies.

How can you NOT know that?
Click to expand...

Hubris + chutzpah = not knowing
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/04/well-funded-green-attack-against-climate-skeptic-tony-abbott/"]
tonyabbott.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Well Funded Green Attack Against Climate Skeptic Tony Abbott[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Guest essay by Eric Worrall As the center right Australian Coalition staggers towards likely defeat in the next Federal Election, rich green investors are trying to wreck any possibility climate skeptic former Aussie PM Tony Abbott might stage a comeback. Climate of change looks a windfall for Steggall in bid to oust Abbott EXCLUSIVEBRAD NORINGTONASSOCIATE…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/04/well-funded-green-attack-against-climate-skeptic-tony-abbott/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Abbott is apparently not the problem at this point, although the article states differently - he is a skeptic so some in government fear him? Hmmmmmm...From what I'm told, Turnbull was ousted for good reason, and he is the one that many do not want back in office, especially as PM! Steggall appears to be the feminine Aussie equivalent of Algore, so she is the most likely to block anything Abbott tries to do! The Australian people have never been quiet dishrags, and since they're already angry about how their utility bills are constantly rising when they were promised the opposite by those in authority.....:thumbdown: .. :screwy:
 
Jack Hays said:
About half right. There is no doubt that once upon a time there were industry efforts to emphasize uncertainty and alternative explanations. Those efforts were nowhere near as extensive as has been mythologized, and were not notably successful. My favorite factoid in this discussion is that Exxon shared publicly or published in the scientific literature 100% of their climate research results. There has not been an anti-AGW effort by industry for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Here's some info on XOM from a quick search:

Investigative journalism by Inside Climate News (ICN) into Exxon’s internal documents revealed that the company was at the forefront of climate research, warning of the dangers posed by human-caused global warming from the late-1970s to the late-1980s. As Harvard climate historian Naomi Oreskes noted,

But Exxon was sending a different message, even though its own evidence contradicted its public claim that the science was highly uncertain and no one really knew whether the climate was changing or, if it was changing, what was causing it … Journalists and scientists have identified more than 30 different organizations funded by the company that have worked to undermine the scientific message and prevent policy action to control greenhouse gas emissions.

Exxon has responded to the ICN allegations by pointing out that over the past three decades, the company’s scientists have continued to publish peer-reviewed climate research.

Our scientists have contributed climate research and related policy analysis to more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications – all out in the open. They’ve participated in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since its inception – in 1988 – and were involved in the National Academy of Sciences review of the third U.S. National Climate Assessment Report.

Finally, I’ll note that we have long – and publicly – supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax as the most effective, transparent, and efficient way for governments to send a signal to consumers and the economy to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels.

While the ICN investigation focused on Exxon’s internal reports, Exxon’s spokesman pointed to the peer-reviewed scientific research published by the company’s scientists between 1983 and 2014 – 53 papers in all.

Exxon scientists’ 100% global warming consensus
I reviewed all 53 of the papers referenced by Exxon’s spokesman, and they indeed consist of high-quality scientific research. Most of them implicitly or explicitly endorsed the expert consensus on human-caused global warming; none minimized or rejected it. This means that there is a 100% consensus on human-caused global warming among Exxon’s peer-reviewed climate science research – even higher than the 97% consensus in the rest of the peer-reviewed literature.
Click to expand...

For the the rest, see this:

Two-faced Exxon: the misinformation campaign against its own scientists | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

AGW orthodoxy has become the preponderant position in the climate science field for perfectly normal reasons of social pressure and career advancement. Sometimes this is called groupthink.

AGW skeptics swim against the tide, both politically and financially. The money and social/political praise are all on the side of AGW orthodoxy. The skeptical argument that will bring down AGW orthodoxy is the solar/GCR flux theory whose proponents have no industry affiliation whatsoever.

The much-attacked WUWT has no fossil fuel industry connection. Accusations against other Skeptic figures usually turn out to be either wholly false or exaggerations of normal business or academic practices.
Click to expand...

Okay.

But please do show me the money going to the AGW side that's at least in excess of what little XOM spent on trashing the AGW "groupthink" that their own scientists were supporting via research findings. Or alternatively show that the numbers in that article were bad. I checked a couple of links, but certainly not all of them.

An estimate of what the fossil boys are fighting for is 33T:
Fossil Fuel Industry Risks Losing $33 Trillion to Climate Change

...and I'm to believe they spend nothing fighting for it? And how many Soros types = 33T?
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The IER is the successor organization to the Institute for Humane Studies of Texas, an advocacy group established in 1984 by billionaire businessman and political donor Charles Koch.
After failing to pay the Texas state franchise tax, IHST lost its charter in 1989, and was later rebranded as the Institute for Energy Research, or IER, under the presidency of Robert L. Bradley Jr., the former director of public policy analysis for Enron.

Hmmmm, interesting that a former Enron exec would be concerned about Australians being plunged into darkness without electricity, considering the fact that Enron, with the blessings of George W. Bush and the State of Texas, committed an almost two year running act of war against the State of California, plunging the state into darkness repeatedly and then laughing about it with other energy traders.

"The Grandma Millie Tape"


How's that lovely "non-aggression pact" working out for ya?
Click to expand...


Yep, up until about a year ago I thought the last Bircher had died off, but they still live. Same demonizing, dismissive mantras, but new topics to rant about.
 
Idiometer said:
Yes, they are, and I've provided you with ample proof of that, both here and on previous threads. How deep in denial are you?

Denial is an acronym: Don't Even kNow I Am Lying.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but both your substantive claim and your claim about your own actions are false. The only denial here is yours. And you ran from our last substantive exchange.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Here's some info on XOM from a quick search:



For the the rest, see this:

Two-faced Exxon: the misinformation campaign against its own scientists | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian



Okay.

But please do show me the money going to the AGW side that's at least in excess of what little XOM spent on trashing the AGW "groupthink" that their own scientists were supporting via research findings. Or alternatively show that the numbers in that article were bad. I checked a couple of links, but certainly not all of them.

An estimate of what the fossil boys are fighting for is 33T:
Fossil Fuel Industry Risks Losing $33 Trillion to Climate Change

...and I'm to believe they spend nothing fighting for it? And how many Soros types = 33T?
Click to expand...

ICN did incomplete work (as you will see below) and Dana Nuccitelli is a liar on whose claims I will not spend a nanosecond. AGW orthodoxy consumes more money every day than Exxon is accused of deploying.


The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared

If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

[h=1]BREAKING: Senate report exposes the climate-environmental movement as being a cash machine controlling the EPA[/h][FONT=&quot]How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA A new report was released today by the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, and it is damning. All this time that climate skeptics are accused of being in the employ of “big oil” is nothing more than a projection…
[/FONT]
July 30, 2014 in Climate cash, EPA, Green Mafia, NGOs.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Take your hate elsewhere.
Click to expand...

No, you take your John Birch Society phony propaganda elsewhere.
If you have to peddle LIES, it means your platform is too rotten to stand on its own merits.z
And running around screaming

COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!

isn't a platform at all.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
No, you take your John Birch Society phony propaganda elsewhere.
If you have to peddle LIES, it means your platform is too rotten to stand on its own merits.z
And running around screaming

COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!
COMMIE COMMIE !!!

isn't a platform at all.
Click to expand...

I have to assume you have me confused with someone else. Take your hate elsewhere.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Yes, dealing with climate change would be expensive and would impact a lot of people's lifestyles.
Click to expand...
What you do not understand is the the harm caused was needless and based on a poorly designed plan, that accomplished almost nothing.
The electricity prices are up because of decisions to pay greater than retail prices for surplus alternate energy,
and then to shut down electrical plants necessary to back up the poor duty cycle alternate energy sources.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The IER is the successor organization to the Institute for Humane Studies of Texas, an advocacy group established in 1984 by billionaire businessman and political donor Charles Koch.
After failing to pay the Texas state franchise tax, IHST lost its charter in 1989, and was later rebranded as the Institute for Energy Research, or IER, under the presidency of Robert L. Bradley Jr., the former director of public policy analysis for Enron.

Hmmmm, interesting that a former Enron exec would be concerned about Australians being plunged into darkness without electricity, considering the fact that Enron, with the blessings of George W. Bush and the State of Texas, committed an almost two year running act of war against the State of California, plunging the state into darkness repeatedly and then laughing about it with other energy traders.



How's that lovely "non-aggression pact" working out for ya?
Click to expand...
How about look up any other source of the story you like, electrical prices in South Australia, are increasing
because of how they planned to lower CO2 emissions, this starts with the decision to pay alternate energy producers
greater than the retail rate for surplus electricity.
SA.GOV.AU - Solar feed-in payments
So those alternate energy suppliers, before 2011 get $.44 per Kwh until 2028,
those after get whatever the retailer feed in tariff is.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Here's some info on XOM from a quick search:



For the the rest, see this:

Two-faced Exxon: the misinformation campaign against its own scientists | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian



Okay.

But please do show me the money going to the AGW side that's at least in excess of what little XOM spent on trashing the AGW "groupthink" that their own scientists were supporting via research findings. Or alternatively show that the numbers in that article were bad. I checked a couple of links, but certainly not all of them.

An estimate of what the fossil boys are fighting for is 33T:
Fossil Fuel Industry Risks Losing $33 Trillion to Climate Change

...and I'm to believe they spend nothing fighting for it? And how many Soros types = 33T?
Click to expand...

In addition to my #117, please keep in mind that the IPCC's own statements of uncertainty​ were part of the oil companies' successful defense in California litigation in 2018. Hard to complain about Exxon's acknowledgement of uncertainty when the IPCC did the same thing 30 years later.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but both your substantive claim and your claim about your own actions are false. The only denial here is yours. And you ran from our last substantive exchange.
Click to expand...

I have a bad knee, so bad I'm getting a new one on Thursday, so I don't run. You've mistaken running with becoming weary of a useless exchange with someone so deeply brainwashed by big oil's lies that facts can't get through. It's fun for awhile, then it gets old.
 
Jack Hays said:
Take your hate elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Such a profound argument ... wow, I think maybe you've converted me! Wait ... no, never mind, my brain is still intact.

:think:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom