Your off topic, try answering the op. The op even offers the lack of GW as a base for the thread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How is the climate change conspiracy carried out?
- Thread starter Yerda
- Start date
BSM1
What? Me worry?
.15c warm up since 1850 is hardly a catastrophe by any measure.
Al Gore. The man has made millions from his histrionics and 'carbon credits' nonsense.
And there we have it, folks: Al Gore is behind it all. He personally pulled the strings of every single climate-related agency and research group across the world, all to pander to his ego and line his pockets.
LOLZ.
LOLZ.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I certainly don't think Al Gore is behind it all. If memory serves correct, a large chunk of his personal fortune came from selling his cable interest to Al-Jazeera (after the meltdown with the odious Keith Olberman, lol).
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Indeed. Anyone who believes Al Gore and his version of events is like someone who believes that white me are more evolved than black men because of evolution. He used a real significant issue and bastardized it with false promises (which I mean...a politician lying....whaaaaaaaat : / ) but the basis of his lies are true.
Who is really duped is you my friend. The Koch brothers have made more than 100 billion collectively off of pollution and have been some of the most avid and vocal anti-global warming advocates on the planet. Strange? I think not. Even with the subsidies of all of the solar energy companies put together still don't make as much as their net worth.
If there was an actual solution that people could make money from, there'd be a line of takers stretching around the corner.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Actually, Gore was pretty much right on with what he said, but unfortunately made some a few errors that pale in significance to the main point that he was accurate on. The most infamous mistake was the "hockey-stick graph", which did indeed give a false visual impression but could have been made less so if people read the actual numbers that were there.
What happened was the political right found anything they could to try and discount what he said, pretty much demonizing him. Yes, he does deserve some blame for the errors, but any honest assessment of all that was presented was that most of it is actually quite accurate-- even though you'll never convince the hard-core right of that.
BTW, fyi, I am not a fan of Al Gore, but for different reasons.
What happened was the political right found anything they could to try and discount what he said, pretty much demonizing him. Yes, he does deserve some blame for the errors, but any honest assessment of all that was presented was that most of it is actually quite accurate-- even though you'll never convince the hard-core right of that.
BTW, fyi, I am not a fan of Al Gore, but for different reasons.
Yerda
Veteran Member
The increase in global average temperatures is reported to be around .8 of a degree. But no, it's not a catastrophe. The worry is that beyond a small, non-catastrophic, increase there lies a point of runaway positive feedback which most authors seem to believe kickstarts about the 2 degrees margin.
We can all agree Al Gore is a clown.BSM1 said:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
It may not seem like much, but the effects are apparent with melting ice caps and rising sea levels, animals migration and habitats changing, and, of course, each passing year becoming hotter and hotter.
Attaching Al Gore as some sort of head honcho of the global warming movement is no different than YECs calling Darwin the devil for coming up with the theory of evolution.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Pure speculative hog wash.
I've found it! The thread! All of these people have educations! It's a conspiracy by the most dangerous sort of person, those who CAN READ!
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
So going by what scientists in various fields have documented is "pure speculative hog wash?" Is it not true that ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising? Are the discoveries of hybrid animals between northern animals moving south and breeding with southern animals only a figment of their imaginations? Is the data regarding climate temperatures just a shot in the dark?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
None of the speculation is provable or genuine. There is absolutely no consensus among the scientific community that there even is this so-called 'climate change' let alone any harm that might be occurring. If this 'climate change' were as prevalent as stated there would be droves of environmental reporter types screaming on the street corners with documented and undeniable scientific proof in hand. It's a hoax, sorry.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Did you miss Dus1n's huge list?
And saying there is no consensus among the scientific community is literally on par with saying there is no consensus among the scientific community regarding evolution and natural selection.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'm afraid you're never going to convince certain people who either do not understand the research and/or have a political agenda. As you have posted, the evidence is overwhelming that we are heating up overall, and that human activity, especially because of higher CO2 and methane gas levels, is largely to blame. The only way these deniers can "justify" their position is through pseudo-scientific and typically right-wing sources. You know this, I know this, and probably most people here know this.
A friend of mine works in Antarctica 6 months per year, and he has a name for these deniers that I cannot repeat here. He has seen the shrinking of the depth of the ice there, plus the breaking off of huge segments of ice along the coast.
My oldest daughter and her husband have a cabin just south of Glacier National Park, and the shrinking of the glaciers there has been very noticeable.
If these were isolated incidents, we couldn't use these as any kind of reliable guide, but they ain't. The Greenland ice-field is significantly shrinking as well as Arctic ice cap in general. The jet streams are increasing in velocity because of the extra energy, according to both NOAA and NASA, thus causing more turbulence at ground level. The oceans are warming overall, thus endangering coral reefs in many locations worldwide.
And yet some are so blind to all the research plus what's clearly been observable, but then these are people who typically have an "agenda".
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Why do you keep on telling this pathetic lie? For just one example, see: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus
A short segment:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources...
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Marxist garbage. If it were so bad why aren't those scientist revolting? It's a hoax, sorry. A perpetual April Fool's joke on a global scale. The agenda driven environmentalist's bogeyman. You get the picture. Give me one specific place on this earth that can be proven, scientifically and without any doubt, to have been victimized by 'global warming' or 'climate change' .
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You clearly have no clue how scientists actually work, and you've shut your brain off to even want to learn. And then you lie, claiming that there is no scientific consensus when there clearly is one. Your lie is not that you disagree with that consensus, but that you state that there is none when there clearly is.
As the oft heard statement goes, "you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts".
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Are you trolling for humor (which I can appreciate) or are these serious questions?
dust1n
Zindīq
LOL.
Is that a serious question? For the some reason fundamentalist Christians aren't revolting over gay marriage. No one wants to revolt, it's annoying.
And your refutation of any of the given information couldn't even be referred to as a hoax, because that would imply that it convinced anyone. So, this entire thread is available for anyone to show how this hoax exists or this perpetual April Joke, with any evidence whatsoever, yet you haven't provided any, yet maintain the same opinion, which probably means your opinion is not and probably never was based on any evidence whatsoever.
Who has made the claim that today someone was victimized today? Maybe you should worry less about bogeymen and more about strawmen.
Yeah, and by the way, the anti-AGW movement has absolutely no agenda what so ever. There is no agenda. There is no agenda from the people who are paid by various companies who stand to lose the most by reduced production of fossil fuels.
"The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to ananalysis released Friday afternoon.
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.
It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010."
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American
No agenda at all.
Just your neighborhood, giving money to politicians, lobby groups, with no agenda to try to discredit GW at all. Simply nothing.
"A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe.
The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.
Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels."
US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace | Environment | The Guardian
See, because Non-Marxists, aren't insidious like those Marxists we all come to hate, who somehow have duped the entire world of science into what would easily be the world's most successful lie ever. They simply have no agenda whatsoever for the millions of dollars they spend on the issue.
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered."
Oil Lobby Offers $10,000 Payments To Global Warming Deniers To Push Back On Climate Study | ThinkProgress
Look, this is just freedom loving America. These people want to protect your rights form the government from swindling you. No agenda concerning global warming at all.
Here, Media Matters looks at how conservative media outlets give industry-funded "experts" a platform, creating a polarized misunderstanding of climate science.
- Heartland Institute And James Taylor
- Competitive Enterprise Institute
- Chris Horner And The American Tradition Institute
- Manhattan Institute And Robert Bryce
- Heritage Foundation
- Cato Institute And Patrick Michaels
- American Enterprise Institute
- Marc Morano
- Anthony Watts
- Steve Milloy
- Joe Bastardi
- Matt Ridley
- Larry Bell
Just absolutely, American loving, non-agenda driven Godsends to defeat the most massive liberal hoax every perpetuated.
"For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0
I'm sorry, I forgot, what was the most massive hoax again?