Oil & Gas Industry Bankrolled Pro Anti-Global Warming

[newcarver]

Report: Global Warming Skeptics Bankrolled by Koch Industries

A new report from Greenpeace has identified a privately owned US company with ties to the oil and chemical industry as the paymaster of global warming skeptics in the United States and Europe. According to Greenpeace, Koch Industries has spent nearly $48 million since 1997 to fund groups that question global warming.

[ZetaTre]

Report: Global Warming Skeptics Bankrolled by Koch Industries

A new report from Greenpeace has identified a privately owned US company with ties to the oil and chemical industry as the paymaster of global warming skeptics in the United States and Europe. According to Greenpeace, Koch Industries has spent nearly $48 million since 1997 to fund groups that question global warming.

Was this in the same Greenpeace report about how scientist did not disclosed data in contrast with the Global Warming "theory"?

[BobD]

Was this in the same Greenpeace report about how scientist did not disclosed data in contrast with the Global Warming "theory"?

That's actually a distortion. the scientists involved, have been thoroughly investigated, and while the manner and tone of their emails was not very professional, they did not do anything scientifically wrong. The discarded data, you refer to, were anomalies that didn't reflect the overall trend. The isolated remarks were seized upon, to be used out of context by those industry backed, anti climate change groups.

[Petrol]

That's actually a distortion. the scientists involved, have been thoroughly investigated, and while the manner and tone of their emails was not very professional, they did not do anything scientifically wrong. The discarded data, you refer to, were anomalies that didn't reflect the overall trend. The isolated remarks were seized upon, to be used out of context by those industry backed, anti climate change groups.

:lol:

BS!

There is no "concensus" in the "science", only conspiracy.

REAL scientists Are skeptics.

They welcome scrutiny of their data, rather then destroy their data, minimize the importance of that missing data and demand that everyone simply have "faith" in them.

The "Man-Made-Global-Warming / Climate-Change" movement is simply a mask which socialists & marxists hide behind while preying upon the emotionally driven among us for use as their pawns.

[leeho730]

I wish I could share your optimism. I, too, would like to believe that global warming, AKA climate change, is not happening... Wouldn't it be wonderful? We will be able to snowboard in the next 50 years like we can today! I can also keep driving my favorite 4WD (nissan patrol 4 litre diesel) and feel completely good about it!

But, unfortunately, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), based on scientific research, conclude that global warming is happening mainly because of human activity (http://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/press_factsh_science.pdf).

For more information, please visit http://unfccc.int/press/items/2794.php. But basically they're saying than the temperature will go up by 3 degrees by the end of this century if we don't do a friggin' thing about it. Don't wanna think about what that will do to a ski field... :(

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no known definition of "real scientist." Skepticism, as you have mentioned, is probably based on 'falsifiability' model of scientific method, but it too has received criticism. Actually it gets quite complex.

Hell, you become philosophical about it, you will be surprised to find that no one has so far been able to clearly define what is science and what is non-science.

Maybe the current theory of "global warming" is a paradigm; if enough evidence against the global warming theory is gathered, paradigm shift will happen, causing the current theory to go away. AFAIK, however, there has been insufficient data to cause such paradigm shift, and it is likely to set in as a scientific 'fact,' such as Copernican heliocentrism (note 1).

All I know is that those so-called "scientists" are able to deal with observable data far better than the rest of us. They're the ones who gathered the data about nuclear fission that made atomic bomb possible. They're the one who made all the the weapon systems that made US the greatest military force in history.

In short, they know more about the fact than us. And if someone does not heed them, for example regarding global warming, she does so at her own peril, IMHO. ;)

Note 1: well, we now know that the Sun is definitely not the centre of the universe, but it was much more closer to the fact than the previous theory that the Earth was the centre of the universe... (note 2)

Note 2: well, in truth, scientific 'fact' changes with each paradigm shift, i.e. there is no absolute truth. For example, in 16th century, scientific fact suggested that the sun was the centre of the universe, which we now know it's just plain BS. However, I believe the current paradigm, the global warming theory, is closer to the truth than the other one....

[Petrol]

note 3: a single solar flare has more influence over our climate then do we :p

[ShortcutToMoncton]

:lol:

BS!

There is no "concensus" in the "science", only conspiracy.

A statement made with intelligent knowledge of the science I'm sure

[ZetaTre]

note 3: a single solar flare has more influence over our climate then do we :p

I thought it was all the cows in New Zealand farting at the same time and releasing all that methane gas...

Has anyone else had stake from a New Zealand cow? I'm not sure why but is sooooo much more tender than any meat I've ever had

[newcarver]

I heard of several ski areas in the Alps that had to shut down or buy snowmaking equipment (chemically treated water freezes at 36F). The altitude that will sustain snow through the season keeps rising. Ski areas in the US have had similar concerns. Guess there is no such thing as human influenced warming, but there must be at least natural warming? :rolleyes:

[ZetaTre]

I heard of several ski areas in the Alps that had to shut down or buy snowmaking equipment (chemically treated water freezes at 36F). The altitude that will sustain snow through the season keeps rising. Ski areas in the US have had similar concerns. Guess there is no such thing as human influenced warming, but there must be at least natural warming? :rolleyes:

In Switzerland they are known for their chocolate which require milk made from cows; cows fart and make methane which cause the global warming in the Alps... Additionally, to make things worst, Swiss farmers are known for genetically engineering cows to make special milk for better choclate. A well known example is the Milka cow:

I think the coloring of this cow also attracts sun rays: the cow's tummy gets warmer which facilitate bacterial mitosis. More bacterias in the cow's tummy, more methane, more farts, more global warming...

Basically Global Warming is just a giant fart.. Or brain fart...

[Petrol]

I heard of several ski areas in the Alps that had to shut down or buy snowmaking equipment (chemically treated water freezes at 36F). The altitude that will sustain snow through the season keeps rising. Ski areas in the US have had similar concerns. Guess there is no such thing as human influenced warming, but there must be at least natural warming? :rolleyes:

ah.. yea, you can say I'm betting on the power of nature over man. Big time.

I heard tell that much of North American was once covered by great glaciers. I know from photographs, TV and personal travel experience that that is no longer the case, and has not been for quite some time. How much of the "climate-change" required to so effect those glaciers is accredited to mankind?

[newcarver]

I think you fail to realize the full impact of human habitation. We have resulted in the extinction of thousands of species of both plants and animals. There is no reason to think that we can't be causing increased warming on the earth with the huge amount of polution that we create. And yes, N. America was mostly covered with glaciers at one point in time. How many years did it take for most of that to melt? There is lots of scientific proof that there is a rapid change/problem with the earths climate as a whole. Most of the civilized world believs this based on the evidence that has been presented.