Climate Change: It's bad and getting worse

you mean big money like this

or this

or this

or maybe this

 

No, I mean the many hundreds of millions that Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Ag, power companies, the mining industry, etc. spend in lobbying, think-tanks, foundations, PR campaigns and the like... all in the service of pushing gullible members of the public to reject any sort of check on their bloated, polluting asses.

 

What ? Do you think these big greedy companies, with all of this money to spend buying politicians, don't stand to gain from trading carbon futures contracts also ? Get real.

You're just dying to add to the corruption that steals from you.

 

show me this "preponderance of evidence". It should be a chip shot for you.

 

Sure it is, like bacteria is obviously a transformer of its environment ever since it's start.

How's about addressing points I made?

 

have you got any credible links to all these hundreds of millions ? Sorry but your opinions are worthless unless you can provide data to back them up

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...term-elections-2010-oil-lobby-climate-sceptic

I quite like this too:

http://www.youtube.com/user/abchungrybeast?blend=2&ob=5#p/search/0/mSgcw5tLenI

 

see finding data is not that hard, BTW judging from the IPCC conference failures in Copenhagen and Cancun it appears it was money well spent

 

The sourcewatch link I posted earlier lists the bucks big business pour into Denier projects, and as for their profits... well, the hundreds of billions made by Big Oil and Coal (all companies combined) each year is well-known, and they specifically stand to lose in any large-scale plans to cut fossil fuel consumption. Do you deny this, and if so... why?

 

there are billions spent yearly on both sides, otherwise the whole nonsense of AGW would have died a slow death years ago instead of wasting money on nonsense science

my opinion is the AGW movement has wasted time and money which could have been better spent on real alternative energy, food resource development, and ecological problems. Why do you champion a movement designed solely to empower petty bureaucrats and make hypocrites like Al Gore richer while real environmental problems are being ignored

 

I don't think these 30,000+ folks got the memo.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Prolly just a drop in *your* "practically unanimous" bucket though right?

.

 

for God's sake why are people still trotting this out!

everyone knows its history:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

if they don't - they obviously aren't interested enough in this issue to have anything to contribute to a discussion.

 

Remember what I was saying about industry-funded deceivers? Concerning the head guy of this 'project', Frederick Seitz:

"Tobacco industry involvement and documents

A 2006 article in Vanity Fair magazine called Dr. Seitz the "$45 million man" for the amount of money he helped R.J. Reynolds distribute for research that specifically avoided the health issues surrounding smoking. "They didn't want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking," Seitz admitted in the article. During the time RJR was funding the research, it used the results of the program to claim that the evidence was inconclusive about the health effects of smoking. Dr. Seitz went on to become a denier of global warming. [4]

Contract with R.J. Reynolds

In 1986, while at Rockefeller University, Dr. Seitz mantained a contract for his services with RJR Nabisco. According to a letter from RJR's CEO Edward A. Horrigan, Jr., he originally entered into the contract with RJR in 1976. In 1986, RJR paid him $65,000 for six months' work. Vanity Fair reported in its 2006 article about Seitz that he had earned a total of approximately $585,000 from his contract with RJR. [5] [4]

Involvement in secondhand smoke issue

On January 7, 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Risk Assessment that concluded that secondhand tobacco smoke was a Group A human carcinogen responsible for approximately 3,000 deaths in the U.S. annually.[6] The tobacco industry was threatened by this designation and worked to discredit EPA and neutralize the report by casting doubt on EPA's conclusions.

In March, 1994, the George C. Marshall Institute, a U.S. policy group, issued a report by Dr. Seitz in which Seitz claimed the government had misled the public about the relative dangers posed by global warming and secondhand smoke. Seitz claimed many of the scientific conclusions reached and publicized by the federal government were based on faulty science. He lumped into that category additional issues like nuclear power, asbestos and pesticides.

A March 1, 1994 Activity Report for Thomas J. Borelli, Manager of Philip Morris Corporate Scientific Affairs states,
Initiated a strategy to publicize and communicate the results of a Marshall Institute report that challenges the scientific basis of various environmental regulations. The report was written by Dr. Frederick Seitz who is a world renowned scientist. Dr. Seitz is President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and past President of the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to his criticisms of the global warming and ozone depletion issues, Dr . Seitz also addressed the ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] issue. With respect to ETS, Dr. Seitz concluded that ". . . there is no good scientific evidence that moderate passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is truly dangerous under normal circumstances." The report will be used to challenge the EPA's report on ETS in domestic and international markets."[7]

Philip Morris employed the lobbying firm Multinational Business Services to help raise doubt about the EPA's risk assessment on secondhand smoke. MBS's activities included publicizing Seitz's Marshall Institute report, and working through industry-funded group Federal Focus to organize a seminar for federal employees in an attempt to seek a commitment from Federal agencies to address the issues raised in the Seitz report. Specifically, MBS sought the formation of an interagency team to respond to the conclusion about secondhand smoke in the Seitz report, with the ultimate goal of re-opening the risk assessment.[8]

Involvement in global warming skepticism

In the 1990s, Seitz' work with the George C. Marshall Institute changed to debunking anthropogenic global warming by publishing reports and opinions of those questioning the theory. In a 2007 report, the Union of Concerned Scientists described the GMI as a "clearinghouse for global warming contrarians" funded by Exxon Mobil Corporation and employing the same strategy formerly used by the tobacco industry, repeatedly attacking the science behind the theory and insisting that there was actually a great deal of uncertainty and disagreement among scientists. [9]

In an April, 2006 interview for the PBS show Frontline, Seitz discussed his denial of global warming, his consultancy with R.J. Reynolds and his support of nuclear power. When asked why we need a nuclear answer to energy problems, Seitz stated: "We have more control over the cost of nuclear power. The Muslims can raise the price of oil to any level they want...." [10][11][12]

Oregon Petition

In 1998, together with the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Seitz circulated and gathered signatures for a petition opposing the Kyoto Protocol. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper from Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), and a letter from Seitz identifying himself as past president of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, the petition, paper, and letter were entirely unrelated to the Academy, which issued a strong denunciation of the petition project as deliberately deceptive and an affirmation of the consensus in favor of the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Subsequent investigations of the signatories found a minority of them to be climate scientists, or even scientists of any kind. [9] The web page of the petition itself states "31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.""

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz

Consider yourself Pwn'd.

 

Crap! I didn't read this before I posted my link... good work, btw.

 

Here's another reason why that petition is so bogus...

The minimum qualifications required to sign that petition are so "loosey goosey" that there are on the order of 10 million people in the USA eligible to sign it.

The petition has been around for something like 13 years -- so in 13 years, the petition sponsors have managed to sign up about 1/3 of 1 percent of the people eligible to sign it.

That can hardly be considered a ringing endorsement of the petition sponsors' views.

 

thats a bit of an understatement. there have been people with qualifications such as "pest control operator" who are obviously going to be well qualified to comment on climate science.

people in a somewhat related field - that of entomology - generally recognise climate change is occuring through studying in the field - the spread of some insect (and arachnid) species to locations where they were uncommon is increasing due to the consitions being brought about by climate change.

and sometimes, this brings increased risk of disease and damage to food supplies.

 

the same reason people keep trotting this out

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=296

when upon closer examination it turns out to be a email poll in which the 97% were 79 self appointed climatologists whose paychecks depended upon AGW

 

Could you explain what this means? For deniers, their paychecks come from industry sources, so this is pretty clear; but what does it mean to 'depend upon AGW'?

Oh... and your source didn't exactly dismiss the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing numbers he looked at; but, as he sources from the Heartland Institute, I wouldn't think he'd have much trouble spinning something out of thin air anyways.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

 

It is mind boggling to watch people line up to give big bad greedy corporations even more of their wealth. Who do you think will benefit most from the carbon futures markets ? They will put the free cash flowing from the central banks directly into those markets, driving up the costs for all of us, making billions thanks to more government privilege and regulation.

.......the corporatist dream of more wealth, while the idiots cheer their own demise.

 

do a search on green research funding, then do a search on green investment funding, then search government green investments, then look at how many billions of Euros pass through the European carbon trading market. AGW is the biggest scam the Earth has ever experienced

 

I almost forgot about this recent gem

 

Nowhere close to what the biggest corporations rake in... and stand to lose with a greener world economy.

 

Joey, no doubt that you are very cool and smart. I must agree. Is there anything else you would like to add about how awesome you are? If not, I was wondering if we could return to the thread topic.

 

Preponderance of the evidence? Sorry, but this isn't a lawsuit, you'll have to do better than that.

 

Just want to recap the "evidence"...

Joey has an MBA from Northwestern.
Preponderance of the evidence.

Well, I'm convinced. Say no more.