open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Global Warming outed as made up?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (14)

Author Topic

Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.30 14:22:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Gariuys on 30/11/2009 14:22:23
Originally by: Haraldhardrade
1% of scientists doubt climate changes are man made. 1%.
40% of the public doubt the climate changes are man made.

Not suprising due to all the misleading propaganda that the likes of Bush and Exxon were spreading. And not a suprise considering how many cretins there are, without an informed opinion on the world. Not suprising that one of the places with the most doubters is a country where most of the population cant even place France on a map.

If your only news source is Faux News or the daily mail, then I pity you. Because there are overwhelming evidence of lobbyists and corrupt politicians deliberately spreading false information and altering correct information.

I cant say I have any sympathy or tolerance for the so called sceptics. They are in the same category as the flat earth'ers or 9.11 conspiracy nuts.


Your statistic is bull**** you do realize that, 1% of what scientists? Everyone of them, or just those involved in research on climate change. And how did you get that number, went round to ask all of em?

Besides that, I haven't heard a single climate related scientist say the climate change is man "made" in years. Most agree we speed things along, but made... that's some serious arrogance there. The planet has been doing this without us for a long long time.

Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.30 14:28:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Haraldhardrade
Originally by: Gariuys


You really should try reading, the earth is warmer now then it was 30 years ago. The higher tree lines, melting glaciers/ice caps, and everything else are pretty clear about that. It's just not only not getting any warmer, it's cooling back down again a bit.

Nobody is saying ( that 's sane that is ) that the global climate hasn't changed. The reasons and severity of those changes are in question. Not the actual change itself.


Sorry I missed your post earlier.

Re :warmer cooling back : Nothing is in a straight line, there will always be mild winters/cold winters and hot summers/colder summers. But the temprature average has been on a steady rise.


Originally by: Burnharder
Amazingly blinkered ignorance of the facts alert! There is no bigger special interest than the Goverment. Worldwide, around $75,000,000,000 ($75b) has been spent by Governments supporting the paradigm. Exxon has funded $25,000,000 ($25m) of research against. On the side of the warmists are some of the largest financial institutions in the world (Goldman, Morgan Stanley, et al). They're excited about trading and hedging carbon credits. It's a tax on EVERYTHING we do and they get to take a cut of it.

This is scientific fraud and you're not interested! I'm shocked. Shocked


The money spent by the government has been spent on RESEARCH. The money spent by oil companies has been spent on PROPAGANDA. Do you honestly think governments would spend $75,000,000,000 on something that would cost them huge sums of money? In case you are living under a rock, the world comunities are trying to agree on cutting back emissions these days, and going green. And thats something thats going to be VERY costly. I repeat, since you are unaware of this....ITS GOING TO COST A LOT!

Further more, dont you dare speak about facts when you are so deluded.


I'm sorry, but you seem to be the one that's pulling facts out of some dark place, if something costs a lot, someone is getting paid a lot. Hint hint.

And it's not just that it's a little hickup in the trend, the global warming stopped in 2000. That's 9 years, I'd call that a trend. And those leaked emails do show that they themselves don't understand what's going on either, so they're drawing conclusions on data of questionable quality, ignoring the past 9 years so their models work.... that's not science, that's sticking your head up your ass screaming, I'm sure I'm right, na na na na, I'm not listening.

And it doesn't make their case any better, and I'm sure a lot of ignorant people could use that information to just say we don't need to do anything... but the fact that they're trying to cover it up, just makes a lot more people say that. While we should be doing everything in our ability to slow stuff down so we can deal with it better.

Benny Hill
Caldari
General Thrusters
Posted - 2009.11.30 15:30:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Haraldhardrade

So whats the motive behind these 'climate lies' then? It cant be money, because going green is going to cost a fortune. Is it the new world order? Illuminati? What, please tell us.



Have you ever seen or met someone that goes door to door to get donations to pay for the salaries of these scientists? Do you think they work for free? Do you have any understanding about how scientists get grants?

baltec1
Posted - 2009.11.30 16:21:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Gariuys


Besides that, I haven't heard a single climate related scientist say the climate change is man "made" in years. Most agree we speed things along, but made... that's some serious arrogance there. The planet has been doing this without us for a long long time.


People said exactly the same thing about the Ozone hole. Even if people dont belive in man made climate change it doesnt alter the fact that resources are running out, just look at how much your paying at the pump compared to two years ago.

Haraldhardrade
Amarr
Pax Amarr
Posted - 2009.11.30 18:05:00 - [95]
 

Edited by: Haraldhardrade on 30/11/2009 18:10:44
Edited by: Haraldhardrade on 30/11/2009 18:07:46
Originally by: Gariuys

Your statistic is bull**** you do realize that, 1% of what scientists? Everyone of them, or just those involved in research on climate change.


Make an educated guess, if you can.

Quote:

And how did you get that number, went round to ask all of em?


Make an educated guess.

Quote:

Besides that, I haven't heard a single climate related scientist say the climate change is man "made" in years. Most agree we speed things along, but made... that's some serious arrogance there. The planet has been doing this without us for a long long time.


It's fairly obvious you listen to the wrong outlets. And by that I get the feeling that you are fairly limited when it comes to reading news, if you read at all. Somehow, I cant help thinking that your online sources for news is one or three domestic networks.



Originally by: Benny Hill


1. Have you ever seen or met someone that goes door to door to get donations to pay for the salaries of these scientists?

2.Do you think they work for free?

3.Do you have any understanding about how scientists get grants?


1. No
2. In most cases, yes.
3. Depends on where you live. Something tells me you live in the US, the nation with the least enlightened population in the western world.

Originally by: Gariuys


I'm sorry, but you seem to be the one that's pulling facts out of some dark place

the global warming stopped in 2000.


Foot. Pistol. You.

Benny Hill
Caldari
General Thrusters
Posted - 2009.11.30 19:26:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Benny Hill on 30/11/2009 19:29:48
Originally by: Haraldhardrade

Originally by: Benny Hill


1. Have you ever seen or met someone that goes door to door to get donations to pay for the salaries of these scientists?

2.Do you think they work for free?

3.Do you have any understanding about how scientists get grants?


1. No
2. In most cases, yes.
3. Depends on where you live. Something tells me you live in the US, the nation with the least enlightened population in the western world.


You should really try to stop embarrassing yourself more than what you have already. Do you need a link to the grant process that the CRU depends on? Perhaps, you need to enlighten yourself on their funding sources.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.11.30 20:45:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Gariuys

And it's not just that it's a little hickup in the trend, the global warming stopped in 2000. That's 9 years, I'd call that a trend.


If you think 9 years constitutes a period of time useful for measuring things like the climate, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Sleyha
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd.
Posted - 2009.11.30 22:59:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
This is a highly amusing reading.

I don't condone cracking of any kind, as was clearly used to obtain this. But damn... One might argue that more climate research mailboxes needs to be broken into.


Great find, thankyou for posting it.

It's clear after reading some key emails that there was a conspiracy to cook the data and HIDE THE DECLINE of temperatures, while also trying to black list dissenters including threatening journals if they published sceptic's views.

Thanks again for bringing this to the sheeple.

Doctor Penguin
Amarr
Sacred Templars
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:07:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Alex Raptos
And I find it ironic that a Fictional Character in an Online Game called Doctor Penguin is neither a Doctor nor a Penguin.


I AM A DOCTOR OF SCIENCE, I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW!

TRD 2371
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:27:00 - [100]
 

i think we can safely say that the bigger the picture gets the more human mind has to fail.... but is a human being alone his mind? maybe we oughta rethink our lifes to gain new insight.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.12.01 13:04:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Sleyha
Originally by: LaVista Vista
This is a highly amusing reading.

I don't condone cracking of any kind, as was clearly used to obtain this. But damn... One might argue that more climate research mailboxes needs to be broken into.


Great find, thankyou for posting it.

It's clear after reading some key emails that there was a conspiracy to cook the data and HIDE THE DECLINE of temperatures, while also trying to black list dissenters including threatening journals if they published sceptic's views.

Thanks again for bringing this to the sheeple.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28355.html


Simon Man
Posted - 2009.12.01 15:15:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Sleyha
Originally by: LaVista Vista
This is a highly amusing reading.

I don't condone cracking of any kind, as was clearly used to obtain this. But damn... One might argue that more climate research mailboxes needs to be broken into.


Great find, thankyou for posting it.

It's clear after reading some key emails that there was a conspiracy to cook the data and HIDE THE DECLINE of temperatures, while also trying to black list dissenters including threatening journals if they published sceptic's views.

Thanks again for bringing this to the sheeple.


Scientists don't do conspiracy's, being dead wrong ends carers. Politicians and corporate entities sure do though. Manmade climate change is a fact. A fact only disputed by people with something to lose.

Ademaro Imre
Caldari
Posted - 2009.12.01 16:20:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: Ademaro Imre on 01/12/2009 16:26:17
Edited by: Ademaro Imre on 01/12/2009 16:21:31

Originally by: Simon Man


Scientists don't do conspiracy's, being dead wrong ends carers. Politicians and corporate entities sure do though. Manmade climate change is a fact. A fact only disputed by people with something to lose.


Of course. Science degrees magically make people immune to greed, fame, political agendas and desire for money (as well as theology dropouts). The facts are so strong for anthropogenic global warming, there is no need to destroy original data, hide data and calculations, violate freedom of information requests, collaborate with government officials to avoid freedom of information acts, collaborate to change board of directors in journals, make up data in modeling software, become emotionally distraught over being unable to explain lack of warming (because there always is warming, no need!), keep record for reproducible calculations, collaborate to keep opposing papers from being published, truncating data that shows cooling to turn it into data that shows warming, and coordinating efforts to delete records of communications, employ social networks to control data and political messages, No scientist at the CRU would ever publicly say:

Quote:
We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"


Scientists are perfect.


Rolling Eyes If you hurry up, you can still buy a ticket to shake Al Gore's hand for just $1,209 at Copenhagen.

Simon Man
Posted - 2009.12.01 16:25:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Ademaro Imre
Originally by: Simon Man


Scientists don't do conspiracy's, being dead wrong ends carers. Politicians and corporate entities sure do though. Manmade climate change is a fact. A fact only disputed by people with something to lose.


Of course. Science degrees magically make people immune to greed, fame, political agendas and desire for money (as well as theology dropouts). The facts are so strong for anthropogenic global warming, there is no need to destroy original data, hide data and calculations, violate freedom of information requests, collaborate with government officials to avoid freedom of information acts, collaborate to change board of directors in journals, make up data in modeling software, become emotionally distraught over being unable to explain lack of warming (because there always is warming, no need!), keep record for reproducible calculations, collaborate to keep opposing papers from being published, truncating data that shows cooling to turn it into data that shows warming, and coordinating efforts to delete records of communications. No scientist at the CRU would ever publicly say:

Quote:
We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"


Quote:
Science is perfect.



Rolling Eyes



If you make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary evidence. If you lack extraordinary evidence your claims will be disproven by the next guy vying to take your spot. Its the scientific method, there is no golden parachute for scientists.

Simon Man
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:08:00 - [105]
 





(Repost from locked thread)
Quote:

Originally by: KPPASimon Man, did you read the article?



What article, the thousands talking about leaked emails of scientists disusing climate change models?

Why yes, yes I have.

Its quite obvious that it was an attack made by people with a vested interest in muddling peoples opinions of the scientific fact of climate change. "Hack job" has never seemed more appropriate. Cherry picked, possibly completely false and/or edited comments, taken out of context and presented as some large scale, scientific conspiracy to somehow enable all the worlds governments to collude and make trillions off the backs of poor, muti-national corporate conglomerates. And implant RFID chips into the worlds population.


Point is, C02 decreases the rate at which heat escapes the earths atmosphere. Increasing C02 levels raises the temperature of the earth. Raised temperatures can/will/have already changed the worlds climate.

KPPA
Dead 2 Rights
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:13:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Simon Man




(Repost from locked thread)
Quote:

Originally by: KPPASimon Man, did you read the article?



What article, the thousands talking about leaked emails of scientists disusing climate change models?

Why yes, yes I have.

Its quite obvious that it was an attack made by people with a vested interest in muddling peoples opinions of the scientific fact of climate change. "Hack job" has never seemed more appropriate. Cherry picked, possibly completely false and/or edited comments, taken out of context and presented as some large scale, scientific conspiracy to somehow enable all the worlds governments to collude and make trillions off the backs of poor, muti-national corporate conglomerates. And implant RFID chips into the worlds population.


Point is, C02 decreases the rate at which heat escapes the earths atmosphere. Increasing C02 levels raises the temperature of the earth. Raised temperatures can/will/have already changed the worlds climate.


Nah. I'm talking about the one i posted. has nothing to do with the emails. it "follows the money"

link

Ademaro Imre
Caldari
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:13:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Ademaro Imre on 01/12/2009 17:14:13
Originally by: Simon Man


Its quite obvious that it was an attack made by people with a vested interest in muddling peoples opinions of the scientific fact of climate change. "Hack job" has never seemed more appropriate. Cherry picked, possibly completely false and/or edited comments, taken out of context and presented as some large scale, scientific conspiracy to somehow enable all the worlds governments to collude and make trillions off the backs of poor, muti-national corporate conglomerates. And implant RFID chips into the worlds population.



So basically, what you are saying is, all we need to do is just WAIT for the CRU to release its data and code so that their published data can be exactly reproduced by third parties (that is a part of the "scientific method.") And, do you count on the CRU to find its ORIGINAL data that the CRU admitted to destroying to save the space that the books and magnetic tape took up?

Stratio
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Damu'Khonde
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:15:00 - [108]
 

First off in this thread I should say I agree there is a lot of non-sense being spread about climate change. Some reporters use tsunamies as examples of global warming.

However, that does not mean that the scientists have got it wrong.

Originally by: NyteTyger (other thread)
I don't think it's us that is doing it is what I'm saying. If you look back, the Earth regularly goes through rather massive climate changes for all kinds of reasons.

Yes, and as I said, there were also forest fires, does that mean no humans are now causing any forest fires?

Originally by: NyteTyger
Look at the amount of toxic gases and carbon released from a decent volcanic eruption, think about how many have occurred, and you'll realize that we humans are pretty much a gnat on the ass of this planet in geologic terms.

I won't claim to be any expert on these things but that is a classic simplistic argument which I believe has been discredited, as many many things happen when a Vulcano erupts, both contributing and minimising global warming.

Never-the-less, all the things you mention are happening anyway, and humans are ADDING to these in a way which many scientists are convinced is pushing the climate beyond what is healthy for humans.

Originally by: NyteTyger
I'm more concerned about direct pollutants in the environment. I personally feel that addressing industrial pollution and consumer waste would go a hell of a lot farther to cleaning up our little rock than limiting carbon emissions.

Certainly we should do one without neglecting the other.

Simon Man
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:23:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: KPPA
Originally by: Simon Man




(Repost from locked thread)
Quote:

Originally by: KPPASimon Man, did you read the article?



What article, the thousands talking about leaked emails of scientists disusing climate change models?

Why yes, yes I have.

Its quite obvious that it was an attack made by people with a vested interest in muddling peoples opinions of the scientific fact of climate change. "Hack job" has never seemed more appropriate. Cherry picked, possibly completely false and/or edited comments, taken out of context and presented as some large scale, scientific conspiracy to somehow enable all the worlds governments to collude and make trillions off the backs of poor, muti-national corporate conglomerates. And implant RFID chips into the worlds population.


Point is, C02 decreases the rate at which heat escapes the earths atmosphere. Increasing C02 levels raises the temperature of the earth. Raised temperatures can/will/have already changed the worlds climate.


Nah. I'm talking about the one i posted. has nothing to do with the emails. it "follows the money"

link


I don't normally read WSJ shill, its now Murdoch garbage and can not be trusted. Despite the nonsense in that article, its clear that Exxon alone stands to benefit far more from the lack environmental legislation then anyone stands to gain from its passage.
That is why, (and I quote from the article you just gave me...)

"Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."

You doubt climate change because Exxon wants you to doubt climate change and will pay greatly to encourage this mentality.

KPPA
Dead 2 Rights
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:26:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Simon Man

I don't normally read WSJ shill, its now Murdoch garbage and can not be trusted. Despite the nonsense in that article, its clear that Exxon alone stands to benefit far more from the lack environmental legislation then anyone stands to gain from its passage.
That is why, (and I quote from the article you just gave me...)

"Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."

You doubt climate change because Exxon wants you to doubt climate change and will pay greatly to encourage this mentality.


Simon Man, did you read the whole article?

NyteTyger
Gallente
NiteSun Enterprises
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:36:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: NyteTyger on 01/12/2009 17:39:38
Originally by: Simon Man

Point is, C02 decreases the rate at which heat escapes the earths atmosphere. Increasing C02 levels raises the temperature of the earth. Raised temperatures can/will/have already changed the worlds climate.


And your point is correct, since you didn't link it to industry. The Earth itself likes to keep CO2 around, to keep it from being a cold desert planet. Here's a good read on glacial records of climate change.

They also talk about CO2, definitely worth mentioning.

Quote:
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.



Some other quotes:

Quote:
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...


former Vice President Al Gore, now chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits
(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)

[emphasis by me]

Quote:
As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.


Edit: Formatting

Simon Man
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:47:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: Simon Man on 01/12/2009 18:10:48
Originally by: KPPA
Originally by: Simon Man

I don't normally read WSJ shill, its now Murdoch garbage and can not be trusted. Despite the nonsense in that article, its clear that Exxon alone stands to benefit far more from the lack environmental legislation then anyone stands to gain from its passage.
That is why, (and I quote from the article you just gave me...)

"Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."

You doubt climate change because Exxon wants you to doubt climate change and will pay greatly to encourage this mentality.


Simon Man, did you read the whole article?


Yes, it was only one page.

To paraphrase from the article;

""OMG! Did u no that sientist git munneys to fun reasearch!!""


Its nonsense... if you think for a second that these scientists roll around in 2009 Bentley's or these organizations treat their employees like Google does because of fat government backed funding, you are deluding yourself.

However, I was in Dallas for the last week doing an installation at the Hunt Oil building in downtown... I saw firsthand what lack of environmental legislation gets you... leather wrapped staircase banisters, talking elevators and a $12 million dollar Foucault pendulum in the main lobby

KPPA
Dead 2 Rights
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:10:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Simon Man
Originally by: KPPA
Originally by: Simon Man

I don't normally read WSJ shill, its now Murdoch garbage and can not be trusted. Despite the nonsense in that article, its clear that Exxon alone stands to benefit far more from the lack environmental legislation then anyone stands to gain from its passage.
That is why, (and I quote from the article you just gave me...)

"Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."

You doubt climate change because Exxon wants you to doubt climate change and will pay greatly to encourage this mentality.


Simon Man, did you read the whole article?


Yes, it was only one page.

To paraphrase from the article;

""OMG! Did u no that sientist git munneys to fun reasearch!!""


Its nonsense... if you think for a second that these scientists roll around in 2009 Bentley's or these organizations treat their employees like Google does because of fat government backed funding, you are deluding yourself.

However, I was in Dallas for the last week doing an installation at the Hunt Oil building in downtown... I saw firsthand what lack of environmental legislation gets you... leather wrapped staircase banisters, talking elevators and $12 million dollar Foucault pendulum in the main lobby



so you read the article and then did exactly what the author said uninformed people do?

i.e. ***** about companies donating money to conservative groups
Originally by: Simon Man

You doubt climate change because Exxon wants you to doubt climate change and will pay greatly to encourage this mentality.


but then ignore that the other side is doing the very same thing?

Look, i understand that Exxon will lose profits if the government shows up with guns to tell them they can't make wealth without destroying the earth. Exxon is clearly bias.
The point of that article is to show that both sides are bias.

Also, your comment about companies having too much wealth is despicable. I shutter to think that you could look down on people who work their butts off and aspire to make as much as they can. They are producing a product which your life depends on.

I don't understand why wealth is such an evil thing. Wealth is created from the mind. Surely, it is not the mind you hate. It must be that you think they are some how killing you or stealing from you with the production of a product which you so desperately need. Which is it? would you prefer them to stop producing and for millions to die when shipping lanes go dry? or are they really going to kill us by harvesting a natural byproduct of the earth?

Money is the root of all good, don't hate it.
/end rant

Xen Gin
Silurian Operations
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:14:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: KPPA
Also, your comment about companies having too much wealth is despicable. I shutter to think that you could look down on people who work their butts off and aspire to make as much as they can. They are producing a product which your life depends on.

I don't understand why wealth is such an evil thing. Wealth is created from the mind. Surely, it is not the mind you hate. It must be that you think they are some how killing you or stealing from you with the production of a product which you so desperately need. Which is it? would you prefer them to stop producing and for millions to die when shipping lanes go dry? or are they really going to kill us by harvesting a natural byproduct of the earth?

Money is the root of all good, don't hate it.
/end rant



People who have enough wealth to fund and push changes in the law to make themselves richer, yeah, I consider that pretty despicable, even down right evil, when Joe Everybody who pays their taxes and does his bit to protect his homeland and family and friends just gets a small American flag to wave as the rich roll by in their fancy armoured stretched limousines.

Salena Tarra
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:23:00 - [115]
 

Edited by: Salena Tarra on 01/12/2009 18:23:45
I think its pretty common knowledge by now that oil and big tobacco are huge contributors of conservative politicians and as such their lobbyists have huge influence with people who love to get support by spreading fear and lies.

Do we all really have such low regard for scientists that we think they are all money grabbing skeptics who make up research to fuel some crazy global conspiracy that im sure we would all rather believe than actually face the reality. There are dedicated and honest scientists on both sides of the debate but there are also those who are working for the only group that has anything to loose, and therefore a great much to gain from denying man made climate change. The reason they are so successful is because we don't want to pay more for petrol or heating but it is what is going to have to happen in order to save our planet.

KPPA
Dead 2 Rights
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:23:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Xen Gin
Originally by: KPPA
Also, your comment about companies having too much wealth is despicable. I shutter to think that you could look down on people who work their butts off and aspire to make as much as they can. They are producing a product which your life depends on.

I don't understand why wealth is such an evil thing. Wealth is created from the mind. Surely, it is not the mind you hate. It must be that you think they are some how killing you or stealing from you with the production of a product which you so desperately need. Which is it? would you prefer them to stop producing and for millions to die when shipping lanes go dry? or are they really going to kill us by harvesting a natural byproduct of the earth?

Money is the root of all good, don't hate it.
/end rant



People who have enough wealth to fund and push changes in the law to make themselves richer, yeah, I consider that pretty despicable, even down right evil, when Joe Everybody who pays their taxes and does his bit to protect his homeland and family and friends just gets a small American flag to wave as the rich roll by in their fancy armoured stretched limousines.


I don't agree with them using their wealth to influence governments. You are right that it is evil.

Government should not have the ability to help them imo. This would solve a lot of the problems. Government should also not have the ability to hurt them, this too would solve problems. In the end it is you and I who must punish them. Not with violence but with our wallets.


Simon Man
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:25:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: KPPA

so you read the article and then did exactly what the author said uninformed people do?

i.e. ***** about companies donating money to conservative groups


Look, i understand that Exxon will lose profits if the government shows up with guns to tell them they can't make wealth without destroying the earth. Exxon is clearly bias.
The point of that article is to show that both sides are bias.

Also, your comment about companies having too much wealth is despicable. I shutter to think that you could look down on people who work their butts off and aspire to make as much as they can. They are producing a product which your life depends on.

I don't understand why wealth is such an evil thing. Wealth is created from the mind. Surely, it is not the mind you hate. It must be that you think they are some how killing you or stealing from you with the production of a product which you so desperately need. Which is it? would you prefer them to stop producing and for millions to die when shipping lanes go dry? or are they really going to kill us by harvesting a natural byproduct of the earth?

Money is the root of all good, don't hate it.
/end rant



Umm, there is a big difference here. One side is actively perusing science, the other is trying to cast doubt on that science to preserve a financial gain. Its not any different then what Big Tobacco did 20 years ago.

I don't hate wealth, I tell my wife all the time I wont be satisfied until I'm Tony Stark rich... I just hate the means in which it can be acquired. I didn't know it before the installation, but Hunt oil is the same company that just dropped a pipeline though the Amazon rain forest and did a $14 billion oil deal in Iraq by circumventing the Iraqi national government. In other words, a high price has been paid for leather wrapped handrails.

KPPA
Dead 2 Rights
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:29:00 - [118]
 

Carbon credit companies wont make money if climate laws go through?

NyteTyger
Gallente
NiteSun Enterprises
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:33:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Simon Man

I don't hate wealth, I tell my wife all the time I wont be satisfied until I'm Tony Stark rich...


YES! Laughing

Burnharder
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:39:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Simon Man

I don't normally read WSJ shill, its now Murdoch garbage and can not be trusted. Despite the nonsense in that article, its clear that Exxon alone stands to benefit far more from the lack environmental legislation then anyone stands to gain from its passage.
That is why, (and I quote from the article you just gave me...)



Dude, honestly, that sum of money is small change compared to the amount Goldman Sachs and others will make from trading and hedging carbon credits. You can't accuse Exxon of corrupting the message when the message is wall-to-wall Warmism. But anyway, in my view these aren't very interesting points. I mean of course, with any legislation there are winners and losers. Both sides will want to influence the debate but remember the main point of this topic and others like it: the science is flawed and the peer review process has been corrupted to prevent you from seeing that.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (14)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only