Real Global warming skeptics

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

I bet you could show that ALL scientist in favor of GW being man made are ALSO on someone elses payroll. The problem with you moonbats is that if your paying its okay, anyone else isn't. After all differing opinions are only allowed if everyone agrees, right?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
It isn't about science anymore, it's about religion. 'Man caused' global warming is their religion and Al Gore is their god. Science has been politicized to the point that it is no longer truly objective and unbiased...it's become Orwellian.

Man you Ultra Right Wingers sure are creative. A Religion..Bwuahahahaha:roll:

Well it does seem to take on many of the aspects attributed to religions, including raving intolerance for those who disagree. (heretics oh my)

 

[imported_Shivetya]

now its WWAD? What Would A Do or What Would Al Say!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

I bet you could show that ALL scientist in favor of GW being man made are ALSO on someone elses payroll. The problem with you moonbats is that if your paying its okay, anyone else isn't. After all differing opinions are only allowed if everyone agrees, right?

The problem with you Sleazebags is that you label those who disagree with you Moonbats:laugh:

 

[XMan]

Michael Crichton would be another example of a skeptic. I don't see see how you could say that he has any financial reason to be so.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You all act like it's an undeniable fact that mankind is causing significant increased CO2 levels which, in turn, causes global warming. In case you have't noticed, there's legitimate disagreement within the scientific community on this subject. Read the OP's links...think about it...research it...and maybe, just maybe, you'll be open-minded enough to see that there's many valid reasons to question the theory that global warming is a 'man-made' phenomenon.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: ericlp
bad science

I hate this phrase, science is neutral, but scientists never are neutral.

It is usually the scientists who subscribe to the dogma of a field (or a certain theory) versus those who are skeptical. Examples of this can be seen throughout the history of modern science, sometimes those few people who are skeptical of a mainstream belief in the scientific community turn out to be correct, such as scientists who did not believe in Lamarkianism.

Ideally scientists should always be open to the possibility that a theory could be proven incorrect and never dismiss any evidence just because it is not consistent to what they believe.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
You all act like it's an undeniable fact that mankind is causing significant increased CO2 levels which, in turn, causes global warming. In case you have't noticed, there's legitimate disagreement within the scientific community on this subject. Read the OP's links...think about it...research it...and maybe, just maybe, you'll be open-minded enough to see that there's many valid reasons to question the theory that global warming is a 'man-made' phenomenon.

Yeah I'm not totally convinced that is fact but I don't see the harm in doing all we can just in case it is.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
You all act like it's an undeniable fact that mankind is causing significant increased CO2 levels which, in turn, causes global warming. In case you have't noticed, there's legitimate disagreement within the scientific community on this subject. Read the OP's links...think about it...research it...and maybe, just maybe, you'll be open-minded enough to see that there's many valid reasons to question the theory that global warming is a 'man-made' phenomenon.

Yeah I'm not totally convinced that is fact but I don't see the harm in doing all we can just in case it is.

If cleaner water and air were all the "environmentalists" were after, there would be no problem. Of course, their pleas for harmony with nature go much farther than that. Rather than simply having an enlightened view of pollution and ecology, the environmental movement has become the new, respectable place for all kinds of wackos to further their destructive ends. It's a shame- really.

Invent the ultimate crisis and scare the hell out of people to get them to do all sorts of crazy things... what an idea? Spend an honest minute looking into some of those ecological crusaders with their axes to grind. Look into the VERY questionable scientific studies and research... and the thousands of scientists that have have been 'kicked out' for questioning their methods and findings. Look into how the whole movement has been politicized by philosophic kooks and crooked politicians. It's the new religion- incredibly dogmatic and complete with an armageddon.

Everything about the modern environmental movement is wrong. HOW much damage is occurring is wrong. WHO they blame is wrong. WHY the environment should be cleaned is wrong. WHAT should be done about pollution is wrong. It's ALL wrong.

These are all things that the modern environmental movement does do. Sites like these offer better alternatives:
Link
Link

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

The global warming scientists are on payrolls as well.
And for the past 10 years all the grants have been going to people who are working to prove global warming is man made.
That is a big part of the problem. The decided that it is a man made problem and are out there looking for proof to back up their beliefs, not a good way to do science.

You are suppose to look at the facts and then from a conclusion, not form a conclusion and look for facts to back it up.

Wrong on many levels. Climate change is a serious issue, therefore the research gets funded. I don't suppose you have any evidence to support that the people funding the grants have an agenda? or any evidence to support that the researchers have an agenda?

At some point you have to accept the research that has gone before you (i.e., the climate is changing) and then structure your research to better understand this by focusing down on more and more minute elements of it. That's how research works, every climate researcher is not trying to demonstrate whether the climate is or is not warming (or whatever you pet agenda is).

The researchers and the people funding the research have not politicized the issue, businesses (and therefore politicians they've bought) have politicized the issue out of economic necessity.

People like yourself only care about the issue because it's been deemed the opposite of the "liberal" position. You are primarily partisan hacks that aren't concerned about the issue, only that you're on anti-liberal side of it. You do not have the risk of economic impact to motivate you (regulation would have minimal impact on individuals) nor do you have the experience and knowlege of the scientific community necessarty to question the motivation of the research. The only motivation you and your kind have is to support the "anti-liberal" side of any issue that comes up.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
It isn't about science anymore, it's about religion. 'Man caused' global warming is their religion and Al Gore is their god. Science has been politicized to the point that it is no longer truly objective and unbiased...it's become Orwellian.

And all this time I had it backwards... I figured god created the earth... and well...When the earth gets too hot then the devil is on his way.... Then god comes and saves us all... Hahaha

It is about religion in some extent. I would think that some people (maybe even you) might think that god put us here to use the earth in any way we want. Even kill all the animals ... no big deal. As long as you don't kill another human you know follow the ten commandments ... You can do anything you want... god will save your ass I guess.

Well, sorry to burst your bubbles but it don't work that way. Ya see when man wrote down the 10 commandments he didn't have Greenhouse gass / Pollution to worry about so, he didn't have to put him in there... So what we need ... seriously I'm not making this up... Is another crazed lunatic 'moses the second coming' if you will to say he talked to god and god handeth him 25 more commandments to follow... We need a new set of commandments for the 20'th century....

So....Who wants to be the second Moses? Any volunteers? C'mon don't be shy stand up.... Send me an email to why you'd make a good moses and I'll choose the best one...

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

This argument is bunk. All scientists are on someone's payroll - generally on the payroll of an organization that is pushing an agenda.

Some of my research is funded by the DOD. Why would they fund me to generate data demonstrating how bad some of their problems are and the best way to remedy them? Wouldn't the DOD be better off not funding research that probes their problems.

The research environment I work in, both private and public, would not function if it were agenda based, otherwise its not research.

Again, do you have evidence to support your claims about funding organizations or the research that is performed. A lot of you parrot this information because it sounds good, not because there's any basis behind it.

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
You all act like it's an undeniable fact that mankind is causing significant increased CO2 levels which, in turn, causes global warming. In case you have't noticed, there's legitimate disagreement within the scientific community on this subject. Read the OP's links...think about it...research it...and maybe, just maybe, you'll be open-minded enough to see that there's many valid reasons to question the theory that global warming is a 'man-made' phenomenon.

No, we all don't act like anything is an undeniable fact, stop spreading lies. We act like a preponderance of the evidence points towards anthropogenic activities increasing CO2 levels. There's a difference that you ignore so you can get all histrionic on us but it's intellectually dishonest to do so.

The legitimate disagreement is miniscule, it's legitimacy is not nearly as relevant as it's acceptance within the scientific community (which tends to say something about it's legitimacy). Perhaps you're not too busy to do some reading of your own? What consensus means

Perhaps reading links, researching and being open-minded is what has led the majority of us to accept the conclusions offered up so far? You assume because some one has a different opinion than you that they are ignorant of the issues (sounds like elitism, but that's a perjorative reserved for liberals these days, so I won't apply it to you).

 

[Kntx]

What is the payoff of global warming for its proponents? This is what I don't get. It is clear what the payoff is for those people heavily invested in fossil fuels. But for those who argue that all of the available evidence supports global warming and want action, what is the payoff?

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: Kntx
What is the payoff of global warming for its proponents? This is what I don't get. It is clear what the payoff is for those people heavily invested in fossil fuels. But for those who argue that all of the available evidence supports global warming and want action, what is the payoff?

Survival of our species with a modicum of comfort.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Kntx
What is the payoff of global warming for its proponents? This is what I don't get. It is clear what the payoff is for those people heavily invested in fossil fuels. But for those who argue that all of the available evidence supports global warming and want action, what is the payoff?

Survival of our species with a modicum of comfort.

yeah...I would have to say leaving a decent world for my grandchildren to play in would be reason enough.

 

[Kntx]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Kntx
What is the payoff of global warming for its proponents? This is what I don't get. It is clear what the payoff is for those people heavily invested in fossil fuels. But for those who argue that all of the available evidence supports global warming and want action, what is the payoff?

Survival of our species with a modicum of comfort.

yeah...I would have to say leaving a decent world for my grandchildren to play in would be reason enough.

Yea, that's what I'm saying. All I read from guys on this board is about the global-warming "agenda". So what's the payoff?? What's the endgame of this "agenda"??

 

[Moonbeam]

I heard about some guy who wouldn't move when the scientists warned that Mt. Saint Helens was about to erupt and so he died in a pyroclastic flow. I don't think he was able to convince his neighbors to stay. Fortunately he didn't have a family to kill.

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: Kntx

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Kntx
What is the payoff of global warming for its proponents? This is what I don't get. It is clear what the payoff is for those people heavily invested in fossil fuels. But for those who argue that all of the available evidence supports global warming and want action, what is the payoff?

Survival of our species with a modicum of comfort.

yeah...I would have to say leaving a decent world for my grandchildren to play in would be reason enough.

Yea, that's what I'm saying. All I read from guys on this board is about the global-warming "agenda". So what's the payoff?? What's the endgame of this "agenda"??

The same payoff we got when we were proactive about lead emissions from gas and lead content in paint.

The same payoff we got when we limited effluents and outfalls of chemicals into our waterways.

The same payoff we got when we limited the amount of pollutants allowed to be spewed into the air.

Big business feels a pinch in the pocketbook, the rest of society saves untold amounts of money in health and environmental costs.

Which side would you rather be on, the side motivated by money and partisan politics (deniers) or the side that is willing to sacrifice, compromise, conserve and use our vast technology and resources to mitigate the harm we may be causing ourselves, others and future generations?

I think it's pretty evident who the petty, selfish, money grubbing, sorry excuses for humanity are.

 

[Darkhawk28]

I found this after a five-second google search...

Conservobots, please find one global warming skeptic not under the oil companys' payrolls. Please, this is getting stupid. I must've exposed a dozen or more "scientists" in the past year within five minutes of reading an OP. It's getting really stupid.

Dr. S. Fred Singer - Oil Company's Paid Stooge

 

[umbrella39]

People who refuse to deny the reality of global warming and that we, in some way, can and have shaped it since the industrial revolution are either too scared or too stupid imo to accept it. In all honesty, I could care less if they decide to go through life with blinders on or not, the rest of us thinking inhabitants of earth can hopefully do something about it in the meantime... edit: while they trip over themselves paying "scientists" to prove otherwise! LOL. Nice find on Singer.

 

[MadRat]

GW is witchcraft. Supporters of the notion should be frozen at the stake.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

Everybody gets paid, even the scientists who proclaim man made global warming. Does that invalidate their claims because you dont approve of their funding?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

Ummm....aren't all scientists on someones payroll? Or are all these GW scientists volunteers?

As usual, you completely missed the point. On someone's payroll who demands a specific answer. For example, the hypothetical scientist on big oil's payroll who's paid to "debunk" global warming. Or here's another in case you still don't get it: the hypothetical scientist paid by big tobacco NOT to find any conclusive link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer. Get it?

You dont think big govt demands an answer? Many politicians pull the purse strings of these studies. Many politicians want an awaiting disaster so they can control their populations.

I think you are the one who missed the point.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

I bet you could show that ALL scientist in favor of GW being man made are ALSO on someone elses payroll. The problem with you moonbats is that if your paying its okay, anyone else isn't. After all differing opinions are only allowed if everyone agrees, right?

The problem with you Sleazebags is that you label those who disagree with you Moonbats:laugh:

And you wingnuts, so the slate is even again.

Continue.