Global warming expedition called off...

Now that is humor!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Mar 12 2007, 09:42 PM) [snapback]404617[/snapback]</div>

Bummer about the toes but that is highly ironic.

Wildkow

 

Listen to the scientists on global warming, they are the brightest and best as seen in this article. Absolutly brilliant people.

hahahahaha... :lol:

By the way... Not to be an alarmist, but we are having global warming here in Chicagoland this week. Most of the ground cover snow is gone and now the icebergs in the parking lots are melting at an alarming rate.

Hardliner conservatives claim this is due to routine spring warming, but here on PC, we know the truth. The snow would not melt in the spring if not for extreme carbon emmissions and methane produced from dairy cows in Wisconsin to the north.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 14 2007, 10:08 AM) [snapback]405315[/snapback]</div>

There is certainly room for reasoned discussion about global warming, but I am tired of people like you who can do nothing to add to the debate other than mock the scientific profession. Perhaps you would do us the kindness to step out from the safety of anonymity and tell us your occupation, so that I can make fun of what you do for a living.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Mar 14 2007, 11:50 AM) [snapback]405544[/snapback]</div>

Fair enough - but the scientists who have questions or reservations about anthropogenic global warming are routinely trashed, mocked, and called stooges of the fossil fuel industry. So you are willing to speak up for them as well, correct?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Mar 14 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]405569[/snapback]</div>

you should know by know liberals are not open minded. no dissenting opinions allowed. minority rights for them when they are in the minority - ie gay marriage.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Mar 14 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]405569[/snapback]</div>

Those scientists sold their souls once they started recieving money from or lobbying for those organizations. Should they be treated in the same manner? IMO no, they had chances to present opposing data and it was falsified MANY times yet they continue to present the same data. I don't see Christy or Stott complaing about the film and how they were misrepresented....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Mar 14 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]405578[/snapback]</div>

And those who have sold their souls to agencies in support of man-made GW? I guess you can only be a sell out if you're AGW, eh? IMO, that's hypocritical. Do you deny there's big money to be made by ratcheting up the doomsday hype ... probably much, much more than keeping the status quo?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 14 2007, 03:39 PM) [snapback]405573[/snapback]</div>

You are so full of it. There are plenty of here who would be willing to engage in an open-minded discussion of the issue, but people like you and daronspicher can do nothing but hurl insults. Let's have a few folks here insult the integrity of the medical profession and see how you respond.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Mar 14 2007, 03:59 PM) [snapback]405593[/snapback]</div>

Tell me, where do you think there's more money? Applying for grants from the National Science Foundation; or being a consulant to ExxonMobil?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Mar 14 2007, 03:59 PM) [snapback]405593[/snapback]</div>

Some proof of that would be nice.

Proof in the other way is readily available and documented. They even hired Steven Milroy, previously hired by big tobacco to disprove the dangers of secondhand smoke. See:

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/E...ng-tobacco.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Mar 14 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]405593[/snapback]</div>

I hang out with and am surrounded by scientists at school and in my field study trips and I have yet to see a filthy rich scientist who didn't sell out. Most of my friends work hard and the grant money gets used up long before they can live an plush lifestyle. No my friend, I would verture to say that the sellouts or biostitutes as we call them, are the ones making the big money.

Have you looked into the crazy grants given out by the Templeton Foundation if you can somehow mix science and religion? They dwarf the grants given out by conventional foundations.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Mar 14 2007, 02:48 PM) [snapback]405625[/snapback]</div>

You might not like the source, but the NY times has an article from Oct. 2006 that refers to all U.S. energy R&D spending saying

"President Bush has sought an increase to $4.2 billion for 2007, but that would still be a small fraction of what most climate and energy experts say would be needed."

So, that's a starting number for everything dealing with energy R&D. Would $10 billion for GW alone be a good estimate of desires then? By contrast, DemocracyNow has a somewhat dated article from April of 2005 stating

"A new investigation by Mother Jones magazine has revealed that ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming."

The ways the funds are divvied up are detailed in an Environmental Defense article from December of 2006 (there's a table).

Okay, ExxonMobil is only one of the big four or five oil companies, and the article is dated. Let's increase the monies by an order of magnitude and say the other big oil companies gave the same amount of funding. That's $80 million x 5 = $400 million in AGW funding. That's a lot of money, but it pales in comparison to what is desired by the GW crowd.

Of course, all of this is from an outsider who isn't privy to the bookkeeping at any large oil firm or the voluminous list of federal grants offered by our government alone. I have no stake in the publications and/or web sites of the NY Times, DemocracyNow, Mother Jones, or Environmental Defense.

By providing links that aren't 100% on target, I know this post will get picked apart. My desire was to demonstrate that no private companies can begin to offer funding that will approach what the federal government does (or may). In this case, the largest amount of money to be made is by vigoursly supporting GW and applying for federal funding to help "solve" the problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Mar 14 2007, 03:59 PM) [snapback]405593[/snapback]</div>

Regardless, the end product of the supposed doomsday hype will probably be a good thing. Maintaining status quo doesn't allow for progress. Without progress, our economy suffers. Hopefully the net effect will be a boon to our economy resulting from the renewable energy sources produced, quality of life issues notwithstanding.

 

And if the climate models are wrong and underestimate the impact of global climate disruption....

 

..oh great Mirza I just started feeling good about my hybrid car, my solar panels and recycling efforts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Mar 14 2007, 09:56 PM) [snapback]405662[/snapback]</div>

Oddly enough, science costs a bit more than propaganda. You know, you have to do research, launch satellites, install satellites, run supercomputer systems. All that jazz.

Drawing fake graphs with felt tip and claiming they were sourced from NASA is a bit cheaper. :lol:

I think the point was about the money being earnt by the individuals on each side.