Climategate turned on its head this time

[Team 444]

I love liberal fear and theory. It kind of reminds me of the kid in 10th grade who thinks he can solve all of the world's problems with no real understanding of its problem - or in many cases - if a perceived "problem" is even a "problem" at all.

The Earth is very, very, and I mean very old. Entertaining that we can hurt the Earth by negatively effecting something as constant as climate change is always a highly entertaining thread.

[lapaz]

Originally Posted by Team 444

I love liberal fear and theory. It kind of reminds me of the kid in 10th grade who thinks he can solve all of the world's problems with no real understanding of its problem - or in many cases - if a perceived "problem" is even a "problem" at all.

The Earth is very, very, and I mean very old. Entertaining that we can hurt the Earth by negatively effecting something as constant as climate change is always a highly entertaining thread.

Sarcasm on! I love conservative simple and close-mindedness. It's entertaining that some people think man CAN'T affect the climate. I suppose if we dropped our atomic bombs, there wouldn't be any effect on the climate?! I supposed if we cut down all the trees on earth and killed all plant life, it wouldn't affect the climate?! I suppose if we caused all oil wells to spill their contents into the ocean, and burned the rest, it wouldn't affect the climate?! I suppose if we burned-off the entire ozone layer, it wouldn't affect the climate!? Sarcasm off!

Obviously these are extreme examples, and I realize that the earth would eventually recover, but the point is that all of these actions would alter the climactic cycle, and they are all within man's capability. Noone has ever said that there isn't a natural climate cycle, but there are many things that can be done to exaserbate the cycle. We're not exactly "hurting" the earth, but we can certainly alter the state of the earth, and the existence of life as we know it. Now, consider all of the billions of chemicals we're spewing into the atmosphere. Those chemicals can similarly affect the climate, but the affect is much slower. It doesn't mean that they aren't as real, so it is ridiculous to discount the possibility out-of-hand.

[Brandon13]

Originally Posted by Team 444

I love liberal fear and theory. It kind of reminds me of the kid in 10th grade who thinks he can solve all of the world's problems with no real understanding of its problem - or in many cases - if a perceived "problem" is even a "problem" at all.

The Earth is very, very, and I mean very old. Entertaining that we can hurt the Earth by negatively effecting something as constant as climate change is always a highly entertaining thread.

How can be so absolutely certain on that? Maybe the negative effect humans have had on the climate is overblown, maybe by a lot, but how can you just absolutely say that humans cannot do any harm to it?

It seems like the height of naivete/ignorance to hold such a resolute position.

[BIG E]

"Rumor" Al Gore had a bounty on global warming skeptics.

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by Yoweigh

These are (some of) the same people who played up the original climategate emails. Now someone has stabbed them in the back and confirmed what I have always suspected - conservative think tanks are actively trying to suppress science and confuse the public regarding climate change.


I wanted to make sure those quotes weren't taken out of context, so I looked at the source document. There I found another section detailing how the Heartland Institute directly provides cash to "high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message." This organization is being funded by, among others, the Koch brothers. The Charles G. Koch Foundation alone gave them $200,000 in 2011.

I often see the anti-climate-science people claim that scientists are only saying what they say so that they can get grants. Well, here's clear evidence that the deniers are only saying what they say because they get paid to say it. The whole anti-AGW movement is a fraud funded by the people who stand to lose lose the most if we, as a nation, actually listened to reason.

This is a hell of a lot more damning that climategate ever was. Science is not a conspiracy. Antiscience is.

Climate Change: Uncertainties more deniers just getting paid.

You are the OP so you already know, or refuse to read anything that is in disagreement with you, that this is a fraud. The primary document from an anonymous source has several discrepancies and contains numerous phrase used by the scientist who provided the document in his other reports and essays. One article I cited commented on the "anti agw" funding and the millions being spent on pro agw organizations so $ 200,000 is literal a drop in the bucket spent on the issue.

But keep up the good work.

[Sarcastic]

No, if 200,000 was literal a drop in the bucket, it wouldn't be 200,000 dollars, it would be a drop of something in a bucket.

But keep up the good work

[mister pc]

Originally Posted by Team 444

I love liberal fear and theory. It kind of reminds me of the kid in 10th grade who thinks he can solve all of the world's problems with no real understanding of its problem - or in many cases - if a perceived "problem" is even a "problem" at all.

The Earth is very, very, and I mean very old. Entertaining that we can hurt the Earth by negatively effecting something as constant as climate change is always a highly entertaining thread.

Of course, its so simple! I wonder why all these scientists have not thought about the fact that the earth is very, very, very, old. the Earth is old, so industrial activity by humans cannot impact the habitat. That just makes sense! I mean, the age of the Earth clearly proves that humans cannot negatively effect the ecosystem. We should email your findings to those dummies at NASA right away.

[RebSaint]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

Climate Change: Uncertainties more deniers just getting paid.

You are the OP so you already know, or refuse to read anything that is in disagreement with you, that this is a fraud. The primary document from an anonymous source has several discrepancies and contains numerous phrase used by the scientist who provided the document in his other reports and essays. One article I cited commented on the "anti agw" funding and the millions being spent on pro agw organizations so $ 200,000 is literal a drop in the bucket spent on the issue.

But keep up the good work.

The link you provide has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of your post, nor does it support the point you're attempting to make. Furthermore, that NASA link does not all contradict what I've specifically said about climate change and the nature of scientific debate.

It's obvious your still lost on the nature of this debate and the science behind it. Furthermore, it's interesting that you chose to link some information from NASA; I think this page is more relevant to the discussion.

Climate Change: Evidence

[Oye]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

Dude, it was so funny, I literally crapped my pants

Originally Posted by David Cross

Ew.... then what did you do?

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

What do you mean, dude? I was laughing...

Originally Posted by David Cross

No, I mean what did you do with your crappy pants?

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

No, dude, I didn't really crap my pants. I literally crapped my pants

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

$ 200,000 is literal a drop in the bucket

Originally Posted by David Cross

[Yoweigh]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

Climate Change: Uncertainties more deniers just getting paid.

You are the OP so you already know, or refuse to read anything that is in disagreement with you, that this is a fraud. The primary document from an anonymous source has several discrepancies and contains numerous phrase used by the scientist who provided the document in his other reports and essays. One article I cited commented on the "anti agw" funding and the millions being spent on pro agw organizations so $ 200,000 is literal a drop in the bucket spent on the issue.

But keep up the good work.

To begin with, the link you posted in no way supports whatever you're trying to argue here. I made this thread before it was even suggested that anything was a fraud, but feel free to attack my character regardless. Claims that the so-called primary document is a fraud are only speculations at this point anyway. Since I assume "pro agw orginazations" include some of the ones that actually do climate science, of course they're better funded! They have actual work to do! Science costs more than spewing PR does.

[IntenseSaint]

I used to be skeptical of Anthropogenic Climate change but recent esoteric studies I have seen first hand have changed that. This is an issue that will need to be addressed and the sooner the better. These changes will most likely need to be done as government mandates because our private market will not adjust fast enough to affect the change we need to make an impact.

[Taurus]

Yup, we sure can't effect any changes on climate, us nekkid monkeys.

Oh, wait.

Hot on the Contrails of Weather
Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by Oye

An interesting question arises. How did I get my pants in a position were I could "literally" crap them.

[Taceo]

One leg at a time, just like the rest of us.

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by Yoweigh

To begin with, the link you posted in no way supports whatever you're trying to argue here. I made this thread before it was even suggested that anything was a fraud, but feel free to attack my character regardless. Claims that the so-called primary document is a fraud are only speculations at this point anyway. Since I assume "pro agw orginazations" include some of the ones that actually do climate science, of course they're better funded! They have actual work to do! Science costs more than spewing PR does.

Your quote that I referenced in my post was about "deniers" just saying things because they were paid. I cited the article because it is from a source repeatedly cite by agw proponents, including the IPCC, so it can not just be dismissed off hand. It asserts that we know far to little about the climate and climate cycles to make definitive proclaimation about what will happen with what can be considered scientic accuracy (which is what I have been asserting for 5 years now).

The article you linked demonstrated numerous correlations between climate change and other elements. I am not questioning correlation just what people are implying is causation despite the numerous "uncertainties" and the "enormous effect" they have on climate.