Earth:The newest Star

[H2O boy]

one in every crowd

 

[spike]

It is interesting that there is near unanimity here, with a single exception, that Al Gore is not a good person, is lying about AGW, and is in this for nothing more than monetary profit.

It is interesting that you claim that most people think he is lying when that wasn't demonstrated. Some people don't like him but then again most people didn't like Bush.

I think about half the people here are for environmental responsibility regardless of what Gore has to do with it.

 

[Gonz]

I think about half the people here are for environmental responsibility regardless of what Gore has to do with it.

We're not talking about them, we're laughing at Gore.

 

[jimpeel]

It is interesting that you claim that most people think he is lying when that wasn't demonstrated. Some people don't like him but then again most people didn't like Bush.

I think about half the people here are for environmental responsibility regardless of what Gore has to do with it.

Those e-mails that were recently posted on the web are very interesting reading. They show very clearly the type of people who are in your and Al's movement and the lengths they will go to obfuscate their true agenda. The following is but a single example.

You always refute the numbers of scientists and who has PhDs etc. when we post lists of people opposed to GW but it seems that there is an agenda to conceal those numbers and your side has admitted it.

Al Gore isn't the only liar in your movement.

Guess what type of person this guy was speaking about when he wrote this 1997 e-mail about Kyoto? Clue: He is lurking in your mirror.

From: Joseph Alcamo <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: [email protected]

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

Distribution for Endorsements --

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!

Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.

1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.

2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.

3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.

Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.

Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

Best wishes,

Joe Alcamo


----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany

Phone: redacted
Fax: redacted

 

[spike]

Jim here is an example of the liars in your movement.

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

ADDITIONAL DOWNLOAD(S): ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science | Exxon - Appendix C-Key Documents Part I | Exxon - Appendix C-Key Documents Part II | Exxon - Appendix C-Key Documents Part III
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming
ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.

"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming."

ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific understanding of global warming—under the guise of "sound science"—for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.

"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the steps we take now and in the coming years."

The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.

"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior on this issue is unacceptable and must change."

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

 

[ResearchMonkey]

$16mil v $Xbilions that have been spent supporting a hoax.

 

[spike]

Oh I see you made up something.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

How much did the falsified IPPC study cost?

 

[jimpeel]

Jim here is an example of the liars in your movement.



http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

That's because we don't have the government to give billions to research that refutes AGW as they do to research which supports it. You believe that if a private company supports the groups which support them that they are "using the same tactics as the tobacco companies". Note how your side tries to negatively attach the oil company to tobacco companies. Guilt by association even if no association exists.

The fact is that the government also subsidizes the tobacco companies with billions of tax dollars just as they do with GW research. I guess they are doing a good thing by doing that as well, hmmmm?

 

[spike]

That's because we don't have the government to give billions to research that refutes AGW as they do to research which supports it.

They just research it Jim.

You believe that if a private company supports the groups which support them that they are "using the same tactics as the tobacco companies".

No jim if they spread misinformation like the tobacco companies they're using the same tactics.

Note how your side tries to negatively attach the oil company to tobacco companies. Guilt by association even if no association exists.

The association is the same tactics.

The fact is that the government also subsidizes the tobacco companies with billions of tax dollars just as they do with GW research. I guess they are doing a good thing by doing that as well, hmmmm?

Tried to find you point there but there isn't one.

 

[jimpeel]

There is no actual proof of AGW. Do the math and you will see that there is no way that the small amount of CO2 which exists in the atmosphere can cause what these clowns are saying it does. In fact, when the Earth's atmosphere is quantified, they always say that the percentages are 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. The other gases are so minuscule that they are not usually given consideration.

Do you believe that this could happen to the Earth? That the atmosphere could somehow magically change to 95% CO2? Perhaps if all life of all kinds were to cease to exist.

Have you noted the major greenhouse gas which Mars and Venus lack and which cannot be controlled at any level whatsoever on Earth? Have you noted what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases? What crops could be grown at -18 deg C (-32.4 deg F)?

 

[spike]

There is no actual proof of AGW.

There is.

Do the math and you will see that there is no way that the small amount of CO2 which exists in the atmosphere can cause what these clowns are saying it does

Scientists have done the math and found that it can.

In fact, when the Earth's atmosphere is quantified, they always say that the percentages are 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. The other gases are so minuscule that they are not usually given consideration.

What's your point?

Do you believe that this could happen to the Earth? That the atmosphere could somehow magically change to 95% CO2? Perhaps if all life of all kinds were to cease to exist.

No, I can't imagine what your point is. Was somebody talking about our atmosphere changing to 95% CO2? I must have missed it.

Have you noted the major greenhouse gas which Mars and Venus lack and which cannot be controlled at any level whatsoever on Earth? Have you noted what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases? What crops could be grown at -18 deg C (-32.4 deg F)?

Was somebody talking about the earth having a complete lack of greenhouse gasses?