Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[Happycamper]

Also, this thing about pushing climate change to make money ignores the fact that those pushing for the status quo are trying to protect the money they're making. So, please be consistent. If one is wrong, both are wrong.

Who are those people? Trying to get my head around it.

(Which is more than other closed minded people would try to do with the things i have written)


Edit: actually i dont think im getting it.

Of course I don't mean everyone. I'm sure most skeptics are genuine in their belief. But I'm also sure there are those whose main, if not only, motivation is making money. Those industries with the big bucks that are financing think tanks and others to raise doubt about the consensus. Because if man made climate change is real it greatly affects their business. Now, just because the research is funded by a company that has a vested interest in the findings going one way doesn't mean they don't believe in it. Just as someone investing in, or starting green companies while advocating for changing our actions in a way that will help those companies doesn't mean it is some scam to line his pockets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange



http://motherjones.com/environment/2005/05/some-it-hot

THIRTY YEARS AGO, the notion that corporations ought to sponsor think tanks that directly support their own political goalsrather than merely fund disinterested researchwas far more controversial. But then, in 1977, an associate of the AEI (which was founded as a business association in 1943) came to industrys rescue. In an essay published in the Wall Street Journal, the influential neoconservative Irving Kristol memorably counseled that corporate philanthropy should not be, and cannot be, disinterested, but should serve as a means to shape or reshape the climate of public opinion.

Kristols advice was heeded, and today many businesses give to public policy groups that support a laissez-faire, antiregulatory agenda. In its giving report, ExxonMobil says it supports public policy groups that are dedicated to researching free market solutions to policy problems. What the company doesnt say is that beyond merely challenging the Kyoto Protocol or the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act on economic grounds, many of these groups explicitly dispute the science of climate change. Generally eschewing peer-reviewed journals, these groups make their challenges in far less stringent arenas, such as the media and public forums.

Pressed on this point, spokeswoman Lauren Kerr says that ExxonMobil has been quite transparent and vocal regarding the fact that we, as do multiple organizations and respected institutions and researchers, believe that the scientific evidence on greenhouse gas emissions remains inconclusive and that studies must continue. She also hastens to point out that ExxonMobil generously supports university research programsfor example, the company plans to donate $100 million to Stanford Universitys Global Climate and Energy Project. It even funds the hallowed National Academy of Sciences.

Nevertheless, no company appears to be working harder to support those who debunk global warming. Many corporations have funded, you know, dribs and drabs here and there, but I would be surprised to learn that there was a bigger one than Exxon, explains Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which, in 2000 and again in 2003, sued the government to stop the dissemination of a Clinton-era report showing the impact of climate change in the United States. Attorney Christopher Hornerwhom youll recall from Crichtons audiencewas the lead attorney in both lawsuits and is paid a $60,000 annual consulting fee by the CEI. In 2002, ExxonMobil explicitly earmarked $60,000 for the CEI for legal activities.

Ebell denies the sum indicates any sort of quid pro quo. Hes proud of ExxonMobils funding and wishes we could attract more from other companies. He stresses that the CEI solicits funding for general project areas rather than to carry out specific sponsor requests, but admits being steered (as other public policy groups are steered) to the topics that garner grant money. While noting that the CEI is adamantly opposed to the Endangered Species Act, Ebell adds that we are only working on it in a limited way now, because we couldnt attract funding.

Right so you are saying that the oil companies are huge influential powers. Yup, you probably are correct. However it does not change the science. There is no scientific proof that increased manmade co2 is causing global warming.

The only other people are us mad Earth flat walking Society. Apparently. And we are heavily censored.

 

[aero18]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=player_embedded

I don't understand the anti-science culture that fox noise feeds off of... why is it even there to begin with? The information is there for people, but do they just refuse to acknowledge it and continue to live in delusion?

This is the typical response (the link ) :Laugh it off:

Anyone who dare ever to even question if increased levels of co2 increases the temperature must be raving mad. (apparently)

It didn't address your question. The video was about the emails that were hacked into.

 

[Happycamper]

:/

 

[stickstones]

OK Happy and Frickr, I'm not a climate scientist so I tend to go with the consensus. Could that change? Of course. That's the thing with science. But, until then I'm sure you can understand why it's hard to take the word of a couple of people on the Internet who provide no real support (blogs don't count) for their claims. Even if the emails are exactly as you say they are, it does not change the fact that the majority believes mans actions are worsening climate change. But, it seems you guys don't believe actions have consequences. Well, I'm from Louisiana and we used to have a natural barrier (wetlands) against hurricanes. What happened to the wetlands?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5388527

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/text2.html

But you guys, I gather from your posts, don't believe man has an impact on the environment. I just don't know what to say to that.

Also, this thing about pushing climate change to make money ignores the fact that those pushing for the status quo are trying to protect the money they're making. So, please be consistent. If one is wrong, both are wrong.

So you guys have fun over here stroking each other. It seems that, for the most part, you're just talking to yourselves.

That was a fucked up post...I don't even know where to begin.

 

[Frickr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto

how egocentric are people to think that we are affecting the planet? its taken care of itself for how long now? a volcano releases hundreds of times the amount of co2 then we produce in a year. so are we gonna go plug all the volcanos in the world?

theres no doubt our planets temp has gone up. but have you ever seen where the equipment is at that they use to measure the temps? http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm how can they accurately measure a temp when the equipment is located next to exhaust fans for AC systems?

heres a great picture for you guys to show you what i mean.

 

[nicelytoasted]

Fricker

That stand alone picture does not even remotely reflect the typical air temperature sensor setup that is found in any proper network. We have to follow a site setup protocol that requires us to place ALL of our sensors and analyzers in a proper location, away from any influences. It's called a tight QA/QC protocol and we have to follow it to the letter in order to produce accurate, reliable data. We calibrate regularly and even get audited by an external, accredited company at least once/year (without us knowing).

I could show you sixty pictures of a proper setup from our network alone that displays these practices.

 

[Frickr]

60 pictures of them done right doesnt do anything for the 60 that are done wrong does it? theres these all over. some right next to blacktop parkinglots. how can that be accurate?

your being told the apple is an orange. and i along with happycamper, are showing you the apple is infact an apple. why is this so hard to understand? are you that closeminded that you think that your government would never lie to you?

are you guys all for a world government, and for more taxes? you know you breath out CO2. they will start taxing your breath! how is that right? i suppose you guys also support the healthcare bill trying to be rushed through congress by obama that was written by the insurance companies arent you? this whole agenda stems past climatechange. climatechange is just their means of getting funds. it has nothing to do with helping the planet.

 

[reece]

OK Happy and Frickr, I'm not a climate scientist so I tend to go with the consensus. Could that change? Of course. That's the thing with science. But, until then I'm sure you can understand why it's hard to take the word of a couple of people on the Internet who provide no real support (blogs don't count) for their claims. Even if the emails are exactly as you say they are, it does not change the fact that the majority believes mans actions are worsening climate change. But, it seems you guys don't believe actions have consequences. Well, I'm from Louisiana and we used to have a natural barrier (wetlands) against hurricanes. What happened to the wetlands?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5388527

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/text2.html

But you guys, I gather from your posts, don't believe man has an impact on the environment. I just don't know what to say to that.

Also, this thing about pushing climate change to make money ignores the fact that those pushing for the status quo are trying to protect the money they're making. So, please be consistent. If one is wrong, both are wrong.

So you guys have fun over here stroking each other. It seems that, for the most part, you're just talking to yourselves.

That was a fucked up post...I don't even know where to begin.

Umm, OK?

 

[nicelytoasted]

Fricker

How do you know that one in your picture is even working or reporting any kind of data that is released?
I can only speak to the ones that we (and many other agencies run), and all are properly QA/QC'd with good quality data. But I concede to your expertise in this area in that most air temperature networks report only bad data.

Who said that the government would never lie to you? I didn't. Are you so paranoid that you think everyone lies to you about everything?

I like how you generalize to the extreme about anyone who doesn't agree with you. Quite laughable.

 

[stickstones]

nt, what part(s) of the earth are you monitoring?

 

[nicelytoasted]

Stickstones

We run the air quality index network in Ontario, Canada. We have over 50 stations across the province that provide real time data for a variety of compounds, including ozone, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, total reduced sulfur compounds (TRS, like hydrogen sulfide) and particulates.

 

[stickstones]

Yeah, I know. I was having a lazy moment yesterday. But I got a good buzz goin' right not, so why not? My comments in bold.

OK Happy and Frickr, I'm not a climate scientist so I tend to go with the consensus (we do have a climate scientist commenting in this thread...nicelytoasted). Could that change? Of course. That's the thing with science. But, until then I'm sure you can understand why it's hard to take the word of a couple of people on the Internet who provide no real support (blogs don't count) for their claims. (There is plenty of evidence out there. This isn't the first place for this discussion to take place even on this forum. Take some initiative; I did and found all kinds of stuff out there. I haven't looked at all the links provided in this thread, but I think some of them are documentaries on youtube.) Even if the emails are exactly as you say they are, it does not change the fact that the majority believes mans actions are worsening climate change. (Do you think the majority is always right? If so, you are in for a big surprise when you finally see what the government has been doing for almost a hundred years now...income tax, prohibition, war on drugs, federal reserve system, etc. There are a shit ton of things we have that have only been around less than 100 years, but we act like it has always been that way and that it is good. I'm done with that thinking.)But, it seems you guys don't believe actions have consequences. (Come on, man, really?)Well, I'm from Louisiana and we used to have a natural barrier (wetlands) against hurricanes. What happened to the wetlands? (Your parents and grandparents fucked them up. jk!)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5388527

(Thanks for that lengthy transcript of an ad. How about a link to the youtube page for that propaganda instead?)

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/text2.html

But you guys, I gather from your posts, don't believe man has an impact on the environment. I just don't know what to say to that. (You read wrong. For the record...I am open to the possibility that the climate is changing for the warmer. But I have seen studies pointing to areas where things are cooling as well. All I'm sayin' is that we've got a LOT to figure out before we know anything for sure...Along that same logic, I'm open to the idea that man has had an impact. But we have a LONG way to go to prove that defintively. The climate is cyclical in nature. Who knows where we are on the cycle right now?...So, given that none of this shit is proven, whadya say we pump the brakes on legislation and taxes and all kinds of shit that politicians are trying to scare us into. We can make change if we need to without transferring significant wealth to those already in power.)

Also, this thing about pushing climate change to make money ignores the fact that those pushing for the status quo are trying to protect the money they're making. (No it doesn't.) So, please be consistent. If one is wrong, both are wrong. (They are both wrong. You seem satisfied trading one plate of shit for another. Not me. We need to get rid of the one that is already there without putting another like it in its place. This is what has been goin on very effectively for decades, trading one agenda for another so we think things are progressing when all the while nothing really changes. We just move on to the next reason to build government and pay taxes, etc.)

So you guys have fun over here stroking each other. It seems that, for the most part, you're just talking to yourselves. (Now you're here, too. Feel free to stroke yourself.)

That was a fucked up post...I don't even know where to begin.

Umm, OK?

 

[stickstones]

thanks, nt. why are you doing this? I mean, what study are you a part of? Is it specifically related to climate change?

 

[nicelytoasted]

What do you think regarding the fact that the atmosphere is not heating up as it should be to support the theory of manmade global warming?

Perhaps I didnt express myself correctly in my previous post. I just wanted to make sure we are talking about the same theoretical phenomena.

This whole subject of global warming (and if it is man made) is far too complex to explain it in one, or numerous measurements, or by prediction models. Both sides of this debate are using unreliable and unpredictable data models that can be interpreted in any number of ways, imo. Each side has an agenda as well, whether it is the careers, research monies and profits for the pro side, or the support monies or profits by the petrochemical industry on the con side

For example, you say that the atmosphere should heat up in certain areas. It is possible, yes, but how would this be measured properly and accurately? What altitude(s) and over what part of the planet (arctic/tropical, land/water, rural/urban, etc.), not to mention that the atmosphere is not a static system. It is very dynamic and the air is mixing constantly, both horizontally and vertically. The atmospheric circulation system is much more complex than indicated by most reports that I have seen.

The fact is, that there are no accurate or reliable ways to say if temperature is going up or down at the surface (land masses or oceans), or in the atmosphere. Is the arctic warming or is it just cycling, are glaciers retreating or advancing? Do aerosols/particulates really have a cooling effect? Do the oceans contribute more H2O vapour/CO2, or less, or is it just cyclic. Is the weather reacting drastically because of this or is it just following long term trends? Even climatologists forecast models on the effects of H2O vapour and CO2 have been proven to be sadly lacking. Intense research recently, to try to prove or disprove global warming, has indicated many more complexities in the atmospheric circulation system than can be modeled by the models that indicated global warming. Several biggies include the effects of aerosol and soot particles, the changing amounts and distribution of water vapour, solar effects, volcanic eruptions, and other trace gases, each of which might swing the effect of climate change toward warming or cooling, but they are all poorly understood.

I used to side with the pro in this debate, but over the last few years, after researching, have moved to a more neutral stance. We really dont know, and wont know until reliable, relevant data can be obtained, linked and interpreted properly by a non-partisan body. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening anytime soon, and it may never happen.

From an environmental standpoint, I just hope that we can reduce or eliminate the megatons of emissions that we are dumping into the atmosphere, for whatever reasons

 

[Purple-Days]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
This has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[stickstones]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
This has nothing to do with the discussion.

I think it is very relevant to the conversation. Does this look like a conference of people concerned about the environment?

 

[stuartambient]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
This has nothing to do with the discussion.

damn, that's mean mentioning caviar wedges in a forum where most people viewing have the munchies .

 

[stuartambient]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
This has nothing to do with the discussion.

I think it is very relevant to the conversation. Does this look like a conference of people concerned about the environment?

Hey, even degenerate globalist elite psychopaths have to eat

 

[nicelytoasted]

thanks, nt. why are you doing this? I mean, what study are you a part of? Is it specifically related to climate change?

Stick, this is a program mandated by the provincial government to provide the air quality index (AQI) to the residents of Ontario. The concentrations of each parameter are entered into an equation that determines the AQI for each location, and is reported on an hourly basis. I believe that most other provinces and some states offer the same program, as well.

It is not specifically related to climate change. but does give a snapshot of the conditions of the local atmosphere.

 

[nicelytoasted]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenh edges.html
This has nothing to do with the discussion.

From that link:
And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union they have unions here has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.

At least the sex will be C02-neutral.

Good to see that some business will contribute.

 

[Happycamper]

For example, you say that the atmosphere should heat up in certain areas. It is possible, yes, but how would this be measured properly and accurately? What altitude(s) and over what part of the planet (arctic/tropical, land/water, rural/urban, etc.), not to mention that the atmosphere is not a static system. It is very dynamic and the air is mixing constantly, both horizontally and vertically. The atmospheric circulation system is much more complex than indicated by most reports that I have seen.

It is specifically the middle of the troposphere. Due to the greenhouse effect this is where the heat is trapped by greenhouse gasses. The maximum warming over the equator is around 10km. There are scientists specifically monitoring the atmospheric temperature. They use weather balloons and satellites.
However I dont think this effect happens over the poles.

I used to side with the pro in this debate, but over the last few years, after researching, have moved to a more neutral stance. We really dont know, and wont know until reliable, relevant data can be obtained, linked and interpreted properly by a non-partisan body. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening anytime soon, and it may never happen.

I appreciate your detailed answer, and it has clarified your points for me. Although you say you are mainly neutral, I have to say your very first comment on here basically said you were a scientist and in the next breath that manmade global warming was happening:

''Keep in mind that while greenhouse gases will contribute to increased overall temperatures, the mega tons of particulates that are also being released into the atmosphere are also contributing to a decrease in overall temperature, acting as a kind of buffer''.

My point is there isnt any scientific proof that global warming is manmade, people use sweeping statements like you did because we are all brainwashed into thinking manmade global warming has already happened.

One of the burning questions at the moment seems to be why has the temperature not gone up as much as 'they' were expecting. I bet this whole ozone hole and the mega particulates is how they are going to try to explain that one.

On that baisis however, should we not continue trying to warm our selves with co2. If the theory that somehow we are off setting the warming by doing something that is cooling us down is correct, i would be a bit worried about what happens when we remove the thing that is supposed to be heating us up. I dont want to live through an ice age personally.

 

[Happycamper]

The biggest greenhouse gas apparently is water vapor. So as vaporists we may be causing a problem?

 

[stuartambient]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091205/sc_afp/unclimatewarmingbritainweather

 

[Happycamper]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091205/sc_afp/unclimatewarmingbritainweather

Interesting link.

However the issue is really not if we have warmed up. The debate is if it has been caused by man or not.
The Earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles for a very very long time. There is absolutely nothing unusual about an increase in temperature.

The fact that the Earth's temperature has risen does not prove that it is manmade global warming, but they are using this to their advantage.

This brainwashing is getting people to confuse what is natural and what is manmade. They (general public) presume any global warming can only be manmade and is disasterous when this is clearly not the case. The fact that our ancestors and the Polar bears have lived through much warmer climates in the past seems not to count for some reason.
Releasing this information is adding fuel to the general public's fear that we are in meltdown mode, and i fear that probably is the purpose behind it. It is their way of striking fear into the nation and take away the focus from the leaked emails.

Does anyone else see this as a clever tactic?

People are going to say 'the temperature has gone up, so yes we are experiencing manmade global warming' because they don't know any better.

This is like a game of chess, but they have many dirty tricks to play. They have a great advantage, because anyone that has ever worked with the general public will realise how stupid they are.

 

[stuartambient]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091205/sc_afp/unclimatewarmingbritainweather

Interesting link.

However the issue is really not if we have warmed up. The debate is if it has been caused by man or not.
The Earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles for a very very long time. There is absolutely nothing unusual about an increase in temperature.

The fact that the Earth's temperature has risen does not prove that it is manmade global warming, but they are using this to their advantage.

This brainwashing is getting people to confuse what is natural and what is manmade. They (general public) presume any global warming can only be manmade and is disasterous when this is clearly not the case. The fact that our ancestors and the Polar bears have lived through much warmer climates in the past seems not to count for some reason.
Releasing this imformation is adding fuel to the general public's fear that we are in meltdown mode, and i fear that probably is the purpose behind it. It is their way of striking fear into the nation and take away the focus from the leaked emails.

Does anyone else see this as a clever tactic?

It is clever until you take it apart, then it just seems dastardly. It's like the 3 card monty game though, they keep things moving around to try and confuse as many people as possible.

This is like a game of chess, but they have many dirty tricks to play. They have a great advantage, because anyone that has ever worked with the general public will realise how stupid they are.

Check out Edward Bernays - nephew of Sigmund Freud and master of spin and deception . Another contributor to how people can easily be led whichever way you want them to go.

The pitch is that your children and children's children will benefit from this wonderful program. Kids , most , will believe just about anything , particularly in the right conditions. Get them while they are young right . i.e. schools, supposed expert talks, books. What they won't explain is how this program will also assist in eliminating people from this planet, aka, genocide. If you think 3rd world nations are already suffering this will push them over the brink. No doubt though you'll still see some compromised politician photo oping in Somalia or Ecuador under the guise of some baloney social program.

Ack
LOL
S