Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[rayski]

Another interesting link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

30,0000, 9000 PHD scientists are trying to speak up about this and tell us the facts.

They are finding it really difficult even to get on the air, and without the internet we wouldnt even know they existed.

Do you think flat-earthers should get air time also.

 

[Frickr]

perfect example how censored our news programs are. they only tell you what they want you to hear. nothing else. i think this whole thing goes alot deeper then just global warming, and the masses need to be informed of this. the emails were posted up on Nov 20, and there still is tons of people that have no idea this is even happening.

 

[Frickr]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34298135/ns/us_news-environment/

"This correspondence looks very bad," de Boer said, but noted that the matter was being investigated by the university, police and the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change. He also defended the research reviewed by some 2,500 scientists that shows man has fueled global warming by burning fossil fuels.

"I think this is about the most credible piece of science that there is out there," he said.

U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing called the science on global warming "very robust, very substantial." He told AP that the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails came at an "unfortunate" time, just before the long-awaited U.N. talks, "but has no fundamental bearing on the outcome."

heres another example of how bias the news in our country it. flat out say they got caught doing something wrong, and yet they still say they dont care and they will push it through anyway. Shouldnt we be waiting till the investigations behind this are completed before moving on with this issue globaly? obviously there is something wrong here for scientists to be resigning all over the world in fear of being caught, but you never hear that sort of thing in the news now do you?

its sad when agenda speaks louder then science.

 

[Happycamper]

''This correspondence looks very bad," de Boer said, but noted that the matter was being investigated by the university, police and the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change. He also defended the research reviewed by some 2,500 scientists that shows man has fueled global warming by burning fossil fuels.''

"I think this is about the most credible piece of science that there is out there," he said.


They keep saying their research is backed by 2,500 scientists.

FACT: IT IS NOT.

Many scientists have tried to have their names taken off that list as they do not support this. They have been denied and thier name is used in support of this against their will. Many of that 2,500 are not even scientists to begin with, they are 'reviewers'.

 

[Frickr]

and the UN's expert panel on climate change are the ones investigating this? isnt that letting the fox watch the henhouse? how can there be an honest investigation when its the people caught investigating themselves?

 

[Frickr]

its sad you never hear anything in the news about adit the fed either. another monumental legal battle, and it isnt being covered. msnbc only had 2 articals, the first was bernanke's case to keep congress out of the fed. the second being that it passed through the house and didnt have anything about what it would entail.

 

[rayski]

From the Guardian:

The review will be headed by Scottish civil servant and former principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow, Sir Muir Russell. "Given the nature of the allegations, it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."

 

[Happycamper]

So Al Gore does actually benefit personally from changes he's trying to make http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI

He's a partner in a company that has invested about a Billion Dollars into 40 companies that are going to benefit from his climate bill..

 

[rayski]

So Al Gore does actually benefit personally from changes he's trying to make http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI

He's a partner in a company that has invested about a Billion Dollars into 40 companies that are going to benefit from his climate bill..

The whole world will benefit. Why shouldn't he?
He's not supposed to invest in green technology? Why not?

 

[Frickr]

how would the whole world benifit from having to pay a higher tax that wont go to help the people, but to futher seperate the gap between the rich and the poor. when you already work 4 months out of the year just to pay taxes, think what this is going to do. do you want to only make a quarter of your actual earnings a year? theres other solutions besides an agenda to tax and enslave the world.

no taxation without representation! i sure as hell didnt get asked if i wanted a global carbon tax, did you?

 

[nicelytoasted]

Can i just ask then. Why is the temperature changing just at the Earths surface. If any of this 'warming' was caused by greenhouse gasses and 'greenhouse' effect, the temperature should rise in the atmosphere in certain areas. And it's not, the change is at ground level. So why are you saying greenhouse gasses are warming the planet? Again the science does not actually back it up.

AFAIK:

The greenhouse gas effect is a natural process that regulates the earths temperature. Energy from the sun warms the earth, which radiates it back into space as infrared radiation. About 1% of earths atmosphere is composed of these greenhouse gases (Water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, and to a lesser extent, ozone and nitrous oxide). Together, these gases reflect enough heat back to the earths surface to maintain an average atmospheric temperature of ~ 60F, when in balance.

With increasing amounts of CO2 from fossil fuels, deforestation, etc., the increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will reflect more of the suns energy back to the earth, thus raising the temperature of the oceans and land masses at the SURFACE.

 

[rayski]

how would the whole world benifit from having to pay a higher tax that wont go to help the people, but to futher seperate the gap between the rich and the poor. when you already work 4 months out of the year just to pay taxes, think what this is going to do. do you want to only make a quarter of your actual earnings a year? theres other solutions besides an agenda to tax and enslave the world.

no taxation without representation! i sure as hell didnt get asked if i wanted a global carbon tax, did you?

Please explain. What Tax? Who do we pay this tax to? I think this is just one of many ideas. Relax, I've been paying taxes for years: I don't feel enslaved.
The effect of climate change will be devastating--the increase in the price of food probably greater than any tax you and I would have to pay.

 

[Frickr]

the global carbon tax that they are trying to push through during the cohpenhagen convention. its a tax on how many carbon credits a country has. the money will go to fund the global government. and wouldnt you rather keep your hard earned money rather then send it to some off shore bank account? this isnt a conspiricy if you start looking into it. this stuff is real, and people need to start waking up to this stuff.

even after watching all the videos in this thread, and reading most of the articals in here, your still not convinced that this isnt anything more then an agenda with nothing to do with global warming?

 

[rayski]

Why don't you read the rebuttals to the above here.
or read some of the stuff at the Guardian.
During the run-up to the Iraq war the Guardian did a much better job than the major newspapers in the states with the exception of Knight Ridder.
The folks at the Sacramental Bee seem to be concerned about what global warming is doing to the Sierra:http://www.sacbee.com/sierrawarming/index.html

 

[Frickr]

what about the warming occuring on mars thats just as incrimental as that on earth? now i know our co2 has nothing to do with mars, so logically wouldnt we need to look at another source to the possible warming such as the big bright thing in the sky? im not talking about the moon here, but the sun seems to have a dramatic effect on heating the world now doesnt it? so once again logically, if the sun were to be hotter, wouldnt our planet also become a little warmer?

its been happening for as long as the earths been circling the sun, and will continue to do so long after we are gone. what about the the midevil warming period fallowed by the miniiceage? that in no way had anything to do with man made global warming, so how can we be for sure we are to blame for the global warming we are seeing right now?

do you also agree with gore and that the polar bears are dying because they cant swim and their habitat is melting away? it sounds like you need to do alot more investigating into the idea rayski, you still are biting the propganda agenda pushing bullshit thats all to common of our country.

truth as authoriy rather then authority as truth. so far i havent seen anything convincing enough in the links posted that cant be explained through better science. watch the video that happycamper posted up about the great global warming swindle. then tell me what you think. it seems like you like the idea of them taxing us till we are enslaved to just pay this tax off. see the harm here? taxes are never good. why must we work to pay for something that is just going to benifit a few select rich people? arent they rich enough and cant we keep our money for ourselves?

and your first link to realclimate.org, isnt that the IPCC's webpage for climatechange? if they have already been caught lying with all these emails, what makes you think that this page is going to have true and accurate information?

ive done my research on both sides of this issue. the side supporting this, is full of things that dont make sence. while the side opposed to global warming, saying its a scam, have scientists rather then politicians speaking out about this. once a politician starts taking over science, then it becomes an agenda. the fact is, is to much money is to be made from all of this. and its not money thats going to help anyone but these rich basturds. open your eyes to both sides of the issue, look at it with an open mind, and find out for yourself which side is speaking the truth more.

i will give you some help, you have to look past most forms of media as most media is so censored. its been shown that people that are trying to speak out against global warming, cant even get their work published. let alone on the news telling people of this. and thats censorship. a scientist should be able to put up any of his/her work for publishing and review, so how is it right that these people are having all of their work blocked because it goes against this big idea of global warming?

 

[Happycamper]

So Al Gore does actually benefit personally from changes he's trying to make http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI

He's a partner in a company that has invested about a Billion Dollars into 40 companies that are going to benefit from his climate bill..

The whole world will benefit. Why shouldn't he?
He's not supposed to invest in green technology? Why not?

The whole world will not benefit. Developing countries forced not to develop, and a select group of people who will become super rich. Enjoy paying them as the thumbscrews get turned tighter and tighter.

 

[Happycamper]

Can i just ask then. Why is the temperature changing just at the Earths surface. If any of this 'warming' was caused by greenhouse gasses and 'greenhouse' effect, the temperature should rise in the atmosphere in certain areas. And it's not, the change is at ground level. So why are you saying greenhouse gasses are warming the planet? Again the science does not actually back it up.

AFAIK:

The greenhouse gas effect is a natural process that regulates the earths temperature. Energy from the sun warms the earth, which radiates it back into space as infrared radiation. About 1% of earths atmosphere is composed of these greenhouse gases (Water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, and to a lesser extent, ozone and nitrous oxide). Together, these gases reflect enough heat back to the earths surface to maintain an average atmospheric temperature of ~ 60F, when in balance.

With increasing amounts of CO2 from fossil fuels, deforestation, etc., the increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will reflect more of the suns energy back to the earth, thus raising the temperature of the oceans and land masses at the SURFACE.

If increased levels of co2 were causing an increased grennhouse effect, the atmosphere in certain areas would be heating up faster than the temperature at gound level for good solid scientific reasons following how the greenhouse effect works. This is not happening, the ground is heating up faster than the atmosphere.

You didnt comment on what i actually stated, you just explained the greenhouse effect. 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?

 

[Happycamper]

To put into perspective how much co2 we put into the atmosphere:
Leaves when they fall off the trees in autumn and start to rot produce more co2 than all the volcanoes, humans and animals produce put together.

OMG it's the trees!!! Quick we must act! I know, lets tax trees!

And the very biggest producer is the Ocean......


C'mon people, please take a step back and look at this with an objective mind.

It has been proved that levels of co2 do not change the temperature going back hundreds of thousands of years. The co2 actually is led by temperature by a few hundred years years. Therefore the temperature changes first, and the co2 levels follow.

This is due to the oceans and the way they release co2 and the time it takes for them to change to temperature changes on the earth. The hotter they get the more co2 they release but it takes a few hundred years for the change to show in the levels of co2 they release.

 

[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?

 

[Happycamper]

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?

Sorry Aero, my comment was a bit abrupt and not really required.

 

[Happycamper]

I think an important point that is misunderstood needs to be cleared up.

Nobody is saying the temperature has not increased (this time since the 70's.) All these scientists (I mean the ones who are trying to tell us this is nonsense about manmade global warming and there are over 30,000 trying to put their views across but are heavily censored) believe in global warming.

Yes you heard me, they do believe in global warming.

The important thing is whether or not man is responsible for the global warming. This is what it's about. THE DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT IF THE TEMPERATURE HAS GONE UP SINCE THE 70'S, BECAUSE IT HAS.(This is a really important point to make).

There is no scientific evidence to support that man has managed to raise the temperature. These are the facts; sorry if people's minds cannot be open enough to even consider these facts correctly.

We are led to believe by the media (all media including the Guardian newspaper lol) that a small increase in temperature will devastate our planet/melt ice caps and we will either burn to death or we will have to cope living under the rising sea levels.

FACT: 1000 years ago the temperature on the Earths surface was much higher than today. In the North of England it was possible to have very successful vineyards and they flourished there at that time. I dont know if anyone has ever been to the North of England recently...Please we could do with some global warming there.

And before that going back to Bronze Age, the temperature on the Earths surface was even much higher than that for a few thousand years.

Humans lived through both those times. We didnt have a meltdown.

FACT: The images we are shown of ice sheets melting and breaking down by all media are complete propanda. There is nothing unusual happening there. That is a fact.

The point Im making here is the temperature on the Earth surface has been much higher than it is today. It has also been cooler, it runs in cycles. It does not remain and cannot remain static for a length of time.

The scientific data now is showing that solar activity is responsible for the cooling and warming cycles that the Earth goes through. The more active the sun is the hotter we get, the quieter the sun is the cooler we are, and this even has led to mini ice ages in the past that humans have lived through.

When the temperature is plotted against the activity of the Sun/number of sunspots etc (thank god people in the past thought enough about that huge glowing ball of energy in the sky to document what it was doing) it is a perfect match.

When co2 is plotted against temperature, the temperature changes THEN the co2 level changes. They are linked, but co2 follows temperature. This is very important to understand.
(I did explain why co2 follows and does not lead temperature due to the Sea temperature in an earlier post).

 

[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.

 

[Happycamper]

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.

Reece.

I am an environmentalist. I believe we should look after our planet, I love animals and plants and trees and everything. Man does have an impact on the environment and it stinks what we have done to it.

Has man changed the temperature on our planet? NOT YET.

The not yet is the worrying thing. whilst all this nonsense about co2 killing us all, what if.......what if something else really is.

With all the drama and hype that is on co2 would it even get picked up on these days???

 

[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.

 

[reece]

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.