4 of 25
4
Science, science, science.
Posted: 05 September 2017 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 05 September 2017 08:09 AM
MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 08:02 AM

Get billions of taxpayers’ dollars to setup a network that can control public opinion, compile case data and build a political base. Then make billion off any settlement. Don’t worry the taxpayer’s will cover this greed at the pump. In the meantime, they corrupt the science and setback any global warming fixes by decades.

You are a disgusting treasonous sick joke, here’s where the corrupt money is, and it’s been well documented.

“Dark Money” Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party
pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder

By Douglas Fischer, The Daily Climate on December 23, 2013
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

And here the strategy gets explicated (documented even) and the bad guys are not our government scientists.

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org

The troubling story of how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public
understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda.

The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on public health, environmental science, and other issues affecting the quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.

In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.  ...

CC, you need to balance your facts. For example, you say that “Drexel University study”. Where did they get the money to do the study? Was it from the mountain of money? And the money for the Scientific America article came from the multi-layer of funding you are trying to point out. Companies that are none-profit with several hundred million on the book and millions in grants. You are the pot calling the kettle black. Comparing the climate funding, you have to compare pennies to dollars. Guess who has the dollars?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  78
Joined  2017-08-06

Wal-Mart is blatantly evil.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Walmart
Exxon knew about the effects of co2 emissions on the climate before it was common knowledge.  Exxon is the industry leader in this field and the A.P.I. represents them.  I admit I made a mistake when I cited Exxon singularly.  But you are defending them when their own public position is that co2 emissions are the main cause of climate change.  You’re fighting a fight they have already given up.  They still fund anti-climate change lobbying despite their public position.

  You asked for your questions to be answered.  If you were paying attention every question was addressed in the information provided above.  How did you come to your conclusions?  I want to understand beyond, it’s all about money.  The A.P.I. actively admits everything you deny.  Who are you defending?

 Signature 

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 09:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
WaylonCash - 05 September 2017 08:51 AM

Wal-Mart is blatantly evil.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Walmart
Exxon knew about the effects of co2 emissions on the climate before it was common knowledge.  Exxon is the industry leader in this field and the A.P.I. represents them.  I admit I made a mistake when I cited Exxon singularly.  But you are defending them when their own public position is that co2 emissions are the main cause of climate change.  You’re fighting a fight they have already given up.  They still fund anti-climate change lobbying despite their public position.

You asked for your questions to be answered.  If you were paying attention every question was addressed in the information provided above.  How did you come to your conclusions?  I want to understand beyond, it’s all about money.  The A.P.I. actively admits everything you deny.  Who are you defending?

Making a mistake, I don’t hold against you. People who don’t make mistakes, are usually not doing much.
 
You say Exxon has given up. I don’t think so. Why should they have to defend themselves for no crime? You say that Exxon is funding anti-climate change.
 
What is anti-climate change?
 
I bet Exxon has given money to colleges that research global warming. Exxon matches the employee donation to any college.

Did you watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iObmapEm2a4
 
If I am wrong, please tell me why you picked Exxon?
 
Were they doing something different than the rest of the industry? 
 

Prove that Exxon is the industry leader in global warming. I went to the API’s webpage and could not make that connection. I also could not make any connection where you say that the API confirmers what I denied.  I have it down to one question that needs to be answered. What is the main driving force for Global Warming. I am not hard to follow or figure out. Thanks for asking. I will try and explain any viewpoints you want.
 
You say that Exxon claim that CO2 is the main cause of climate change. OK. I have been saying that ever since climate change has been defined as man-made change. Good a point that we are all in agreement with. What we need answered with facts and real science is what is the main cause of global warming. This is where the disagreements are. We still have not been able measure the difference between natural cycle warming and climate change. We need the computer models to get that done. Right now, that is impossible because any scientist working in the 8 to 1 democratic environment that goes against the CO2 theory will be drum rolled out of his field. Don’t dare mess with the income stream.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  78
Joined  2017-08-06

You misinterpret me. 
1.anti climate change = for lack of a better term.  They lobby against standard climate change research on one side while admitting co2 is the culprit
2. Exxon has been putting policies in place to brace for rising sea levels like elevating oil platforms while fighting regulations and climate science, since before global warming was a mainstream issue.
3. Industry leader as in setting precedents and standards.  As well as leading in profit and equity.

So is it possible that the 97.1% of field related scientists are not all money grubbing, leftist that are letting their idealogy and wallet influence them?  So N.A.S.A., N.O.A.A., the Hadley center, Japan, China, and the overall majority of the scientific community aswell as the majority countries on planet Earth are all in on the conspiracy?

 Signature 

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21
WaylonCash - 05 September 2017 10:26 AM

You misinterpret me. 

That’s pretty much what Mike does with everything.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
WaylonCash - 05 September 2017 10:26 AM

You misinterpret me. 
1.anti climate change = for lack of a better term.  They lobby against standard climate change research on one side while admitting co2 is the culprit
2. Exxon has been putting policies in place to brace for rising sea levels like elevating oil platforms while fighting regulations and climate science, since before global warming was a mainstream issue.
3. Industry leader as in setting precedents and standards.  As well as leading in profit and equity.

So is it possible that the 97.1% of field related scientists are not all money grubbing, leftist that are letting their idealogy and wallet influence them?  So N.A.S.A., N.O.A.A., the Hadley center, Japan, China, and the overall majority of the scientific community aswell as the majority countries on planet Earth are all in on the conspiracy?

1.  Anti-climate change. The global warming terms have over the years been quite confusing to say the least. But to stop confusion there needs to be a better title. Climate change is nothing more than weather caused by the actions of mankind. Everyone agrees with climate change. But at different levels. Denier and skeptic are also incorrect for use as a blanket statement. I would say that it is wrong to call something that it is not and is very miss-leading.  Try this. Exxon is funding anti-climate change. To Exxon is funding those groups not backing climate change as the main cause of global warming. Or Exxon is funding other theories than climate change as the cause for global warming. I’m not a word-smith. I am sure you can come up with something better.
2.  Of course, they have. They are no dummies. Sea level rise has been rising at the same rate for hundreds of years. On the debate issues of Climate Change. One side says it will cause more sea level rise. The other side said it will only cause an acceleration of the natural sea level rise. So far, all the predictions of high sea level rise have been wrong. The historical rise is what we have seen so far. 
3.  What standards have they set? The industry works very close together. They use mostly the same methods in all aspects of the industry. The service companies and state and federal agencies work with all the processors and the systems used are the same.

On your 97.1%. 
The authors examined the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 1991 and 2012 to determine the level of scientific consensus for the position “humans are causing global warming”. [i]Unfortunately, the key issue is not whether anthropogenic GHGs have caused any increase in global temperature – the issue is how much global warming have they caused.

slide12.png

 

consensus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 12:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 05 September 2017 10:42 AM
WaylonCash - 05 September 2017 10:26 AM

You misinterpret me. 

That’s pretty much what Mike does with everything.

Sounds like you need to go get laid.
Was I right on target this time? grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 12:09 PM
WaylonCash - 05 September 2017 10:26 AM

You misinterpret me. 
1.anti climate change = for lack of a better term.  They lobby against standard climate change research on one side while admitting co2 is the culprit
2. Exxon has been putting policies in place to brace for rising sea levels like elevating oil platforms while fighting regulations and climate science, since before global warming was a mainstream issue.
3. Industry leader as in setting precedents and standards.  As well as leading in profit and equity.

So is it possible that the 97.1% of field related scientists are not all money grubbing, leftist that are letting their idealogy and wallet influence them?  So N.A.S.A., N.O.A.A., the Hadley center, Japan, China, and the overall majority of the scientific community aswell as the majority countries on planet Earth are all in on the conspiracy?

1.  Anti-climate change. The global warming terms have over the years been quite confusing to say the least. But to stop confusion there needs to be a better title. Climate change is nothing more than weather caused by the actions of mankind. Everyone agrees with climate change. But at different levels. Denier and skeptic are also incorrect for use as a blanket statement. I would say that it is wrong to call something that it is not and is very miss-leading.  Try this. Exxon is funding anti-climate change. To Exxon is funding those groups not backing climate change as the main cause of global warming. Or Exxon is funding other theories than climate change as the cause for global warming. I’m not a word-smith. I am sure you can come up with something better.
2.  Of course, they have. They are no dummies. Sea level rise has been rising at the same rate for hundreds of years. On the debate issues of Climate Change. One side says it will cause more sea level rise. The other side said it will only cause an acceleration of the natural sea level rise. So far, all the predictions of high sea level rise have been wrong. The historical rise is what we have seen so far. 
3.  What standards have they set? The industry works very close together. They use mostly the same methods in all aspects of the industry. The service companies and state and federal agencies work with all the processors and the systems used are the same.

On your 97.1%. 
The authors examined the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 1991 and 2012 to determine the level of scientific consensus for the position “humans are causing global warming”. [i]Unfortunately, the key issue is not whether anthropogenic GHGs have caused any increase in global temperature – the issue is how much global warming have they caused.

slide12.png

 

consensus

Waylon, are you getting my point that all this stuff you are bring up is showing bad or false science. That is not what we should expect from our scientists. Are you getting the idea that maybe this mountain of money is causing a big part of the problem and it is only going to get worst?  I am not asking you to agree with me on all these issues. The point I am trying to make is that the way the money is being used and distributed is not going to help solve the global warming. It is just going to give us years of following court cases.

//www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 01:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01

Two related YouTube videos on the subject matter
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-4chdqXgR4 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=karVxWOoKMw

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 02:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21

1. What?
2. Hundreds of years?
3. So there’s a consensus. Been saying that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 03:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 05 September 2017 02:15 PM

1. What?
2. Hundreds of years?
3. So there’s a consensus. Been saying that.

As far as consensus, I am in favor of a scientific consensus most of the time. But these issues are political with twisted science. There is no way I would trust the IPCC consensus today. And the 97% consensus was just another, “give me a check” report that is a total joke when it comes to the science. Notice how Trump is trying to put his guys in charge of all the departments climate change funds. Our government knows they have let this funding get out of control and the only one right now that seems to be trying to do anything about it is Trump.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 03:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  78
Joined  2017-08-06

Dr. Steven J. Allen is not an expert in any related field.  He had a master’s degree in political science, a law degree, and a Phd in Biodefense(study of biological warfare, very disconcerting).  I can see how this information presented by Capital Research Center and Berman & Co( which the president of Capital research, Scott Walter was the director of development) could be very misleading.  On top of that the research is hard to understand.  But the 97% is real, it is 97% of all those that took a position one way or the other.  “Unfortunately, the key issue is not whether anthropogenic GHGs have caused any increase in global temperature – the issue is how much global warming have they caused.”  This is simply not true, read the descriptions in the table provided. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024#erl460291s5  This link provides thorough outline of methodology and conclusion.
Berman & co and Capital Research center are not able to be objective.  They are run by political players not scientists.  This is what you are referring to, but somehow you missed that it was on the side that is feeding you information.  These are lobbyist, far right wing and tea party members.  This is Scott Walter’s own personal description of Capital Research from his linkedin page.  ” Established in 1984, CRC is an investigative think tank based in Washington, D.C., known for connecting the dots between the radical Left and activist groups, labor unions, foundations, and other nonprofits. It specializes in exposing cronyism and corruption.”  While that last line might invite you to find a straw to grasp, this is not an unbiased description and is not possible to interpret that way.  If they are actively working against a specific group then they have formulated their conclusion without interpreting evidence.  Berman & Co’s actual motto is “changing the debate”.  Here is a few examples of their work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A6j1r3Kbuo and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wuKMID3Gq4.  Don’t you find it odd, Mike, that they only seem to support conservative, rightwing, corporate, and republican ideals?  If they were objectively researching these topics, one would expect that at some point they would present a point contrary to these ideals.  This happens in the scientific community all the time; ideas have been presented that directly oppose left wing politics.  But not on your side, nothing gets in it seems.  Ask me to supply an example and I will oblige.

  What is your argument Mike?  That money is influencing the science?  If you are getting you information from a biased public relations firm and an “investigative THINK TANK” funded by the same people that would benefit from the “TRUTH” they propagate, that doesn’t bode well for your argument or logic.  Here is a description from Capital Research’s website, ” We do have a specific point of view. We believe in free markets, Constitutional government, and individual liberty. But facts are facts, and our journalists and researchers go where the facts lead them.”.  That’s a coincidence, isn’t it that they have conservative views and all their “facts” happen to work out in their favor.  Maybe Mike you need to do some research on the information streams you are getting, I’m willing to scrutinize my own.  Can you say the same?  We can make another thread with only sources, objectively analyzed, presenting their funding, ties, the whole nine yards.  If each of us include links and citations it is not possible to omit information that would sway our arguments.

  I apologize for my hurried posts earlier today, I was preoccupied.  Now you have my full attention…

 Signature 

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 03:09 PM
Lausten - 05 September 2017 02:15 PM

1. What?
2. Hundreds of years?
3. So there’s a consensus. Been saying that.

As far as consensus, I am in favor of a scientific consensus most of the time. But these issues are political with twisted science. There is no way I would trust the IPCC consensus today. And the 97% consensus was just another, “give me a check” report that is a total joke when it comes to the science. Notice how Trump is trying to put his guys in charge of all the departments climate change funds. Our government knows they have let this funding get out of control and the only one right now that seems to be trying to do anything about it is Trump.

What does it mean to be in favor of a consensus most of the time?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 05 September 2017 04:09 PM
MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 03:09 PM
Lausten - 05 September 2017 02:15 PM

1. What?
2. Hundreds of years?
3. So there’s a consensus. Been saying that.

As far as consensus, I am in favor of a scientific consensus most of the time. But these issues are political with twisted science. There is no way I would trust the IPCC consensus today. And the 97% consensus was just another, “give me a check” report that is a total joke when it comes to the science. Notice how Trump is trying to put his guys in charge of all the departments climate change funds. Our government knows they have let this funding get out of control and the only one right now that seems to be trying to do anything about it is Trump.

What does it mean to be in favor of a consensus most of the time?

I’m talking about the IPCC and the way they are structured. I thought this consensus made perfect sense. I wanted to see the global warming issues moving forward. I think most people did. The government tried to oblige by making funding available. Over time the political thinking has dominated over the science. CC would be an example on this website.
 
If Mother Teresa wrote a report on weather as a democrat. Nothing would be wrong. As a republican, she would be called a liar and uneducated con.
 
Did you review that posting and the charts of the 97%? Only 65 out of the 11,944 abstracts that were read explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. And we don’t know how many of those 65 scientists were in the correct field or even scientists.
 
Yet see how this chart is twisted around. Hell, if asked, I would have to say that humans contribute to global warming.  That would put me in the 23%. But it does not state what percentage I think humans contribute to global warming. I think cows, volcanos and many other items also contribute to global warming too.
 
Point being the data is being used out of context. Just look how Waylon use it in post 49. To be correct on the numbers he should have used 1.6% instead of 97.1%. The 97% is being misused all the time. The reason I brought up the chart was because I don’t even think Waylon is aware of how those numbers came to be. A couple hundred billion spent and this is where we are today. That is not right.
 
What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
WaylonCash - 05 September 2017 03:33 PM

Dr. Steven J. Allen is not an expert in any related field.  He had a master’s degree in political science, a law degree, and a Phd in Biodefense(study of biological warfare, very disconcerting).  I can see how this information presented by Capital Research Center and Berman & Co( which the president of Capital research, Scott Walter was the director of development) could be very misleading.  On top of that the research is hard to understand.  But the 97% is real, it is 97% of all those that took a position one way or the other.  “Unfortunately, the key issue is not whether anthropogenic GHGs have caused any increase in global temperature – the issue is how much global warming have they caused.”  This is simply not true, read the descriptions in the table provided. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024#erl460291s5  This link provides thorough outline of methodology and conclusion.
Berman & co and Capital Research center are not able to be objective.  They are run by political players not scientists.  This is what you are referring to, but somehow you missed that it was on the side that is feeding you information.  These are lobbyist, far right wing and tea party members.  This is Scott Walter’s own personal description of Capital Research from his linkedin page.  ” Established in 1984, CRC is an investigative think tank based in Washington, D.C., known for connecting the dots between the radical Left and activist groups, labor unions, foundations, and other nonprofits. It specializes in exposing cronyism and corruption.”  While that last line might invite you to find a straw to grasp, this is not an unbiased description and is not possible to interpret that way.  If they are actively working against a specific group then they have formulated their conclusion without interpreting evidence.  Berman & Co’s actual motto is “changing the debate”.  Here is a few examples of their work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A6j1r3Kbuo and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wuKMID3Gq4.  Don’t you find it odd, Mike, that they only seem to support conservative, rightwing, corporate, and republican ideals?  If they were objectively researching these topics, one would expect that at some point they would present a point contrary to these ideals.  This happens in the scientific community all the time; ideas have been presented that directly oppose left wing politics.  But not on your side, nothing gets in it seems.  Ask me to supply an example and I will oblige.

  What is your argument Mike?  That money is influencing the science?  If you are getting you information from a biased public relations firm and an “investigative THINK TANK” funded by the same people that would benefit from the “TRUTH” they propagate, that doesn’t bode well for your argument or logic.  Here is a description from Capital Research’s website, ” We do have a specific point of view. We believe in free markets, Constitutional government, and individual liberty. But facts are facts, and our journalists and researchers go where the facts lead them.”.  That’s a coincidence, isn’t it that they have conservative views and all their “facts” happen to work out in their favor.  Maybe Mike you need to do some research on the information streams you are getting, I’m willing to scrutinize my own.  Can you say the same?  We can make another thread with only sources, objectively analyzed, presenting their funding, ties, the whole nine yards.  If each of us include links and citations it is not possible to omit information that would sway our arguments.

  I apologize for my hurried posts earlier today, I was preoccupied.  Now you have my full attention…

Waylon, I think you are catching on. Here is a link on the 97%. 
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 25
4