Major report on Climate Change exposes Republican lies on Global Warming

[polluxlm]

You liked the record warm summer we just had? You enjoy the snowfree winter? There's your answer right there.

Snowfree?

You got a point?

[Bandita]

You liked the record warm summer we just had? You enjoy the snowfree winter? There's your answer right there.

Snowfree?

You got a point?

It's very scary this issue.  Living here in the lower area of NY where we haven't even gotten one inch of snow this season and it is almost February is something that is next to unheard of.  I think it flurried maybe twice this season so far.

It's easy to look the other way and say "oh but it just means the weather is nicer and I don't have the hassle of driving in the snow" but you really need to stop and think about the implications of the weather changes. 

When it's snowing in Malibu, California and not in NY something is terribly wrong, folks.  I don't need a UN report or news from MSNBC to figure it out. 

[Drew]

You liked the record warm summer we just had? You enjoy the snowfree winter? There's your answer right there.

Snowfree?

You got a point?

Yes, that isn't factual. And this why alot of people have doubts.

[polluxlm]

You liked the record warm summer we just had? You enjoy the snowfree winter? There's your answer right there.

Snowfree?

You got a point?

Yes, that isn't factual. And this why alot of people have doubts.

Drop the semantics. It's factual, I see it with my own eyes.

You don't find it funny that a 9 out of 10 scientists agree on the matter in question, while only 5 out of 10 agree in the public? Brainwashing by the large corporations and media outlets.

You don't find it alarming that our CO2 level is twice that it has ever been for the last half million years?

[Drew]

Drop the semantics. It's factual, I see it with my own eyes.

No, your wrong and you know it. Did you miss the winter storm that moved across the U.S. this past month?

Where do you get "Snowfree?"

[polluxlm]

Drop the semantics. It's factual, I see it with my own eyes.

No, your wrong and you know it. Did you miss the winter storm that moved across the U.S. this past month?

Where do you get "Snowfree?"

I get it from Europe, where I live. The first snow fell yesterday. That's 4 months late compared to 10 years ago. We also had summer weather all the way into September, which is unheard of in these parts.

I've seen the stats, I've seen the pics, graphs, measurements and I've read the reports.

I'll agree we don't yet grasp the full consequences, but it's no denying something's happening. Do we want to gamble?

[pilferk]

Drop the semantics. It's factual, I see it with my own eyes.

No, your wrong and you know it. Did you miss the winter storm that moved across the U.S. this past month?

Where do you get "Snowfree?"

Look at the NE corner of the US, for example.  The "snowbelt" of the east coast.

We've had, in CT, one inch of snow...we usually are running around 34.

Now, I'm not saying that's global warming....but it's certainly remarkable.

[pilferk]

Berk,

In all seriousness...can you point to any scientific study, commissioned by the UN, that has been discredited and would call into account their reliability or penchant for influencing scientific outcomes.

I can understand (but don't agree) the assertions that the UN is politically ineffective.

But I can't even understand an assertion, based on past events, that would lead someone to be "skeptical" of a SCIENTIFIC study commissioned by that organization.? If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it....I'm not opposed to broadening my viewpoint, obviously.

The UN is a politically motivated organization that certainly has its own agenda in many areas.? Whether that is the case in the scientific realm, I cannot speak one way or another.? However, prudence leads me to be skeptical.? I am sure you would say same, as would I, if the White House released a scientific report on the same subject.

Thanks...so you have no real basis.  That's pretty much what I suspected.

There's ample evidence to the contrary, in relation to other studies they've commissioned.  Since you can't provide anything contrary....I'm assuming you're basing your opinion on your perception of their political ineffectiveness. 

[pilferk]

The UN is a politically motivated organization that certainly has its own agenda in many areas.? Whether that is the case in the scientific realm, I cannot speak one way or another.? However, prudence leads me to be skeptical.? I am sure you would say same, as would I, if the White House released a scientific report on the same subject.

Thank you Berkley Riot.

Pilferk, No, I don't think MSNBC or any news outlet is truely reputable.? And the U.N. is so deep in lies and corruption it's insane. The U.N. screws up more than they'll ever be able to accomplish. Kofi Annan should have been gone long ago. He was a fuck up from the beginning and disgrace.

Thanks, that colors your opinon on the subject just enough to give it proper credence.....and it shows you're basing your opinion on politics, rather than prior precedent.

[Bandita]

Drop the semantics. It's factual, I see it with my own eyes.

No, your wrong and you know it. Did you miss the winter storm that moved across the U.S. this past month?

Where do you get "Snowfree?"

Look at the NE corner of the US, for example.? The "snowbelt" of the east coast.

We've had, in CT, one inch of snow...we usually are running around 34.

Now, I'm not saying that's global warming....but it's certainly remarkable.

It is remarkable and rather scary if you ask me.

I said this in one of the other topics but I wasn't aware global warming was a political debate.  I wasn't aware it took more than looking out your window every once in a while to see things have changed. 

[SLCPUNK]

Why?  What in the report would you possibly question?

Today's media is just very unreliable when it comes to factual information.

    Group: ExxonMobil paid to mislead public



WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.

Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.

Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.

AP

[SLCPUNK]

The UN is a politically motivated organization that certainly has its own agenda in many areas. 

You guys are acting as if the UN is the only body that is providing proof that global warming is created by man-they aren't.

[Gordon Gekko]

But I can't even understand an assertion, based on past events, that would lead someone to be "skeptical" of a SCIENTIFIC study commissioned by that organization.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it....I'm not opposed to broadening my viewpoint, obviously.

If you don't like what you read it can't be true.

The U.N. screws up more than they'll ever be able to accomplish. Kofi Annan should have been gone long ago. He was a fuck up from the beginning and disgrace.

You know, global warming and the conclusion that humans are now contributing to the rate of global warming, is a theory put forth and vetted by the international body of scientists. It only becomes political propaganda when you attribute that feature to it.

What is the political nature of the present theory? I read and view material on this phenomena using the scientific method. And, right now there is no better explanation being offered by the side who would like to ignore the signs of global warming's accelerated rate being created/accelerated by human activities. In fact it seems your side is the one making this issue political and sending out a lot of propaganda on the subject.

Prove us all wrong and offer up a comprehensive, scientific, documented counter explanation for the loss of the arctic ice caps and other glacial ice around the world.

[Mama Kin]

Do humans contribute to global warming? Yes. What is their effect?? Hard to say. The Earth has been thru much, much worse than ice.....we're still in a Ice Age, the warming trend could be the result of us coming out of that.

Either way.....The Earth will heat up and the Earth will cool down. It has always, it's always will and all the alternative energy sources, recycling, and used vegetable oil powered cars won't change that. The Earth is not going anywhere, we are......

[Drew]

The UN is a politically motivated organization that certainly has its own agenda in many areas.  Whether that is the case in the scientific realm, I cannot speak one way or another.  However, prudence leads me to be skeptical.  I am sure you would say same, as would I, if the White House released a scientific report on the same subject.

Thank you Berkley Riot.

Pilferk, No, I don't think MSNBC or any news outlet is truely reputable.  And the U.N. is so deep in lies and corruption it's insane. The U.N. screws up more than they'll ever be able to accomplish. Kofi Annan should have been gone long ago. He was a fuck up from the beginning and disgrace.

Thanks, that colors your opinon on the subject just enough to give it proper credence.....and it shows you're basing your opinion on politics, rather than prior precedent.

No, my opinion is based on the probability of alternative motives by the U.N.

The corruption can be followed all thru the U.N.

[pilferk]

No, my opinion is based on the probability of alternative motives by the U.N.

The corruption can be followed all thru the U.N.

Then prove it.  You have the floor.

Please cite examples of the UN using it's influence to "sway" the outcomes of scientific or medical research.  There are BOATLOADS of studies, so you have lots of source material with which to work.

I doubt you'll find any.  I have first hand experience with some of it...much of it pertaining to UNICEF commissioned studies on medical care.  I think you'll be hard pressed....no, I think you'll find it impossible...to find any cases where the UN has tried to use it's influence to "modify" the results found by a body of scientists (who, FYI, are scattered around the globe).  I also am pretty sure you won't find, knowing what I know of it, any possibility of manipulation in the selection process (which scientists/doctors get chosen to participate in which studies).

Again, any "corruption" on the part of the UN (or your opinion thereof) speaks to their political effectiveness.  Not to the bias of a SCIENTIFIC study they commissioned.

You dismiss it because you don't like what it says.....not because you have good grounds for dismissing it.  Just like you dismiss it because the story happens to appear on MSNBC.  That speaks volumes.....

[SLCPUNK]

Well, I don't know if this means anything, but it hasn't snowed here yet this year, and I don't think it will!

 

[pilferk]

Well, I don't know if this means anything, but it hasn't snowed here yet this year, and I don't think it will!

 

Yeah, you know...Florida is quite the snow belt.

Ya nut! 

[Surfrider]

Berk,

In all seriousness...can you point to any scientific study, commissioned by the UN, that has been discredited and would call into account their reliability or penchant for influencing scientific outcomes.

I can understand (but don't agree) the assertions that the UN is politically ineffective.

But I can't even understand an assertion, based on past events, that would lead someone to be "skeptical" of a SCIENTIFIC study commissioned by that organization.? If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it....I'm not opposed to broadening my viewpoint, obviously.

The UN is a politically motivated organization that certainly has its own agenda in many areas.? Whether that is the case in the scientific realm, I cannot speak one way or another.? However, prudence leads me to be skeptical.? I am sure you would say same, as would I, if the White House released a scientific report on the same subject.

Thanks...so you have no real basis.? That's pretty much what I suspected.

Actually, the basis is that it is a political self-serving motivation.  Just because it is a scientific study does not mean that numbers can't be manipulated or misleading.  Noticeably, you ignored the comparison to a white house study.  I think you would agree to be skeptical if one came out.

There's ample evidence to the contrary, in relation to other studies they've commissioned.?

Like I said, I am not aware of other scientific studies that they have conducted so I can't use that as a basis for drawing an opinion one way or the other.

Since you can't provide anything contrary....I'm assuming you're basing your opinion on your perception of their political ineffectiveness.?

I am basing it on the fact that it is a politically motivated self-serving organization.  Just because it calls itself "the United Nations" doesn't mean it does not have its agendas.  Like I said, I never said that the study was wrong; I just said that I view things that come out of that organization with skepticism.

[D]

Wasnt there some sort of Scientific test that said the earth was only gonna heat up like 6 thousands of a degree over the next 100 years?


I dont really believe in Global Warming, I think its just Earth's natural Evolution.




Is the weather truly that much more different now than 20 years ago?


Weren't there even a worse case of Hurricanes back in the late 70's than a couple years ago?



I think Global warming is another govt tool to try and scare people into behaving certain ways.


Maybe I am wrong but I don't buy all of what they try to sell.