The Great Global Warming Swindle

[78Eliminator]

There was a good article in Newsweek about global warming and how disinformation is spread by scientists who are paid by oil companies including Exxon/Mobil . They followed paper trials where checks were written for tens of thousands paid to scientists for writing up short but sweet articles claiming that it does not exist. They also claimed that the disinformation strategy was modeled directly after the tobacco companies claims that smoking did not cause cancer and that nicotine was not addictive.
I understand that basically everything you hear and read is written by humans which by nature are subject to corruption, but I am doing my best to be green. With 9 billion humans on the planet and an estimated 15 billion by 2015, we kind of need to start making some drastic changes. The industrial revolution never took the environment into consideration, so we have to do some back tracking and rethink the way we do things.
I live in San Diego, and end up in Los Angeles every now and then. The air up there is rancid........and we did that. I went to the beach for an hour over the weekend and got completely burned. 20 years ago when I was younger, I could lay on the beach all day long and barely get a hint of red. These are changes I have seen on my own, just growing up in Southern California.
The bottom line is this: if global warming was a big hoax, who cares? Maybe it's time to start teaching people to take better care of the planet, REGARDLESS.
Would it kill you to be a little more environmentally friendly?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

No one believes polution is a good thing 78Eliminator, and LA, just exactly where it is, is especially sensitive to it from a lack of airflow reason. Then the temperature inversions that settle into that basin every year, just make things worse. If ANY city in this country should actually be all-electric as far as commuter cars go, it is LA.
Imagine what that city was like back in the horse & buggy days of the 1880's.
Catastrophic Climate Change (the now-prefered, more scary, term over Anthropologic Global Warming) which is ignoring scientific history (and actually lying about some of it), denies a great many scientific facts (like evidence that the polar ice caps are NOT in fact melting (as claimed) but GROWING BY 2.6 GIGATONS A YEAR), the "global warming" currently happening on Mars, etc.
Yet, the CCC crowd want hundreds of Billions of $$$ spent, and huge restrictions on businesses (and people), havoc wreaked on our and other economies, to "fix" something that the Catastrophic Climate Change people even say CANNOT BE FIXED, is INEVITABLE, etc.
The Anti-Capitolists who USED to live in the pro-communism camp, found the camp closed on them with the closure of the Soviet Union's failed experiemnt in "Socialist/Communist Utopia", as well as the proof of the experiences of the rest of the world.
They had to go somewhere.
Most of them went to the Environmentalist movement.

[never_fast_enuf]

There was a good article in Newsweek about global warming and how disinformation is spread by scientists who are paid by oil companies including Exxon/Mobil . They followed paper trials where checks were written for tens of thousands paid to scientists for writing up short but sweet articles claiming that it does not exist.
Actually, I am glad you brought that up. Do you have any idea how many BILLIONS of dollars scientists get when they come to a pro man made global warming conclusion?
Why don't you do yourself a favor and find out for yourself just what a pot of gold it is for these people to do just that...thousands of dollars for sponsored research vs millions and millions of bribes.
Reid Bryson, the father of scientific climatology had this to say about the subject...
""If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh, global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Follow the money and report back....If you don't I will help you.

[never_fast_enuf]

78Eliminator....Just a couple of more points and questions for you.
I approach this issue like I do every issue. Dig through the noise and do some research, then apply common sense.
Can you tell me what scientist works for free?
Secondly, being environmentally friendly is a completely different argument than man made global warming. Making the decision to throw away a McDonalds bag into the trash instead of into the street isn't the same as deciding to give up half your paycheck to give to politicians to solve something we didn't create in the first place, if it even exists in the first place.
Personally, how much are you willing to give up to fix something that may or may not be a problem?
The final analogy is this...If you had a splinter in your finger and it began to get red and you went to the doctor, would you let him cut off your arm to fix it? Or how about this…I don't know if you are married or not but lets assume you are and happily Your wife has a period every month. Would you let the doctor perform a hysterectomy to stop something that is a natural cycle, just because the doctor scared you into thinking she would bleed to death?
That is exactly what the man made global warming crowd is asking us to do.

[Old Texan]

78E, I'd like to add a previously stated question, "What do you really know about the technologies being developed to improve the environmental conditions?"
Research how fossil fuel power and energy is being produced and all the technology being used to improve cleanliness and environmental impact. Newsweek and the bulk of the media ignore these advances mainly because it isn't "sensational" enough.
Kyoto and other pushes for major cutbacks are based on weak scientific evidence but will produce major ramifications in the world economic order.
Efficiency in energy usage is growing by the day and those in the media and "green groups" are just not acknowledging it, worse they are suggesting the exact opposite of what is really happening.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

There was a good article in Newsweek about global warming and how disinformation is spread by scientists who are paid by oil companies including Exxon/Mobil . They followed paper trials where checks were written for tens of thousands paid to scientists for writing up short but sweet articles claiming that it does not exist.
Actually, I am glad you brought that up. Do you have any idea how many BILLIONS of dollars scientists get when they come to a pro man made global warming conclusion?
Why don't you do yourself a favor and find out for yourself just what a pot of gold it is for these people to do just that...thousands of dollars for sponsored research vs millions and millions of bribes.
Reid Bryson, the father of scientific climatology had this to say about the subject...
""If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh, global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Follow the money and report back....If you don't I will help you.
More on what the father of scientific climatology has said on the subject. Amazing that the the father of scientific climatology isn't as sure about this isse as you geniouses here on HB
Global Warming? Some common sense thoughts
By Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr
6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon-dioxide-induced warming of the climate is a fact?
Probably wrong.
I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.
So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question --- too important to ignore. However it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem.
What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!
Is the the father of scientific climatology ruling out the possibility of MMGW?
Doesn't sound like it.
That's all I'm tryin' to say

[Schiada76]

78E
Don't confuse the to separate issues of global warming hysteria and pollution which is real.
This is a tactic used by liberals when the facts on the global warming hysteria are presented.
Everyone agrees pollution is bad, anyone sane can understand that the current global warming hysteria is bullshit.
Hell, there is no consensus on whether or not we are going through a warming phase much less a man made one.

[Schiada76]

More on what the father of scientific climatology has said on the subject. Amazing that the the father of scientific climatology isn't as sure about this isse as you geniouses here on HB
Global Warming? Some common sense thoughts
By Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr
6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon-dioxide-induced warming of the climate is a fact?
Probably wrong.
I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.
So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question --- too important to ignore. However it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem.
What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!
Is the the father of scientific climatology ruling out the possibility of MMGW?
Doesn't sound like it.
That's all I'm tryin' to say
Oh yeah now there is a stinging rebuttal of everything we've posted here.
He says "most probably warmed" he can't even definitively state that the planet has warmed AT ALL much less that humans have caused a "warming".

[ULTRA26 # 1]

78E
Don't confuse the to separate issues of global warming hysteria and pollution which is real.
This is a tactic used by liberals when the facts on the global warming hysteria are presented.
Everyone agrees pollution is bad, anyone sane can understand that the current global warming hysteria is bullshit.
Hell, there is no consensus on whether or not we are going through a warming phase much less a man made one.
Only those who belive GW is bullsh*t are sane? Anyone who believes in the posibility of MMGW are less than sane? I'm headed back to timeout as dealing with the likes of you and you narrow minded yet absolute opinions is boring. If you ever get your head out of your butt and realize that United States was intened to mean exactly that, then maybe then maybe we can talk. Until you get over your miscoception that anyone who doesn't think like you is a POS, I'm not going to waste my time.
Later

[Schiada76]

Only those who belive GW is bullsh*t are sane? Anyone who believes in the posibility of MMGW are less than sane? I'm headed back to timeout as dealing with the likes of you and you narrow minded yet absolute opinions is boring. If you ever get your head out of your butt and realize that United States was intened to mean exactly that, then maybe then maybe we can talk. Until you get over your miscoception that anyone who doesn't think like you is a POS, I'm not going to waste my time.
Later
I never said anyone that doesn't think like me is a POS but I think anyone who doesn't agree with his own expert that he quoted to support his position needs more than just a little therapy. Did you even read what you quoted?
Your own source doesn't even believe in "MMGW".
I agree with the quote, he's not even positive there is any global warming at all much less MMGW.