Yossarian wrote:No, I mean every word. You've been suckered by big oil.
Facewon wrote:To general a statement. If we're going to talk big business then we need to be clear about which big businesses.
Oil companies are too obviously behind a lot of the anti warming stuff.
Vela wrote:Scientific caution or political compromise.
Last year, the British newspaper The Guardian reported that between 2002 and 2010, via two right-wing groups, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, billionaires had given nearly $120 million to more than 100 anti-climate change groups. And the progressive Center for Media and Democracy revealed that a web of right-wing think tanks called the State Policy Network, affiliated with the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and funded to the tune of $83 million by companies including Facebook, AT&T and Microsoft, was pushing a had right agenda that includes opposition to climate change rules and regulations.
A new study from two groups, Forecast the Facts Action and the SumOfUs.org, says that since 2008, businesses have given campaign contributions to the 160 members of Congress who have rejected climate change that amount to more than $640 million. That includes Google, eBay, Ford and UPS; in fact, 90 percent of the cash came from outside the fossil fuel industry.
A few months ago, the independent BBC Trust said that the British broadcaster was giving "undue attention to marginal opinion" when it came to airtime for climate deniers and should adjust accordingly. The Los Angeles Times announced it would no longer print climate change denial letters to the editor -- contrast that with Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, which last year ran more anti-climate change letters than any other major newspaper.
Hold the fucking phone, no you didn't. You showed a graph covering a 55 year period that showed both rising atmospheric CO2 levels and rising temperature averages. The temperature averages didn't increase linearly but they increased over the time span of the graph. Look at where it is at the start, look at where it is at the end. That's an increase.dynamiteReady wrote:I show a graph that presents a falling climate, in the face of rising Co2 levels
dynamiteReady wrote:I show a graph that presents a falling climate, in the face of rising Co2 levels.
dynamiteReady wrote:That's not a very erudite view.
This is why I'm very weary of the this climate change thing.
Because the people with the biggest mouths have the most porous arguments.
I show a graph that presents a falling climate, in the face of rising Co2 levels, and look at the answer I receive in return...
How scientific is that, eh?
Lord_Griff wrote:
Climate science is based on statistical modelling and therefore a measure of likelihood. That doesn't mean they aren't sure, or they're guessing, or they're not firm in their conclusions, it's because the method doesn't allow definitive statements.Lord_Griff wrote:Ok cool. What would be the main reason for not saying definitively?
[justify]Just as we are very clear that climate models do not give us a definitive answer about the possible magnitude of future warming, neither do the estimates from observations as some in the climate sceptic community would claim.[/justify]
I welcome scientific debate with those whose research challenges my understanding of climate change and scientists have a well established and robust peer review process for doing this. This process is there for good reason because it ensures the debate is rigorous but never personal.
Professor Dame Julia Slingo
Chief Scientist
Met Office
Yeah that's right. I think they're making it up personally. You could put 'computer games played' and atmospheric CO2 on a chart and get the same effect. Stupid clowns, when will they learn?Lord_Griff wrote:All about correlations right?
Lord_Griff wrote:Most prob caused by humans, but my other theory is that the solar system is travelling through a particularly hot bit of space at the mo'.
cockbeard wrote:You're throwing a proof at me, not offering me any form of solution for a problem that may or may not exist
monkey wrote:Hold the fucking phone, no you didn't. You showed a graph covering a 55 year period that showed both rising atmospheric CO2 levels and rising temperature averages. The temperature averages didn't increase linearly but they increased over the time span of the graph. Look at where it is at the start, look at where it is at the end. That's an increase.I show a graph that presents a falling climate, in the face of rising Co2 levels
Lord_Griff wrote:Most prob caused by humans, but my other theory is that the solar system is travelling through a particularly hot bit of space at the mo'.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!