US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace

Mar 30, 2010 Full story: Guardian Unlimited 70

Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information' Greenpeace has identified Kansas-based oil firm Koch Industries as a multimillion funder of climate sceptic groups.

Full Story
Northie

Spokane, WA

#23 Apr 3, 2010
Clem, some on the bus are much bigger bozos than others. You can spot those by their loud rejection of warnings from every leading scientific body on Earth.

“We're all Bozos on this bus”

Since: Jan 07

Indianapolis, IN

#24 Apr 3, 2010
Northie wrote:
Clem, some on the bus are much bigger bozos than others. You can spot those by their loud rejection of warnings from every leading scientific body on Earth.
Then we have the problem of those scholarly and recently-outed liars: "Climate data? Oh, we made up stuff to make it look more like we wanted it to look when the real science didn't support our bogus claims."

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#25 Apr 3, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I can point to tens of thousands of serious science papers in well respected journals. I also have a fair understanding of the science from examining it myself. I can argue on any of the common 'denialist myths'.
So far, Tina hasn't provided any substance to her posts. Just rhetoric. Noteing that fact is just my way of pointing out her arguents are 'empty'.
Post any serious question and we can debate it. Tina's 'empty filler' doesn't have to block serious posts.
IF you can point then start pointing because all I have seen so far is far from respected now. Most of them are starting to look as respected as the IPCC reports which is now becoming a butt of jokes around the world.

Your favorite debating technique is to just declare that whatever you want must be fact and claim it is backed by something serious without providing any proof one way or another. Declaring fiction to be fact dosn't change it from fiction into fact. It just means your trying to create something from nothing.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#26 Apr 3, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer. More than you get for posting empty insults. Have you considered going on the road and selling your message for money or does nobody want to hear your message? Is this about 'pure jealousy'?
Frankly, Al Gore hasn't done all that well either in politics or the talk circuit. He is well off only in terms of being more successful than people like Clem.
I would be more interested in how much your getting for posting empty insults. As for Al Gore his success is from receiving money from lobbist in the form of campaign funds. At least we can agree that he hasn't done that well on the talk circuit.

“We're all Bozos on this bus”

Since: Jan 07

Indianapolis, IN

#27 Apr 3, 2010
Richard

Ashfield, Australia

#28 Apr 3, 2010
Uh Clem wrote:
http://www.iceagenow.com/
Thank you, I really loved.

An Engineer's Critique of Global Warming 'Science'
March 2010 - Burt Rutan's comprehensive new report on Global Warming science fraud.

“We're all Bozos on this bus”

Since: Jan 07

Indianapolis, IN

#29 Apr 3, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I would be more interested in how much your getting for posting empty insults. As for Al Gore his success is from receiving money from lobbist in the form of campaign funds. At least we can agree that he hasn't done that well on the talk circuit.
But wildly successful at the buffet line. He's got to be cranking out 3x the methane of an average human.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30 Apr 3, 2010
Richard wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, I really loved.
An Engineer's Critique of Global Warming 'Science'
March 2010 - Burt Rutan's comprehensive new report on Global Warming science fraud.
When did Burt Rutan learn anything about climatology? I mean that I admire his creativity in aeronautical design but his research background in climate seems a little sketchy to non-existent.

About as meaningful as having your dentist ( no matter how skilled ) designing nuclear power stations..
Richard

Ashfield, Australia

#31 Apr 3, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
When did Burt Rutan learn anything about climatology? I mean that I admire his creativity in aeronautical design but his research background in climate seems a little sketchy to non-existent.
About as meaningful as having your dentist ( no matter how skilled ) designing nuclear power stations..
The fact that a well educated person with no axe to grind can look at the data and see that it is crap should start you thinking.

By your own logic you should now shut up because you have always proudly displayed the fact that you do not even have a basic education in science or math.

Or are you saying that only uneducated fools like you can say anything, as long as it supports AGW. You truly are a waste of space.
SoE

Rozet, WY

#32 Apr 4, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The technique involves having the other side defending itself and trying to prove something against nothing.
..........
Once again i'm assuming you have read what you have posted..
So,It would seem that little effort would be required to refute
your entry..
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#33 Apr 4, 2010
Richard wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that a well educated person with no axe to grind ..
I am also an educated person with no axe to grind. At least as 'impartial' as Burt on the subject, given that he 'felt compelled' to comment on it publicly.

The difference is that I don't claim to be smarter than the experts who ARE serious researchers. That alone puts him in the 'nutbar' category.And no, making airplanes doesn't qualify him as an expert in climate.
GEEWIZ

Ashland, KY

#34 Apr 4, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I am also an educated person with no axe to grind. At least as 'impartial' as Burt on the subject, given that he 'felt compelled' to comment on it publicly.
The difference is that I don't claim to be smarter than the experts who ARE serious researchers. That alone puts him in the 'nutbar' category.And no, making airplanes doesn't qualify him as an expert in climate.
a lot of experts are greenies so a lot will take the exstream green position no matter the DATA. no ONE is a expert when it comes to knowing what MOTHER NATURE is going to do in the future what is needed is COMMONSENSE=look at the economy green energy has no answer 4 now except put ppl out of work+make energy more costly+ MAKE OPEC RICHER+US poorer.whats really bad is greenies really believe they are helping the economy

“We're all Bozos on this bus”

Since: Jan 07

Indianapolis, IN

#35 Apr 4, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
When did Burt Rutan learn anything about climatology? I mean that I admire his creativity in aeronautical design but his research background in climate seems a little sketchy to non-existent.
About as meaningful as having your dentist ( no matter how skilled ) designing nuclear power stations..
Where did AlGore learn anything about climatology?(Some) people believe Al.

Having a dentist designing nuclear power stations is about as meaningful as having an ex-vice president lecturing on global climate matters.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#36 Apr 4, 2010
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
Once again i'm assuming you have read what you have posted..
So,It would seem that little effort would be required to refute
your entry..
That would require you to think about it which of course requires effort. No need to worry about thinking with your way now is there.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#37 Apr 4, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I am also an educated person with no axe to grind. At least as 'impartial' as Burt on the subject, given that he 'felt compelled' to comment on it publicly.
The difference is that I don't claim to be smarter than the experts who ARE serious researchers. That alone puts him in the 'nutbar' category.And no, making airplanes doesn't qualify him as an expert in climate.
Or so you claim to be a educated person with no axe to grind. Just like you claim to think your not smarter than the experts but you do have a habit of choosing who is an expert on wether or not thier research agrees with your point of view. Those who produce results you agree with you call serious researchers even when it turns out that thier research is shown to be intentionally ficticious or slanted to give a certain result.

Also take note that NASA is suppose to be in the aircraft research business and not the climate one. After all NASA is only short for National Areonautical Space Administration.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38 Apr 4, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Or so you claim to be a educated person with no axe to grind. Just like you claim to think your not smarter than the experts but you do have a habit of choosing who is an expert on wether or not thier research agrees with your point of view..
Who is a top researcher in climatology is a much more objective measure than anything I could come up with. And no. My posts are not on my own opinions but that of the top researchers. Examine their CVs and you will find well references publications posted in the 'leading' science journals.

So far, I am still waiting for you to present evne the most cursory of science to support your empty claims.
SoE

Rozet, WY

#39 Apr 4, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
That would require you to think about it which of course requires effort. No need to worry about thinking with your way now is there.
..........
That would require you to think about "it"(what exactly) which of course requires effort
..........
hahaha...well,that would certainly be a struggle..
..........
No need to worry about thinking with your way now is there.
..........
If that is a problem ,in your case, perhaps you could provide some philosophical context as a starting point.
hey, I'm not the person suggesting throwing reprocessed spent fuel rod waste down a mine shaft..as i recall.
If some of your(overly simplistic) ideas actually had technical merit you would be worth billions....Perhaps it's time to debate those professors once again. You know,..set them on the correct eco-tech economic path ?
SoE

Rozet, WY

#40 Apr 4, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

Also take note that NASA is suppose to be in the aircraft research business and not the climate one. After all NASA is only short for National Areonautical Space Administration.
..........
Choke, gasp, wheeze...well, i will agree with a part of that.
Can we expect the next generation of comercial aircraft from the JPL ?
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#41 Apr 5, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is a top researcher in climatology is a much more objective measure than anything I could come up with. And no. My posts are not on my own opinions but that of the top researchers. Examine their CVs and you will find well references publications posted in the 'leading' science journals.
So far, I am still waiting for you to present evne the most cursory of science to support your empty claims.
HAHAHA...HAHAHA....what a LYING TWIT!

So what has your "top reseachers" and "'leading' science journals" come up with?

I continually ask for:
- ANY Law of Science that supports the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect".
- ANY measurement, EVER, that shows that CO2 in a colder atmosphere can heat up a warmer Earth.

And what have you posted?....ZIP! NADA! NOTHING!

Why don't you tell us why that is?

It's because these Law of Science and Measurements DON'T EXIST.
----------
Hyper-ody has nothing to say, but delights in saying it.

AGW CULT MEMBERS CAN ONLY "BABBLE" THEIR AGW CULT-SPEAK.

Pathetic Human Garbage.
Richard

Ashfield, Australia

#42 Apr 5, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is a top researcher in climatology is a much more objective measure than anything I could come up with. And no. My posts are not on my own opinions but that of the top researchers. Examine their CVs and you will find well references publications posted in the 'leading' science journals.
So far, I am still waiting for you to present evne the most cursory of science to support your empty claims.
One more time for the dummies
http://www.iceagenow.com/

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
DOE Quadrennial Energy Review on State, Local a... Sep 15 john ford 1
Affidavits: 4 of 5 suspects confessed in case o... Sep 12 Larry Driscoll 2
Two accused of burglary, trespassing in Union P... Sep 12 Not Surprised 1
Helping access Sep 11 stupid to sell LCBO 1
U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee to announce anti-nuclear w... Sep 11 stupid to sell Lotto 1
OPG warns of high river water levels near dams ... Sep 11 stupid to sell Lotto 1
Plans for a nuclear waste storage facility near... Sep 11 stupid to sell as... 1
•••

Energy People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••