More global warming fraud

[Thumb]

ignorance is bliss...

Straight from the horses mouth...

 

[Gulo Blue]

You said GOPers would never be convinced by pictures and we're all just waiting for "Jebus" to come back (which apparently is supposed to be and insult of some kind - basically any person of faith thinks God is the answer to every problem facing the planet - that about right?).

I can get behind this. There's so much lumping of posters into ideological boxes. It's such a go-to tactic. If we had something like a swear jar for the board, but you had to put a dollar in everytime you committed a logical fallacy, I'd add incorrect ideological lumping to the list of things that trigger a payment.

 

[Spartanmack]

Straight from the horses mouth...

says the guy who never fact checks anything and posts inaccurate quotes to dismiss posts offhand to the guy who never once dismissed someone's post by bragging about not reading it...

good one thumb.

 

[Thumb]

says the guy who never fact checks anything and posts inaccurate quotes to dismiss posts offhand to the guy who never once dismissed someone's post by bragging about not reading it...

good one thumb.

Treyvon was a violent criminal. I always call people who disagree with my POV racists.

Yep, fact checkin' be a bitch huh Sparty?

 

[sggatecl]

ignorance is bliss...

Type like someone that made it out of 8th grade and I'll be happy to read what you have to say.

In your attempt to be a smart ass you came off looking like a dumb ass.

 

[Spartanmack]

Type like someone that made it out of 8th grade and I'll be happy to read what you have to say.

In your attempt to be a smart ass you came off looking like a dumb ass.

Ahhhh. Didn't read because you're a beginner. Got it. Did you have the same criticism of bob's post typed that way which I was mocking? Hack.

 

[Spartanmack]

Treyvon was a violent criminal. I always call people who disagree with my POV racists.

Yep, fact checkin' be a bitch huh Sparty?

It's not really hard anymore since your boy Al Gore invented the internet. For the mentally challenged and childish morons who can't find facts to support their stupid arguments its an excellent resource for stupid memes but you already knew that. And I apologize - I had forgotten that you fact check trayvon and found out he was one of those pacifists that deals guns and drugs and assaults people. Fucking idiot.

 

[zyxt9]

I can get behind this. There's so much lumping of posters into ideological boxes. It's such a go-to tactic. If we had something like a swear jar for the board, but you had to put a dollar in everytime you committed a logical fallacy, I'd add incorrect ideological lumping to the list of things that trigger a payment.

As much as I support this, there's a part of me that thinks Champ would go broke and end up on welfare, and then his payments for insulting me will then be paid by Joe Taxpayer and I just don't feel like paying him to insult me or others.

I kid, I kid. Look, Champ and Thumb and others I disagree with on here all too often are solid and respectable posters on the sports threads. Spartanmack is reasonable as far as Sparty fans go (granted, that's not far) and jwl...well, I guess he's ok for being a Nut.

I've seen good things in every poster in this forum. And are the people arguing and insulting each other in this thread really so far apart? Is it too much to think that solving pollution problems is actually supported by everyone on here? Yes, there is debate about whether or not Global Warming is legit and if so to what degree are humans responsible, blah, blah, blah. But if the pollution issue is a common ground, can't we focus on that alone? If pollution is driving Global Warming, then focusing on reducing pollutants is a win for Global Warming supporters. If pollution isn't driving Global Warming, then at least we have cleaned up the planet a little bit and created a better, healthier, stronger environment.

So let's shift focus away from Global Warming and arguing about it, and together focus on creating a healthier environment.

 

[Sbee]

The pictures, which I didn't post were all of pollution in China. You said GOPers would never be convinced by pictures and we're all just waiting for "Jebus" to come back (which apparently is supposed to be and insult of some kind - basically any person of faith thinks God is the answer to every problem facing the planet - that about right?). So I respond in kind sarcastically explaining that I'm well aware of the problem, particularly in China so the pictures don't really add much to the discussion and now you're pulling some whiny "he started it" nonsense. You sound like sbee.

I don't know if every person of faith thinks God is the answer to everything, but it's just a tad disturbing that the Senate Environmental services committee chairman comes out and says this

Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

This is something you might expect to hear from someone who's a bit of a religious fanatic but somewhat harmless, a crazy aunt but maybe not by someone who is appointed to lead the Senate Environmental committee. You might want to read the quote again a few times and let it sink in that he actually said that


I will give you one guess what party he's a member of

 

[sggatecl]

Ahhhh. Didn't read because you're a beginner. Got it. Did you have the same criticism of bob's post typed that way which I was mocking? Hack.

I went back and you're right, he did it too. For two lines, which is why I didn't even notice. Yours made my eyes bleed.

Plus, it gave me an excuse to use a great .gif. Win-win.

 

[TheVictors]

Champ would never go broke. I'd hire him and pay him just to punk you on the board.

Totally VC/PC funding.

24/7

 

[Michchamp]

Champ would never go broke. I'd hire him and pay him just to punk you on the board.

Totally VC/PC funding.

24/7

just tell me who to go after next.

 

[Michchamp]

More global warming fraud here.

Why is God changing our environment like this? Who knows?

Oh well, time to gas up the Escalade and write my local EPA office that they should un-shutter all those coal plants in the city so my electricity bill goes down $0.0023 per day...

 

[Spartanmack]

More global warming fraud here.

Why is God changing our environment like this? Who knows?

Oh well, time to gas up the Escalade and write my local EPA office that they should un-shutter all those coal plants in the city so my electricity bill goes down $0.0023 per day...

Electricity bills would go up if they switched back to coal. Coal plants that can't be converted to gas are shuttered or switched to peak only production because it's currently much cheaper to generate electricity with natural gas.

 

[Michchamp]

Bump.

FOIA document dump to Greenpeace reveals one of the leading researchers (Dr. Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon) casting doubt on the man-made global warming theory has accepted over $1.2MM from energy companies and right-wing pro-energy "think tanks" in the last decade & failed to disclose the pay-for-play ties in his articles.

"his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known. But the full extent of the links was not"
​

indeed...

"The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as ?deliverables? that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress."
​

Deliverables... as in "here is what I am creating and delivering for you in exchange for you paying me this money."

You know that % of overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of man made global warming? it just got more overwhelming as we can safely drop another "doubter" from the ranks. Guessing he's not the only one who was being paid.

 

[Spartanmack]

Bump.

FOIA document dump to Greenpeace reveals one of the leading researchers (Dr. Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon) casting doubt on the man-made global warming theory has accepted over $1.2MM from energy companies and right-wing pro-energy "think tanks" in the last decade & failed to disclose the pay-for-play ties in his articles.

"his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known. But the full extent of the links was not"
​

indeed...

"The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress."
​

Deliverables... as in "here is what I am creating and delivering for you in exchange for you paying me this money."

You know that % of overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of man made global warming? it just got more overwhelming as we can safely drop another "doubter" from the ranks. Guessing he's not the only one who was being paid.

NOPE.

"Consequently, he said, reporters from the aforementioned media outlets have done their best to smear the authors’ names. Moreover, they made attempts to get Soon and Legates fired from their jobs. Accusations were made that the authors wrote the paper for financial gains. Yet, no money was ever given or received for writing it. Briggs said the reporters 'did not want to believe the truth I was telling them.'

Greenpeace was able to access all of eminent solar physicist Willie Soon’s emails from his employer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center regarding the paper. But they found nothing suggesting any kind of foul play, deception or receiving of illegal funds. Mr. Bannon mocked the Harvard-Smithsonian center for having released Soon’s correspondence, sarcastically referring to the institution as a “profiles in courage” for providing all of Soon’s private emails.

Eventually, Greenpeace sent the emails to the media in a desperate attempt to unveil some sort of mistake in the study, or deception on the part of the authors. Bannon observed, “so they were trying to smear you, ruin your reputations?” Briggs said that they tried, but every point was refuted entirely."

Notice how the NYT piece doesn't actually provide any specific examples. despite having a download of all of Soon's emails the best they and Greenpeace can do is say "trust us, we saw links between Soon and Big Energy."

But Breitbart! Der, derr, derr

 

[Gulo Blue]

So Greenpeace (who sucks) says Soon is funded by energy companies and Breitbart (who sucks) says it's not illegal. I don't see that there's any conflict there.

 

[Michchamp]

So Greenpeace (who sucks) says Soon is funded by energy companies and Breitbart (who sucks) says it's not illegal. I don't see that there's any conflict there.

Well, the NYT article reported that the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute, which employs Soon, is pissed off by this & is taking action against him.

The editors of the journals where he published also confirmed he never disclosed these ties, which in itself violates their standards.

I think these revelations are significant, hence why other organizations (not simply Greenpeace) have said they will take actions based on them. I disagree with spartanhack/racist's claims they are not. The Breitbart article doesn't really refute any of this, just produces a couple paragraphs of hand-waving that it doesn't matter, the NYT + Greenpeace = liberals, don't listen to them, liberals, blather blather...

 

[Gulo Blue]

Well, the NYT article reported that the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute, which employs Soon, is pissed off by this & is taking action against him.

The editors of the journals where he published also confirmed he never disclosed these ties, which in itself violates their standards.

I think these revelations are significant, hence why other organizations (not simply Greenpeace) have said they will take actions based on them. I disagree with spartanhack/racist's claims they are not. The Breitbart article doesn't really refute any of this, just produces a couple paragraphs of hand-waving that it doesn't matter, the NYT + Greenpeace = liberals, don't listen to them, liberals, blather blather...

Maybe I shouldn't have said Greenpeace sucks (though they do) because it masked my point there. Breibart's reply boiled down to "Well, it's not illegal" which is not a defense to the accusation.

 

[Michchamp]

Maybe I shouldn't have said Greenpeace sucks (though they do) because it masked my point there. Breibart's reply boiled down to "Well, it's not illegal" which is not a defense to the accusation.

Right. Not illegal. He didn't break a state or federal law. It's unethical though. Some would say "highly unethical." Also, it may have been against the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute's ethical rules, and was apparently a violation of the publishing standards of the journals who published his "papers" or more accurately the "deliverables" the Koch Bros., Heritage Foundation, Southern Oil Company, and others paid him to write.