Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate

47 posts in this topic

Im really confused ! WHere`s the HEck Babe Ruth in here ? :no: Nah ! its stupid enough to read this tripe !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

greenland ice cores show co2 as 330-350 ppmv over the last 10,000 years. how can you explain that?

Climate changes naturally. I'd like you to point to one time in Earth's history where there has been an increase of ~0.25 ppm/yr in atmospheric CO2.

Do you honestly not see the link between increased industry and increased CO2 levels? Or do you think the increase at the time of the industrial revolution is purely coincidence?

he was acussed of molesting the data...and he's from penn state uni (same as child abuser landusky), but mann sues just about everyone who criticises his work and instead pretends they are attacking him personally.

He's recieved death threats and claims of fraud. That's pretty personal. It's also irrelevant to the science here so I'll leave that for another time.

its just a simple rhetorical argument dressed up to look like science (using dodgy measurements too), "co2 causes warming, we emit co2 therefore we are the cause of global warming." the only real question that needs to be answered is "how much", and it is that which has not been measured, probably because its too small to be measurable.

This just shows how little you understand about climate change. The issue isn't the amount we produce. It's that we are producing some without providing the necessary sinks. If you increase a source and (in our case) decrease sinks, you will get a net increase. That's simple logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took care of the oil spill in the ocean and the trash. Why not global warming. If your a billionaire and dont know what to do with your money so you give it to "secret" organizations researching the fix for global warming.. At least try to GET A LIFE. and donate to the government organizations revolved around the fix for global warming.. I mean seriously.. AT LEAST.. Or you couldv donated to the Australian Carbon Tax.. Save them some money.. Jesus Christ yall fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich *******s. Better things to burn your $ on, I hope bigfoot tears apart their pipelines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just shows how little you understand about climate change. The issue isn't the amount we produce. It's that we are producing some without providing the necessary sinks. If you increase a source and (in our case) decrease sinks, you will get a net increase. That's simple logic.

Indeed it is simple logic. BUT, one has to take into concideration how far up into the atmosphere the co2 generated by our activities goes. What goes up must come down. A volcano can alter the climate because of how high into the atmosphere it can push the various gasses it releases. The types of gasses released, and how high into the atmosphere they go, have differing effects on climate. Some combinations make it warmer, some make it colder. At least that's my understanding of it. I wish it was black and white, but there are many factors to take into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it is simple logic. BUT, one has to take into concideration how far up into the atmosphere the co2 generated by our activities goes. What goes up must come down. A volcano can alter the climate because of how high into the atmosphere it can push the various gasses it releases. The types of gasses released, and how high into the atmosphere they go, have differing effects on climate. Some combinations make it warmer, some make it colder. At least that's my understanding of it. I wish it was black and white, but there are many factors to take into account.

You're right insofar as the layer gasses reach determine their effect. However, an increase in CO2 in any layer will have an effect (be it increase or decrease). The CO2 we produce is mostly added to the atmosphere at ground level so it seems reasonable to assume it all reaches the same height.

NB: This is just reasoning on my part. Don't know if anyone's done a study on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Not my subject of interest, but I've heard it said by CS's that regardless of how you interpret the current data, with the co2 we're producing there isn't any plausible scenario in which significant global warming won't happen. If the basic physics of that is true, then it doesn't seem like a great idea to just declare that nothing's been empirically proven so therefore industry can just go back to not worrying about it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming is not man made. The earth goes in warm and cold cycles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate changes naturally. I'd like you to point to one time in Earth's history where there has been an increase of ~0.25 ppm/yr in atmospheric CO2.

I'd like you to point to "a time in earth's history" where co2 was actually measured that accurately.

greenland ice cores show 330-350ppm over the last 10,000 years, antarctic ice cores show 270ppm co2. why do they differ so much and why should we assume ice cores as a good proxy for co2?

as already explained, leaf stomata respond quickly to changes in atmospheric co2, they correlate very well with the actual measurements over the last 50 years, so seem like a good proxy for co2 yet limited fossil records show co2 much higher and much more variable than ice cores show. warming causes co2 to increase, this is basic physics, the temperature of water is inversely proportional to solubility of co2, the warmer it gets the more co2 is released from the oceans. so why does the ice core show co2 as flat during the medieval warm period?

Do you honestly not see the link between increased industry and increased CO2 levels? Or do you think the increase at the time of the industrial revolution is purely coincidence?
nature emits and absorbs more co2 than man. the warmer it gets the more co2 is released from the oceans, the earth is 71% water. how much co2 do termites produce compared to man? what was the termite population during the litle ice age? you have to measure these things rather than just produce a rhetorical argument wrapped in incredulity.
He's recieved death threats and claims of fraud. That's pretty personal. It's also irrelevant to the science here so I'll leave that for another time.
death threats are illegal. why was no one arrested? how was the threat made, untraceable carrier pigeon? the story in the newspapers about climate scientists receiving death threats last year turned out to be made up nonsense, maybe that's what you are referring to. what do you suppose "use mike (mann)'s nature trick to hide the decline" was all about? what is a scientist doing "hiding" data?
This just shows how little you understand about climate change. The issue isn't the amount we produce. It's that we are producing some without providing the necessary sinks. If you increase a source and (in our case) decrease sinks, you will get a net increase. That's simple logic.
if i throw a cigarette over the side of a boat i will heat the oceans, that's simple logic too. should we crap ourselves that smokers might be boiling the oceans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

there has been NO global warming for sixteen years...

That claim's a prime example of how to manipulate statistics to get the answer you want. Here's the story:

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk[/media]

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

That claim's a prime example of how to manipulate statistics to get the answer you want. Here's the story:

that's a prime example of argument from ignorance. they take away what they "believe is natural variation, what's left must be due to humans".

the climate modelers that use their models to frighten children and the gullible are on record stating that 15 years or more of no warming would be enough to discredit their models and how they think co2 affects climate. there has been no global warming for 16 years during which time man has increased co2 emissions by 30%....and why would anyone trust GISS dataset adjustments. it changes every year with every change producing a steeper graph.

http://stevengoddard...2c-per-century/

http://stevengoddard...a-and-giss-are/

http://stevengoddard...ss-smoking-gun/

http://stevengoddard...e-past-at-giss/

http://stevengoddard...500&h=355&h=355

http://stevengoddard...g-at-ushcngiss/

this is NOT the temperature graph:

screenhunter_137-jul-31-06-25.jpg

it is a graph of the adjustments to the raw data.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread could easily be called billionaires secretly fund attack on humanity and the climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread could easily be called billionaires secretly fund attack on humanity and the climate.

why should we care where funding comes from anyway?

government climate scienitsts have swallowed 100 billion dollars with their research compared to "millions" for the skeptical side. governments have a vested interest in global warming since it will generate massive revenues for them. yet the title of this thread implies that david is the goliath.

...furthermore, if the funding is secret, then how could that possibly influence the science?

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really interested in who what or why. Just in stopping the abuses.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...there has been no global warming for 16 years...

The trick to get that "fact" depends on picking 16 years rather than 15 or 17. 16 years ago was a year with a big El Nino temperature peak. The year before and the year after didn't have such a factor, so if you measure from either of those your "no increase" claim evaporates.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It going to Get Hotter ! Look at Mars for our Future ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no empirical evidence that man is causing global warming - just ask, and you will not receive.

it was always about politics and belief.

ALL Empirical data points the finger at human involvement in both Global Warming and Climate Change. The Jury is IN and the verdict is now irrefutable.Mankind has to change its ways or the suffering will be unstoppable. It is the AGW deniers that are at the fringe of science, and inacapable of absorbing what the data proves.

Anybody heard from Lord Monckton recently?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any donation of funds to either side would assist in finding out the plain and simple fact and either side could find a way to stop or slow the effects. At any rate if they can do either to save their wallets or "benefit mankind" they'll be assisting the world in doing so. I don't understand why all the blowout arguments between people.

The only reason I'm a skeptic is because I'm already paying a carbon tax which has been packaged by the government the same way the GST (Goods & Services Tax) was packaged to the country. That and I have seen/read quite alot about england tempretures in the medievil ages being hotter than what most "hot countries" are today and they were running around in metal suits.

My personal beliefs are todays society needs to grab a spoon (if they do not own a spoon a ladel is perfectly acceptable) and eat a spoonful of cement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why am I not surprised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.N.: World temperatures maintain the heat of global warming

DURBAN, South Africa – World temperatures keep rising, and are heading for a threshold that could lead to irreversible changes of the Earth, the United Nations weather office said Tuesday. 2011 is tied for the 10th-hottest year since records began in 1850, the office said in its annual assessment of average global temperatures. Arctic sea ice has also shrunk to record-low volumes this year, it said.

The 13 hottest years on the books all have occurred in the last 15 years. "The science is solid and proves unequivocally that the world is warming," said R.D.J. Lengoasa, deputy director of the World Meteorological Organization, and human activity is a significant contributor.

]http://usatoday30.us...rban/51464574/1

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sickens me. These billionaires care more about there goddamn money then the future of our planet. Great example of why trickle down economics wont work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.