Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How do you know I do?
Why isnt it the "side"?
Plenty of funding to be had from the anti as well as the pro groups.
I never said there was a conspiracy. I said they are doing what science has always done. Pimping itself out.
And that's why I care not about it.
All the self righteous tosser hypocrites spouting crap about it while they go on contributing to it, day after day
I worked for ExxonMobil's representative company in Qld. ExxonMobil is and has been a supporter of trading carbon credits for over a decade now. They don't believe in the voodoo science. They believe in the $$'s that they will make from the monopoly that will result from this expensive scheme. Smaller competitors will be shutout.oh come on. AGW research has been going on for a while, and it's only relatively recently that big business has started to get on board to find solutions. whereas big energy have been throwing whatever they can at the science in this time, attempting to muddy it and create doubt in the populace/legislature. it's pure fantasy to equate grant funding for research etc with the sheer volumes of cash available on the contrarian side of the "debate". where's that pic? *google image hunt* this isn't it, but you get the idea.
sorry, but for any (untrue) consensus to occur it would take a vast collusion (ie a conspiracy) between all the parties involved in research.
Well how about you stop posting about it if 'you care not'!And that's why I care not about it.
All the self righteous tosser hypocrites spouting crap about it while they go on contributing to it, day after day
Because he is a troll.Well how about you stop posting about it if 'you care not'!
Because he is a troll.
He constantly says that he is a troll... and he constantly posts bullshit.
Yeah OK.He's ok. Have a go at his arguments and if you see a troll, hit report post.
I have, several times.If he posts bullshit then why cant you can easily counter his arguments? eg funding
A good example is the current fracking debate in the UK. Guess who is a massive funder of the anti fracking campaing?
Gazprom. Green groups are just useful idiots for the real players.
I worked for ExxonMobil's representative company in Qld. ExxonMobil is and has been a supporter of trading carbon credits for over a decade now. They don't believe in the voodoo science. They believe in the $$'s that they will make from the monopoly that will result from this expensive scheme. Smaller competitors will be shutout.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
Makes me wonder what proof there is that Meds is in the UK? He claims economic knowledge yet shows poor understanding of mathematical basics. So could the whole UK story be false too? It means the avatar can avoid on-going discussions and do his disappearing act whenever he's found out, semi-justifying such disappearing acts because he's apparently in an opposite timezone. But having been around since 2004 I'm sure others can better say if it is just the economics that he's stretching the truth on... Power Raid's account was made only a couple months later... Maybe he has an insight...?I have, several times.
But whereas you will just stop posting and take a time out, then return repeating the same thing.
What monopoly?I worked for ExxonMobil's representative company in Qld. ExxonMobil is and has been a supporter of trading carbon credits for over a decade now. They don't believe in the voodoo science. They believe in the $$'s that they will make from the monopoly that will result from this expensive scheme. Smaller competitors will be shutout.
Why isnt it the "side"?
Plenty of funding to be had from the anti as well as the pro groups.
I never said there was a conspiracy. I said they are doing what science has always done. Pimping itself out.
Gus is a 'libertarian'. In my experience, people like this generally aren't trying to make their own greed seem moral, but simply think they are smarter than most people and get frustrated/angry when the people they perceive to hold the power don't listen to their ideas. From what he's said here, it sounds like Gus is in the former camp and just wants to pay SFA tax, but maybe the distrust of people in power means he dislikes scientists. Maybe. The wi-fi he might be using to post was a CSIRO invention.Science does not and cannot work that way. Business and politics yes, science no.
oh come on. AGW research has been going on for a while, and it's only relatively recently that big business has started to get on board to find solutions. whereas big energy have been throwing whatever they can at the science in this time, attempting to muddy it and create doubt in the populace/legislature. it's pure fantasy to equate grant funding for research etc with the sheer volumes of cash available on the contrarian side of the "debate". where's that pic? *google image hunt* this isn't it, but you get the idea.
sorry, but for any (untrue) consensus to occur it would take a vast collusion (ie a conspiracy) between all the parties involved in research.
The Sierra Club received $26 million from a Gas fracking company a few years ago.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72400.html
and the fact that temps stay the same (or even go down) does not support your view that AGW isn't real?
The sun is the sole determining factor behind climate change!"Voodoo science"
-- Anonymous idiot.
you realise that models are there to predict long-term trends and not to tell you whether you'll need a hat on the weekend? (not to mention i can find you a model right now that shows a "hiatus" in surface temps in the period in question, but whatever).
you mean the period of warming that stretches ~160 years? which periods in those 160 do you feel are getting ignored? which periods in the past 2,000 years didn't receive the love and attention they deserved? you do know that nobody has stated that temperatures must increase on a year-by-year basis, and the fact that temps stay the same (or even go down) does not support your view that AGW isn't real?
so what? what does that have to do with what i said? for your post to be of any relevance whatsoever you'd have to provide details of all the funding into AGW research/grants spent by exxon mobile. i will bet my left nut it's nothing compared to the dollars poured into AGW denial over the past few decades. you said it yourself- they don't believe in the voodoo science- so they sure as s**t wouldn't be funding any of it (given their own scientists had kind of been uncooperative lol):