• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Al Gores Prediction [W:426]

New documents show Exxon knew of dangerous contamination from their Arkansas tar sands spill, yet claimed area was “oil free”

Internal documents show Exxon knew of tar sands contamination in arkansas lake, while saying lake was "oil-free" | Greenpeace Blogs

 
polgara said:
It's getting tiresome. No wonder people are tuning out! :mrgreen:

Greetings, Jack. :2wave: Ready to welcome the New Year in?
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Explored the Green Grotto and Runaway Cave today. Barbecue on the beach this evening to welcome the New Year. Meanwhile, into the surf.eace
 
Jack Hays said:
Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Explored the Green Grotto and Runaway Cave today. Barbecue on the beach this evening to welcome the New Year. Meanwhile, into the surf.eace
Click to expand...

"Meanwhile, into the surf."....while we, on the other hand, are due to get 6 inches of snow here by tomorrow. :sigh: You can be a mean, hard-hearted man at times, Jack, so a pox on your surf! :lamo:

Have fun and enjoy yourself, my friend! :thumbs:
 



With respect, you said that Exxon mobile was spending 10.2 million dollars to convince people that fossil fuels and the resulting CO2 was not contributing Global Warming and seemed to be saying that they were conducting a PR campaign of some sort to do this.

Do you have a reference that is NOT from a blindly partisan, agenda driven, biased organization and perhaps is sourced to a news organization with an editorial staff? A quick search provides several.

Still, though, no real PR effort to do anything other than say a bad thing happened and we will say that it's not as bad as it really is. Why might they say this? There appear to be several lawsuits under way on this at this time. There will be huge payouts akin to the kind of settlement made by BP in the Gulf. These are legal fees, though, and the comments are the result of liability avoidance, not a PR campaign to make people think that there is not CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel.
 
Last edited:
mak2 said:
New documents show Exxon knew of dangerous contamination from their Arkansas tar sands spill, yet claimed area was “oil free”
Click to expand...

When will you learn that Greenpeace is not a good source?

Please give us some reputable reference for this, because it certainly is not on the Greenpeace site. They give links to references on third party sites that apparently do not exist, which makes your entire claim questionable at best.
 
code1211 said:
Do you have a reference that is NOT from a blindly partisan, agenda driven, biased organization and perhaps is sourced to a news organization with an editorial staff? A quick search provides several.
Click to expand...

How about one that actually exists?

The first one went to a list of organizations Exxon donated too. The one in question (Smithsonian) has over 300 scientists, 2 of which they call "Climate Deniers".

Wow, what next, calling out other groups because some may be Christians, therefore "Evolution Deniers"?

Those GP links are the worst load of rubbish I have seen in here in ages, and seem more appropriate in a CT thread instead of this one.
 

He got at least 2 people to go to two Greenpeace blog site pages; he accomplished what he wanted..
 



I don't think most people understand that they are being deceived unless and until they can have their eyes opened.

Nobody can do it for them. They have to open their eyes themselves.
 
Threegoofs said:
So somehow 19/20 years of highs absolutely overwhelming low temperatures supports something other than warming??
Click to expand...

So you believe 2013, with more daily record lows than highs, might be an anomaly? But what if it's a trend?

Greetings, Threegoofs. :2wave:
 
polgara said:
So you believe 2013, with more daily record lows than highs, might be an anomaly? But what if it's a trend?

Greetings, Threegoofs. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure 1/20 years (actually, the trend goes back 30+ years IIRC), generally meets the definition of an anomaly.

In fact, I wonder if your original claim about more lows than highs is real. I didn't see a reference.


But if it's the start of a trend, then something quite interesting is happening, because the solid scientific basis for the cause of the observed global warming we see hasn't gone away.
 
polgara said:
So you believe 2013, with more daily record lows than highs, might be an anomaly? But what if it's a trend?

Greetings, Threegoofs. :2wave:
Click to expand...

But ... what about those scary models ...


 

So then, you're saying there have never been warming / cooling cycles before?
Or are you saying every warming cycle has always had a human cause?
 
bubbabgone said:
So then, you're saying there have never been warming / cooling cycles before?
Or are you saying every warming cycle has always had a human cause?
Click to expand...

Look back on the thread. Or read some general scientific review papers on climate change. I think its obvious what I'm saying.
 
Threegoofs said:
Look back on the thread. Or read some general scientific review papers on climate change.
I think its obvious what I'm saying
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...
That the climate has gone through cycles many many many times before but this time it's different?
 
I see we've gone back to the "the Earth really isn't getting warmer after all" position.

So, now to remind the adherents to the cult of Perpetual Denial that the first decade of the new millennium was the warmest on record, and they'll go back to, sure, we know it's getting warmer, and has been for thousands of years, but humans have no part in it position.

After that, the argument will shift back to catastrophe and the cost of fighting global warming.

and round and round it goes. It's amusing in a way.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's amusing in a way.
Click to expand...

It gets really amusing when someone gets so into the weeds they write a post claiming they disproved AGW with some 'simple math'.

Or when, after being presented with overwhelming evidence against their position, they post a WUWT link that's unrelated to the topic without commentary.

Or when the deniers just take over a thread and post self congratulatory circle jerk comments to each other.

Amusing yet sad.
 

See Post #486 for the reference you asked for. If this indeed turns out to be a trend, we really aren't going to know that for many years, unfortunately. If it's an anomaly, we'll know a lot sooner than that! :mrgreen: I'm an organic gardener, so weather trends are quite important to me, and has a bearing on what, and when, I plant what I do in terms of maximum yield. I do know that we are getting killing frosts much later in the Spring than we used to, and I have had to push my planting time from late April to late May/early June for the past several years now.
 

And it's even more amusing when a defender of warmist orthodoxy dodges substantive exchange in order to lob snark and thinly disguised authority arguments from the sidelines. No warming past seventeen years. Models at odds with observed phenomena. You're running from the data.eace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…