• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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]

I am in a completely different field but I find it difficult to believe they would conduct themselves in such a manner. I am really trying to see the other side and have read at least a dozen articles and stories posted today as evidence of drumming out dissenting thought. I have not seen one that is at all convienceing.
I worked in it, and have good friends who remained. I know the environment quite well.:peace
 
I am in a completely different field but I find it difficult to believe they would conduct themselves in such a manner. I am really trying to see the other side and have read at least a dozen articles and stories posted today as evidence of drumming out dissenting thought. I have not seen one that is at all convienceing.

Senior faculty who hold tenure decisions in their hands have virtually absolute power over junior, untenured faculty. The personal interests of senior faculty align with their published views and reputations.:peace
 
The energy companies care because if the American people were suddenly convienced AGW was real it would be much eaiser to sell greener energy, and cutting back significantly on petrol use. Thus decreasing their profits.



The use of fossil fuels is not based on the perceived green-ness of the alternatives.

Fossil fuels combine qualities that make them the most cost efficient, portable, readily available and powerful energy source in the history of mankind.
 
Yes, that I understand and that is where the money is...right now. As soon as it is more profitable or otherwise needed (like man realizes he is over heating his planet), that money will go somewhere else. thta is exactly why big energy beats it down.
The use of fossil fuels is not based on the perceived green-ness of the alternatives.

Fossil fuels combine qualities that make them the most cost efficient, portable, readily available and powerful energy source in the history of mankind.
 
Yes, that I understand and that is where the money is...right now. As soon as it is more profitable or otherwise needed (like man realizes he is over heating his planet), that money will go somewhere else. thta is exactly why big energy beats it down.

There is no evidence --at all-- of such a campaign by "big energy," whatever that is.:peace
 
there does not appear, at least as I have seen yet, any evidence of a conspircy or confulence of academic interest to squash science that disagree with AGW.
There is no evidence --at all-- of such a campaign by "big energy," whatever that is.:peace
 
Ever notice how the RFPs also are all about plate tectonics, germ theory, evolution, etc. being settled science?

It's because the scientific community (NSF, in this case, but also virtually EVERY scientific society in the world) understands the issue better than you, and knows blowing money on research with a basis in fantasy is money ill-spent.

The conspiracy theory stuff really belongs in the 911 truther section of the forum...




Too bad that AGW science does not provide any predictability,
does not address all of the phenomena that the notion can't explain,
ignores facts that are not consistent with the notion,
will never produce a test to falsify,
ignores that the whole thing is not reasonable,
ignores that there may be different causing factors
and finally
ignores that this is the most complex explanation to a thing that is very easily explained as having happened before that will happen again through natural process alone.
 
Too bad that AGW science does not provide any predictability,
does not address all of the phenomena that the notion can't explain,
ignores facts that are not consistent with the notion,
will never produce a test to falsify,
ignores that the whole thing is not reasonable,
ignores that there may be different causing factors
and finally
ignores that this is the most complex explanation to a thing that is very easily explained as having happened before that will happen again through natural process alone.

Predictability?

e9yhy3ys.jpg
 
Yes, that I understand and that is where the money is...right now. As soon as it is more profitable or otherwise needed (like man realizes he is over heating his planet), that money will go somewhere else. thta is exactly why big energy beats it down.



Can you please link to an example of how "the big energy beats it down".
 
Thought you would never ask...
http://www.polluterwatch.com/koch-industries
ExxonMobil | PolluterWatch

Through Koch Industries and their family foundations, the Koch brothers are premier financiers to organizations that deny, skepticize or belittle the significance of global warming. Compared to ExxonMobil, which spent $10.2 million on skeptic groups from 2005-2008, Koch Industries dwarfed their contribution with a $31.6 million effort. More than $5.6 million went to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (founded and chaired by David Koch), over $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation and over $1.2 million the Cato Institute (co-founded by Charles Koch, chaired by David Koch). The Koch family foundations have contributed over $55 million since 1997, more than half of which was spent after 2005.
Source: Greenpeace Report

ExxonMobil has “long has enjoyed a close relationship with Congress,” using their influence to run commercial operations on federal land and push against efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency that would influence their business. The 1999 merger between Exxon and Mobil was controversial, as the creation of the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company created anti-trust concerns. Heavy lobbying helped ensure the merger went through.

Can you please link to an example of how "the big energy beats it down".
 
Last edited:
Thought you would never ask...
Koch Industries | PolluterWatch
ExxonMobil | PolluterWatch

Through Koch Industries and their family foundations, the Koch brothers are premier financiers to organizations that deny, skepticize or belittle the significance of global warming. Compared to ExxonMobil, which spent $10.2 million on skeptic groups from 2005-2008, Koch Industries dwarfed their contribution with a $31.6 million effort. More than $5.6 million went to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (founded and chaired by David Koch), over $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation and over $1.2 million the Cato Institute (co-founded by Charles Koch, chaired by David Koch). The Koch family foundations have contributed over $55 million since 1997, more than half of which was spent after 2005.
Source: Greenpeace Report

ExxonMobil has “long has enjoyed a close relationship with Congress,” using their influence to run commercial operations on federal land and push against efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency that would influence their business. The 1999 merger between Exxon and Mobil was controversial, as the creation of the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company created anti-trust concerns. Heavy lobbying helped ensure the merger went through.



To you and me, this sounds like a whole big pile of money. To Exxon-Mobile, this is the kind of money that falls off the table when they are counting the stuff they want to keep. Exxon Moblile is responsible for about 3% of the world's oil production.

During the period that you are talking about, you say that Exxon Mobile spent a whole bunch of money trying to convince that their products don't hurt the climate. What I wanted was an example of the kind of brain washing that they use. You will please link to that as requested.

However, addressing only the monies spent, the profitability of this industry is astonishing. During the period that you define, 2005 through 2008, the amount of money you say they spent to make us like oil was 10.2 million. The amount of money that they could not hide from the tax man using the services of the best accountants in the world was a little more than that:

161,460.0 million in profits
10.2 million spent to poison the minds of the public.

This is .00631% of their profits: 6.31 one thousands of one percent of their profits.

By any standard, this doesn't seem like they are making a serious attempt to do what you say they are doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil#Revenue_and_profits
 
Last edited:
Yes, that I understand and that is where the money is...right now. As soon as it is more profitable or otherwise needed (like man realizes he is over heating his planet), that money will go somewhere else. thta is exactly why big energy beats it down.
First, there is no practical alternative to the energy density provided by hydrocarbons.
The best we could do right now would be to make our own carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels.
People will switch to "greener" products when it is in their own best interest to do so.
I don't think the oil companies care, it's not like their reputation is going to be sullied more.
Their profits will be there regardless of what people believe.
(The product may cost more, and the Government might make more taxes,
but that will not affect the profit, just the cost to the consumer.)
 
Thought you would never ask...
Koch Industries | PolluterWatch
ExxonMobil | PolluterWatch

Through Koch Industries and their family foundations, the Koch brothers are premier financiers to organizations that deny, skepticize or belittle the significance of global warming. Compared to ExxonMobil, which spent $10.2 million on skeptic groups from 2005-2008, Koch Industries dwarfed their contribution with a $31.6 million effort. More than $5.6 million went to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (founded and chaired by David Koch), over $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation and over $1.2 million the Cato Institute (co-founded by Charles Koch, chaired by David Koch). The Koch family foundations have contributed over $55 million since 1997, more than half of which was spent after 2005.
Source: Greenpeace Report

ExxonMobil has “long has enjoyed a close relationship with Congress,” using their influence to run commercial operations on federal land and push against efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency that would influence their business. The 1999 merger between Exxon and Mobil was controversial, as the creation of the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company created anti-trust concerns. Heavy lobbying helped ensure the merger went through.

I already posted that a few pages back. My prediction: It will once again be ignored. Let's see predictability.
 
I really did not realize you did, sorry. I thought I just thunk of that and was setting them up.:3oops:
I already posted that a few pages back. My prediction: It will once again be ignored. Let's see predictability.
 
Additional reply: Do not underestimate the corrupting power of the desire for academic career advancement and the self-interest of senior academics thoroughly invested in AGW. There need not be a conspiracy, only a confluence of interests.:peace

This is the reason that I equate most of these with conspiracy theorists.

I am not saying it is a conspiracy, just that they have the same kind of mindset. Completely absorbed in what they want to see, ignoring anything that does not meet their criteria, and rejecting anything that they do not like no matter what kind of evidence is presented.

Oak forests in northern Alaska where we now have tundra and permafrost? Why, attack the use of a word instead of talk about the fact that the climate was so much warmer that there was no permafrost at all but forests like we have now in the US. I find it almost like what I see from truthers.

And of course seeing conspiracies themselves everywhere. Disagree with our theory, why you are a shill for the COrporations! You are involved in a conspiracy not us!
 
Thought you would never ask...
Koch Industries | PolluterWatch
ExxonMobil | PolluterWatch

Through Koch Industries and their family foundations, the Koch brothers are premier financiers to organizations that deny, skepticize or belittle the significance of global warming. Compared to ExxonMobil, which spent $10.2 million on skeptic groups from 2005-2008, Koch Industries dwarfed their contribution with a $31.6 million effort. More than $5.6 million went to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (founded and chaired by David Koch), over $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation and over $1.2 million the Cato Institute (co-founded by Charles Koch, chaired by David Koch). The Koch family foundations have contributed over $55 million since 1997, more than half of which was spent after 2005.
Source: Greenpeace Report

ExxonMobil has “long has enjoyed a close relationship with Congress,” using their influence to run commercial operations on federal land and push against efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency that would influence their business. The 1999 merger between Exxon and Mobil was controversial, as the creation of the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company created anti-trust concerns. Heavy lobbying helped ensure the merger went through.
By posting this, I am assuming you did not look at the NSF award page for climate topics.
I will post the first few on the page, There were over 3000 hits on the award search "climate"

CCEP - II: Pacific Islands Climate Change Education Partnership
Award Number:1239733; Principal Investigator:Sharon Nelson-Barber; Co-Principal Investigator:Charles Fletcher, VerlieAnn Malina-Wright, Art Sussman; Organization:Pacific Resources for Education and Learning;NSF Organization:DGE Award Date:09/15/2012; Award Amount:$5,852,000.00; Relevance:43.04;

CNH: Assessing and Adaptively Managing Wildfire Risk in the Wildland-Urban Interface
Award Number:0903562; Principal Investigator:Anthony Prato; Co-Principal Investigator:Gamini Herath, Jane Kapler Smith, Robert Keane, Daniel Fagre; Organization:University of Missouri-Columbia;NSF Organization:GEO Award Date:10/01/2009; Award Amount:$1,496,273.00; Relevance:43.04;

Collaborative Research: Understanding Climate Change: A Data Driven Approach
Award Number:1028746; Principal Investigator:Nagiza Samatova; Co-Principal Investigator:Fredrick Semazzi; Organization:North Carolina State University;NSF Organization:CCF Award Date:09/01/2010; Award Amount:$1,815,739.00; Relevance:43.04;

Collaborative Research: Understanding Climate Change: A Data Driven Approach
Award Number:1029711; Principal Investigator:Vipin Kumar; Co-Principal Investigator:Shashi Shekhar, Auroop Ganguly, Arindam Banerjee, Jonathan Foley; Organization:University of Minnesota-Twin Cities;NSF Organization:IIS Award Date:09/01/2010; Award Amount:$6,528,261.00; Relevance:43.04;

An Informed Guide to Climate Data Sets with Relevance to Earth System Model Evaluation
Award Number:1048899; Principal Investigator:Clara Deser; Co-Principal Investigator:Kevin Trenberth, Dennis Shea, Aiguo Dai, James Hurrell; Organization:University Corporation For Atmospheric Res;NSF Organization:AGS Award Date:03/01/2011; Award Amount:$1,049,973.00; Relevance:43.04;

CNH: Wetlands in a Working Landscape: Links Among Landowner Decisions, Climate, Disease Ecology, and Metapopulation Dynamics
Award Number:1115069; Principal Investigator:Steven Beissinger; Co-Principal Investigator:Lynn Huntsinger, A. Marm Kilpatrick, Norman Miller; Organization:University of California-Berkeley;NSF Organization:DEB Award Date:09/01/2011; Award Amount:$1,250,000.00; Relevance:43.04;

CNH: Agroecosystem-Based Climate Resilience Strategies in the Blue Nile Headwaters of Ethiopia
Award Number:1211235; Principal Investigator:Benjamin Zaitchik; Co-Principal Investigator:Belay Simane, Jeremy Foltz, Luke MacDonald, Mutlu Ozdogan; Organization:Johns Hopkins University;NSF Organization:GEO Award Date:09/15/2012; Award Amount:$1,496,076.00; Relevance:43.04;
 
I already posted that a few pages back. My prediction: It will once again be ignored. Let's see predictability.



Do you have an example of the actual propaganda produced by "big oil" that is convincing us that fossil fuels is not affecting the climate?
 
I already posted that a few pages back. My prediction: It will once again be ignored. Let's see predictability.

I really did not realize you did, sorry. I thought I just thunk of that and was setting them up.:3oops:

No, they won't address it anyway, not in any meaningful way.

Do you have an example of the actual propaganda produced by "big oil" that is convincing us that fossil fuels is not affecting the climate?

See? I told you so.
 

Wait, that is proof?

That they fund the Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory, which happens to have a couple of scientists who do not accept "Global Warming"?

Of course, the Institute itself does not study the weather at all, but is involved in studying the sun.

This is the type of thing I mean about "Conspiracy Theory" type thinking. Because of 2 scientists (out of hundreds), everything is classified as "junk science", just because an oil company donates money to them.

Talk about complete bunk.

Oh, and their reference? A Greenpeace run website that provides no clear information, naturally.
 
Another one bites the dust.

Willis Eschenbach | Watts Up With That?

Tropical Cancellation Cancelled. Here is a fine example of a paper published quite some time ago, and cited over a hundred times, and now falsified.:peace

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

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



Well, this is certainly a non answer.

I was hoping you might be able to link to something that is actually something.

Here is an example of an Anti Exxon message saying that they are destroying the environment and condemning our children to death.

Do you have an example of a message from Exxon saying that they have no impact on hurting the environment? When was it aired?

Fuel Fix » Environmentalists take anti-Exxon message to TV
 
Back
Top Bottom