• 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!

Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change

ocean515 said:
So why is the only international solution to this pending crisis focus exclusively on the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind?

Do you know who Maurice Stong is, and what his relationship with the UN is?
Click to expand...

Focus, man.

You seem to think that since you don't like the solutions, the problem cannot exist.
 
Threegoofs said:
Focus, man.

You seem to think that since you don't like the solutions, the problem cannot exist.
Click to expand...

The issue with you is you want a problem to exist that you think might give you the leverage to impose your particular political worldview upon the rest of us. You dont really give a jot about the environment or whether there really is any problem with it . It only serves as a means to an end for you in achieving that goal nothing more :roll:
 
Threegoofs said:
Focus, man.

You seem to think that since you don't like the solutions, the problem cannot exist.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the problem is not a problem.

20th century data supports Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of climate

hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/.../20th-century-data-supports-svensm...‎
Dec 9, 2013 - A post today from the website for the book The Neglected Sun: How the Sun ... Michael Odenwald made ​​on 22 November 2013 in the focus ... New study at the University of Kiel for Neolithic in Ireland: climate cycles caused ...

"A post today from the website for the book The Neglected Sun: How the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe by German scientists Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Luning shows long term data of cosmic ray proxies for the past 200 years strongly support the Svensmark cosmic ray theory of climate.

As shown by Figure 2 below, there was essentially no trend in cosmic rays during the 19th century, but a significant decrease during the 20th century, and a slight uptick at the end of the 20th century. Per Svensmark's theory, solar activity controls cosmic rays which in turn affect cloud formation, with cosmic rays inversely related to global temperature. Thus, figure 2 is highly supportive of the Svensmark theory and cause of 20th century warming.


Climate alarmists such as Stefan Rahmstorf of Michael Mann's site RealClimate claim Svensmark's theory is debunked by only cherry-picking the tiny uptick at the end of the 20th century in cosmic ray counts, absurd in comparison to the long-term view.


The post also reviews recent additional papers demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2.":peace


 
flogger said:
The issue with you is you want a problem to exist that you think might give you the leverage to impose your particular political worldview upon the rest of us. You dont really give a jot about the environment or whether there really is any problem with it . It only serves as a means to an end for you in achieving that goal nothing more :roll:
Click to expand...

Not at all. Notice ive barely said a thing about how to deal with
AGW.

So you are projecting things upon me.
 
Threegoofs said:
Focus, man.

You seem to think that since you don't like the solutions, the problem cannot exist.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that when the solution will make those who are paid to support the problem rich beyond their dreams, one should be very careful.

Why would you dismiss such a fact?
 
ocean515 said:
I'm thinking that when the solution will make those who are paid to support the problem rich beyond their dreams, one should be very careful.

Why would you dismiss such a fact?
Click to expand...

Oh. You're referring to the process of draining all the oil out of the earth?

You're right. Those people will stop at nothing to maintain those billions in revenue.

In fact, they probably spent a billion getting suckers to believe that the science isn't real!

You might be on to something!
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh. You're referring to the process of draining all the oil out of the earth?

You're right. Those people will stop at nothing to maintain those billions in revenue.

In fact, they probably spent a billion getting suckers to believe that the science isn't real!

You might be on to something!
Click to expand...

Actually, no, since such a process doesn't exist, and never will. If I didn't know people who write such things were just being sarcastic, I'd think them devoid of any intellegence and likely candidates for the nut house.

What I'm referring to is the scam involving the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, and the amazing method being used to try and pull it off.
 
ocean515 said:
Actually, no, since such a process doesn't exist, and never will. If I didn't know people who write such things were just being sarcastic, I'd think them devoid of any intellegence and likely candidates for the nut house.

What I'm referring to is the scam involving the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, and the amazing method being used to try and pull it off.
Click to expand...

Yes- right. The pulling up of all the fossil fuel under the earth and the burning of it. That industry makes billions every month, and I can see your idea quite clearly- how they want to keep that wealth transferring to Russian Oligarchs, Saudi Sheiks, and US Corporations.

That might've some of the source of that billion dollars mentioned in the thread title, huh?
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes- right. The pulling up of all the fossil fuel under the earth and the burning of it. That industry makes billions every month, and I can see your idea quite clearly- how they want to keep that wealth transferring to Russian Oligarchs, Saudi Sheiks, and US Corporations.

That might've some of the source of that billion dollars mentioned in the thread title, huh?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know about Russian Oligarchs, or Saudi Sheiks, but US Corporations? Hell yes!

It's important to ignore the chicken littles, (kind of push 'em over to corner to laugh at), and make sure good economic activity takes place so future technologies can be developed and paid for.

That's how the breakthroughs in technology will take place, and how mankind will continue to overcome obstacles.

The oligarch's can keep buying up bright shiney stuff, since that employs thousands to build and maintain, them. The sheiks too!

Long live the rich!

Without them, we'd still be plowing fields, and praying the potato harvest will sustain us through the coming year.
 
ocean515 said:
Well, I don't know about Russian Oligarchs, or Saudi Sheiks, but US Corporations? Hell yes!

It's important to ignore the chicken littles, (kind of push 'em over to corner to laugh at), and make sure good economic activity takes place so future technologies can be developed and paid for.

That's how the breakthroughs in technology will take place, and how mankind will continue to overcome obstacles.

The oligarch's can keep buying up bright shiney stuff, since that employs thousands to build and maintain, them. The sheiks too!

Long live the rich!

Without them, we'd still be plowing fields, and praying the potato harvest will sustain us through the coming year.
Click to expand...


So wait.... you were saying you dont believe in AGW because some people will get rich off of it.

Make up your mind.
 
Threegoofs said:
It kinda was.

Tell me, who was Kukla, Fran and Ollie?

Because I really dont want to play your 'can you google this game'.
Click to expand...

No, it kinda wasn't.

As to Maurice Strong, he is your father. The father of AGW at the UN. I wasn't necessarily asking the question to make you do something, I was asking it a kind of a point of reference, thinking you would know who he was.

He is the guy who want to bring down industrialized nations. Said as much in interviews back in 1992. He determined the way to do that was to punish them economically, and use the environment as the basis for this action.

I'm surprised you don't know the name of the Father of AGW, and the payola scam that is at the center of it.

Here, a link to make it easier. I think it's his site, so all the truth isn't there, but something suggests to me you'd ignore it anyway.

Short Biography

Just keep in mind, he is also the guy who put himself in position to make billions with Al Gore on his Carbon Trading scheme.
 
ocean515 said:
No, it kinda wasn't.

As to Maurice Strong, he is your father. The father of AGW at the UN. I wasn't necessarily asking the question to make you do something, I was asking it a kind of a point of reference, thinking you would know who he was.

He is the guy who want to bring down industrialized nations. Said as much in interviews back in 1992. He determined the way to do that was to punish them economically, and use the environment as the basis for this action.

I'm surprised you don't know the name of the Father of AGW, and the payola scam that is at the center of it.

Here, a link to make it easier. I think it's his site, so all the truth isn't there, but something suggests to me you'd ignore it anyway.

Short Biography

Just keep in mind, he is also the guy who put himself in position to make billions with Al Gore on his Carbon Trading scheme.
Click to expand...


Personalities arent really the issue here, and frankly I dont care who the guy is, because it sounds like he wasnt doing any research in the area and hasnt contributed to the science.


Now do I get to play a game?

Who is Svante Arrhenius? Is he part of the international cabal, too?
 
Threegoofs said:
Personalities arent really the issue here, and frankly I dont care who the guy is, because it sounds like he wasnt doing any research in the area and hasnt contributed to the science.


Now do I get to play a game?

Who is Svante Arrhenius? Is he part of the international cabal, too?
Click to expand...

I thought you disliked "Google" games. Why would you ask me about a dead scientist?

Couldn't care less about a dead scientist as it relates to AGW.

My inquiry related to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, and the method being used to try to make it happen.

Maurice Strong is part of that. I understand why you would be afraid to know him, since his existence, and his actions, crush the AGW fiasco.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Being a PHD student, a profesor involved in the scope of climate science means unqualified?
Click to expand...

To pronounce on the views of climate scientists worldwide without the bother of collecting any direct evidence? Yes. Dana Nuccatelli is especially laughable; he's a known agit-prop simpleton.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
To pronounce on the views of climate scientists worldwide without the bother of collecting any direct evidence? Yes. Dana Nuccatelli is especially laughable; he's a known agit-prop simpleton.:peace
Click to expand...

Yet they did collect direct evidence.

Did you read the paper??
 
flogger said:
Proof please. When did Cook achieve his PhD and in what discipline ?
Click to expand...
never said he had his PHD. You claimed he didnt hold a post in academia rleated to climate. I said he did. "Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland"
Global Change Institute
About Skeptical Science


He is currently a political columnnist for the Guardian newspaper
Click to expand...
You claimed Dana Nuccitell did no work of anykind in the science world. That turned out to be false. Works(ed) for Tetra Tech.

Her field is chemistry .Please list her experience in the field of climate study as its missing from her resume
Click to expand...
This may suprise you but climate science overlaps with various other sciences including oceanography, chemistry, meteorology, astronomy..
The chemistry of climate change




No PhD please list post grad work in climate research .
Click to expand...
Cant find any but heres the directory.
Dept of Meteorology Home Page - University of Reading



Actually no it isnt OK . Its a disgrace that a zoo keeper and a policeman are considered qualified to contribute anything to a published scientific paper. It says a lot about the integrity of the current Peer review process :(
Click to expand...
I see no problem with it. If its their hobby to help out on research and they helped then they have to be given props.




By all means illustrated where these 'research students' have gotten it right and the PhD climate scientist professionals who debunked their paper got it wrong ? Prove that one is currently getting his PhD and in what discipline ? Thanks for illustrating he has No PhD and no experience within the field of climate research whatsoever
Click to expand...
Department of Geography | Robert Way


Please illustrate in your own words why these amateur activists on the Cook paper have gotten it right and climate scientist PhDs debunking it with decades of experience and numerous publications between them in this field somehow got it wrong ?
Click to expand...
Lets see here as other studies have proven, such as the ones posted by Threegoofs the overhelming research also backs up this study...
 
Jack Hays said:
To pronounce on the views of climate scientists worldwide without the bother of collecting any direct evidence? Yes. Dana Nuccatelli is especially laughable; he's a known agit-prop simpleton.:peace
Click to expand...

Uhh they collected direct evidence......
 
Jack Hays said:
They inferred personal views from published research.:peace
Click to expand...

Ah. So you didn't read it. As I thought.

Part of the study was getting the authors to self report their views. The results were consistent with the main part of the study.

One would think you guys would actually READ these papers that you continually try to trash, wouldn't you??

ROFL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom