• 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!

Sea Levels DECLINING on East Coast...

If you were actually honest, you'd know the amount spent proving AGW is far more than against it. But that requires honesty.

Yes.
Is someone actually follow the money, they would see the alarmists get 99%+ of the money, but still only have a 97% consensus.

Who's going to bite the hand that feeds them?
 

Global warming activists claim vast amounts of untraceable special interest money fund global warming skeptics and give skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate. The undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money – including far more untraceable special interest “dark money” – than global warming skeptics.

Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle published a paper last week in the journal Climatic Change identifying 91 conservative and libertarian think tanks that Brulle claims play an influential role opposing global warming programs. Brulle claims the 91 groups receive approximately $900 million in cumulative funding each year, with approximately $64 million coming from foundations that distribute “dark money” that cannot be traced to a particular donor. Brulle claims the $900 million in funding – and especially the $64 million in dark money – tilts the playing field and gives global warming skeptics undue political and public relations influence.


-=-=-==-

Forbes Welcome

Dark Money silliness from the deniers that climate changes.
 
Yes.
Is someone actually follow the money, they would see the alarmists get 99%+ of the money, but still only have a 97% consensus.

Who's going to bite the hand that feeds them?

Almost every study STARTS with the conclusion that support the AGW narrative.
 
And I maintain, as I always have that Climate Change/GW pushers, all have an agenda. Follow the money!
:roll:

When we follow the money, we see huge fossil fuel corporations like Koch and Exxon funding climate change deniers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

Of course, they certainly don't make it easy to follow the money:
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American


Algore is making a fortune off of his BS....
Or, not.

Gore has made most of his money off of work in finance, from media investments, stocks, serving on corporate boards like Apple and Google. Compared to his other sources of income and assets, he doesn't appear to make much off of his climate change advocacy.
The making of a businessman: How Al Gore got rich - CBS News


The Earth will do what it wants to do and man has no real control over her.
facepalm.jpg


The evidence is overwhelming that human beings are having a massive impact on the entire planet. This includes increasing global temperatures, creating a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas, and yes increasing sea levels around the world.
 
:roll:

When we follow the money, we see huge fossil fuel corporations like Koch and Exxon funding climate change deniers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

Of course, they certainly don't make it easy to follow the money:
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

.
The sad part is, you can't see how this proves my point. This article even goes goes beyond the pale of the usual liberal garbage . You people just don't see yourselves,and THAT is the problem.
 
Actually the bad science and cherry picking is on the deniers side of the equation. Sea levels do fluctuate but the trend is and will continue to be a slow rise. Right now Australia is experiencing a rainy period and lakes that are normally dry salt beds are 75% full. A convergence in the South Pacific is concentrating some rainfall.

But nice try... :peace

Does rising sea level have an impact on the level of inland lakes?
 
Follow the money! Financial interests only exist on one side of this argument!

Which side? The one that gets the grant money or the side that employs energy workers?
 
Ahhh yes, no doubt more intel you gleaned while working for that agency that 'doesn't exist'... ;)

Yes it's all to make Al gore rich... :lamo

never mind there are truly informed experts who can explain the sea level fluctuations- it's all a big hoax to control us all.... :peace

The truly informed experts are not able to accurately predict the changes in the world climate and are routinely changing the past data that was collected and replacing it with data that is more in keeping with their statements.

If the experts are throwing away the old data because it is flawed, on what are they basing their current assertions of change?
 
Actually the bad science and cherry picking is on the deniers side of the equation. Sea levels do fluctuate but the trend is and will continue to be a slow rise. Right now Australia is experiencing a rainy period and lakes that are normally dry salt beds are 75% full. A convergence in the South Pacific is concentrating some rainfall.

But nice try... :peace

It's interesting to follow the logic of the AGW grant getters and their followers.

When an ice flow melts in the Artic, the sky is falling. But when the overall trend in a large geographical area goes against the agenda, that is just a local issue.
 
:roll:

When we follow the money, we see huge fossil fuel corporations like Koch and Exxon funding climate change deniers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

Of course, they certainly don't make it easy to follow the money:
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American



Or, not.

Gore has made most of his money off of work in finance, from media investments, stocks, serving on corporate boards like Apple and Google. Compared to his other sources of income and assets, he doesn't appear to make much off of his climate change advocacy.
The making of a businessman: How Al Gore got rich - CBS News



facepalm.jpg


The evidence is overwhelming that human beings are having a massive impact on the entire planet. This includes increasing global temperatures, creating a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas, and yes increasing sea levels around the world.

Your link indicates that EXXON, with revenues of about 500 Billion annually, donated about 2.3 million over some years to groups that, among other things, campaign against something about climate change. What is 2.3 million as a percent of 500 Billion? 0.00046% Doesn't seem to reflect an all out effort here...

Do you have a picture of the fabled island of plastic the size of Texas? Texas is visible from space. The island of plastic should be as well.
 
Oh go blow it out your...

I'm sick and tired of your blind following of the dogma.

In other words, you're tired on people not denying the science.

Because the 'dogma' is known as 'established science' in non-denier circles.
 
Science aside, I'll tell you who doesn't think rising oceans are much of a threat: wealthy east and west coasters, the "progressive" types who will insist AGW is a major problem. They're all still willing to pay -- and expect to get -- top dollar for their coastal and beachfront properties. So apparently, they don't actually think the beaches are going anywhere any time soon.
 


[h=1]Uh, oh. New study shows Earth’s internal heat drives rapid ice flow and subglacial melting in Greenland[/h]Distant history of the North Atlantic region contributes to the present-day ice loss From the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences To understand Greenland’s ice of today researchers have to go far back into Earth’s history. The island’s lithosphere has hot depths which originate in its distant geological past and cause Greenland’s ice to rapidly flow…

April 6, 2016 in Greenland ice sheet.
 


[h=1]Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!![/h](Featured image borrowed from http://www.clipartbest.com) Naturally, the Real Clear Science headline actually read… Greenland Lost 9 Trillion Tons of Ice in Century Which sounds even more serious than the original headline… Greenland has lost 9,000 billion tons of ice in a century One would think that the fact that 99.7% of Greenland’s ice sheet survived the…
 
I tend to stay out of these debates because I don't have the time or patience to sift through all the science and pseudo-science both sides spew back and forth. But "follow the money"? Come on, man. Which side, by FAR, has the most money riding on this issue?

Your side! It's not just about the money either.
 
"In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010."
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

That's half a billion (assuming it's true) of private money compared to billions of involuntarily distributed taxpayer money ...

"Here in America, DOE stimulus loans – the entire Energy Department loan portfolio, in fact – have gone to people and companies with significant connections to Democratic politicians. Those recipients all seem to have been top donors, fundraisers and bundlers for Obama and other Democrats in high office. Following the global warming money shows that it causes American spending almost equal to the amount of global spending. The U.N. has very little on the U.S., when it comes to funding global warming causes.

Starting in 2009, the Energy Department has employed three funding and loan programs – along with pressure from President Obama and Vice President Biden – to monetize 33 projects. Section 1705 of the 2009 Recovery Act; Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) and the 1603 Treasury Program. 1705 and the ATVM have guaranteed $34.5 billion in taxpayer money, which has given America such notable losers as Solyndra, Fisker Automotive, Beacon Power, the Vehicle Production Group, Abound Solar and SoloPower. There are more “green” sinkholes out there still, waiting to implode.

Treasury Program 1603 alone awarded free taxpayer cash to campaign donors cum green energy execs to the tune of $19,349,675,402.00 How is private money supposed to compete with those kinds of numbers?

In Nevada, Senator Harry Reid has been using Green stimulus money to buy his reelections. Nevada Geothermal won a $98.5 million loan in September 2010. Ormat Nevada won $350 million and SolarReserve won $737 million in September 2011. All three companies got their money from the SWIP-E project, which Reid championed and campaigned on. Those three companies – through their executives – have donated more than $58,000 to Reid and other Democrats, since 2008.



BrightSource Energy won of $1.6 billion in April 2011for a solar project. BrightSource Energy also held a fundraiser for Senator Reid in their Oakland offices, hosted by none other than then-CEO, John Woolard and then-chairman of PG&E, along with Peter Darbee of BrightSource Energy, in August 2010.

A survey of 3247 US research scientists who address global warming causes – all publicly funded through the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services – published in the science journal Nature, showed that 503 of them admitted to altered the design, methodology or results of their studies, due to pressure from funding sources. Those were just the scientists willing to be honest; it is safe to assume a much larger number."

Global Warming Causes Global Spending: Follow the Money [video] | Guardian Liberty Voice
 
Hopefully everybody remember Sallenger’s “hot spots” of sea level acceleration along the East Coast of the US.

Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597

This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window.

As 6 more years of data have been collected, let see if the hotspots are now the “hottest on record” or if they have cooled down.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05...s-of-acceleration-of-washington-and-new-york/

clip_image002

The graph shows a point where the mean sea level was 0.5m higher than normal.

Half a meter (1 foot 8 inches)??? I think that would be noticable and would have been on the news with waves coming over the harbour wall.

The next graph has sea level changes in mm per year. Unmeasurable for the exact opposite reason and I don't see the same spike.

Is it a metric system issue?
 
Back
Top Bottom