Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

SEPP happens to be a professional organisation. Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant.

Good lord... Ok, how about this, no major professional (scientific) organization endorses global warming as largely a natural phenomenon. Yes, there are fringe organizations that endorse this view. You can find fringe organizations to support almost anything if you look hard enough though

WRONG AGAIN. There are several leading climatologists, including Richard Lindzen. Or are you going to make an ad hominem attack against him too.

Richard Lindzen is, with little doubt, the most respectable of opponents of our role in global warming. He's produced a few important papers and done some good work, but his credibility begins to quickly break down when he is asked to explain why human activities would not cause warming. He acknowledges that the climate has warmed (by 0.6 C last century). He also acknowledges that human activities are increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases and that this should increase surface and trophospheric temperature.

Typically he then goes on to suggest that climate models predict a 4 - 5 C warming with doubled CO2 (actually they predict 3 C warming +/- 1.5 C with doubled CO2) and that the warming due to doubled CO2 should only be around 1 C. Of course, he fails to mention that 1 C of warming is a predicted change without taking any feedbacks into consideration (melting ice reducing Earth's albedo, for example, causing enhanced warming). Without taking positive feedbacks into account, about 1 C of warming is what's predicted by--well, everyone, that's just simple mathematics.

He then goes on to suggest that temperature over the last century can't be adequately described without invoking natural as well as man-made forcings. No argument there--I think every agrees on that.

He may then bring up his beloved iris-effect which would predict less water vapor in the air as the climate warms (and hence cooling). This hypothesis has been tested, refuted, and largely discredited, yet he clings to it despite not having any basis with which to do so.

In writing and when pressed he also admits that the warming over the last several decades is largely due to human activities.

Despite all of this, he does generally suggest that recent global warming is due to natural variability within the system, despite the fact that his own testimony would suggest otherwise. He suggests that we are as likely to see a cooling trend over the next 20 years as a warming trend, yet he offers no data or reasoning to support this possibility.

He offered to put money on the line in a bet that there would be a cooling trend over the next 20 years (or at least no warming trend) but would only take the bet at 500:1 odds when James Annan took him up on it. Lindzen ultimately did not take the bet. If he's the one you'd like to hitch your wagon to, you can have him

Well, if by "science" you mean self-peer reviewed, closed-source based alarmism that's been so shoddy it's been debunked and corrected by lone blogger amateurs, then go ahead.

Hansen's played the Fox Mulder card more than once. Usually after his science predictions have been shown to be 300% off base....

How about refusing proper peer review of his so-called model?
Quod erat demonstrandum. I win.

That's Science 101. Scientific Method. Look it up.

Evidence counts, not accusations. If you have evidence to show me I'll take a look, otherwise I have no interest in baseless accusations.

Chris

 

That centralized world power is the association of the interdependent
multinational corporations.

The provide all of the goods and services and jobs and investment
income. What else could possibly be in control?

Littlefoot

 

Somehow the title of my thread changed.

BTW, I posted this BEFORE you created the "global warming propaganda" thread. (Referring to the original thread.)

 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

Gore gets a cold shoulder

Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

 

ha it was so obvious anyway, i was laughing all the way through
Main argument: "dirty hippies believe human beings play a part in global warming. The end"

 

So any information refuting Gore's premise is propaganda? Hence the title of this thread.

Jeeze Skip I thought you of all people were a little more conscious of how media approach can skew the advancement of open dialogue.

 

Gore overstated a few times in the film, but almost the entirety of the film and most of the conclusions he reaches are based on sound science. While I don't think we should overlook the 5% of the film that is exaggerated, that certainly doesn't undermine the other 95% which is solid and in keeping with current science.

Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe he ever claimed that there were or would be more hurricanes as a result of global warming, just that they would be more severe. No body that knows anything about the topic argues that there will be MORE storms, but there's every reason to think that the storms will be stronger with warmer oceans. That has been measured over the last several decades, and the storms are getting stronger, which I do recall he mentioned.

Chris

 

How are they on the same subject any more than the ones which are promoting the man-made theory?

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

Notice the term polically partisan. You should read the entire article in it the judge outlines the nine areas he feels have been exaggerated.

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/hoffman10132007.html

[size=+2]The Lies of Al Gore[/size]

[size=+2]Another Pro Nuker Wins the Peace Prize[/size]

[size=+2]By RUSSELL HOFFMAN[/size]

[size=+3]H[/size][size=-1]o Hum. Yesterday, pro-nuker Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental charade. He shares it with the UN's IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change).[/size]

[size=-1]A few years ago (2005) the International Atomic Energy Agency -- pro-nukers in all possible ways, as long as they get to watch -- received the "prestigious" award.[/size]

[size=-1]In 2002, ex nuclear-navy reactor operator Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize. Carter was President during the Three Mile Island accident and toured that facility to prove it was safe (it wasn't). He campaigned on the promise that we would only use nuclear power "as a last resort," only to get into office and -- ho hum -- declare that "we are down to our last resorts" because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) raised the price of a barrel of oil a couple of bucks (to about 1/4 of what it is now).[/size]

[size=-1]Extreme pro-nuker Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 (probably nobody has done more damage to the earth through radiation poisoning than the Russians).[/size]

[size=-1]In 1967, Japanese Prime Minister Sato received the Nobel Peace prize when he decided Japan would never possess, create, or import nuclear weapons. But they have over 50 nuclear power plants, which poison their land, air, and water every day, and could result in "Genpatsu-Shinsai" (a meltdown caused by an earthquake) any day.[/size]

[size=-1]On the plus side, the Pugwash movement was the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1995, and Dr. Helen Caldicott is a past Nobel Peace Prize nominee (a movie about her, If You Love This Planet, won an Academy Award for best documentary in 1983). However, Dr. Caldicott was not a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Harvey Wasserman, who ALSO should have won it by now, hasn't even been nominated (and nor was John Gofman or Alice Stewart, both dead now, nor many others who deserve such honors for speaking out against the nuclear madness that infects the planet).[/size]

[size=-1]The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War received the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for educating the public about the dangers of nuclear weapons. But what about the dangers of attacking nuclear power plants WITH nuclear weapons (or with conventional weapons)? Dr. Bennett Ramberg warned us about THAT in his book, Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy: An Unrecognized Military Peril (1985), but never received proper recognition for it -- such as a Nobel Peace Prize.[/size]

[size=-1]In 1992 Dr. John W. Gofman won the Right Livelihood Award, an alternative to the Nobel Peace Prize. Drs. Rosalie Bertell and Alice Stewart received the award in 1986. Amory Lovins, who usually can't quite bring himself to speak out definitively against nuclear power, but beats around the bush regularly, won the Right Livelihood Award along with his wife Hunter Lovins (both of whom founded the Rocky Mountain Institute) in 1983. (Each year about half a dozen people and / or organizations receive the award.)[/size]

[size=-1]50 years ago, Senator Al Gore (Al Gore's dad) was on a committee promoting the use of nuclear energy in space, and was also pushing nukes on land and sea. Like father, like son.[/size]

[size=-1]What's the world coming to? Nuclear death by radioactive poison gas, that's what![/size]

[size=-1]I had cancer earlier this year (bladder cancer). About 1/3 of all humans will get cancer, and MOST of those will die of it. The rates of numerous other diseases caused by radiation are going up, up, UP. There is no "Nobel Environmental Prize" but obviously Al Gore would have won that this year, if there was one. Once again they've made the Nobel Peace Prize the equivalent of the Nobel Environmental Prize, and failed to give it to someone who's trying to stop war. Instead, they've given it to a pro-nuker -- again.[/size]

[size=-1]Al Gore is a liar. The Nobel Peace Prize is soiled -- again.[/size]

[size=-1]Russell D. Hoffman[/size][size=-1], a computer programmer in Carlsbad, California, has written extensively about nuclear power. His essays have been translated into several different languages and published in more than a dozen countries. He can be reached at: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com[/size]

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10132007.html

[size=+2]It's As Ridiculous As If They'd Given Goebbels One in 1938 [/size]

[size=+2]Al Gore's Peace Prize[/size]

[size=+2]By ALEXANDER COCKBURN[/size]

[size=+3]P[/size][size=-1]ut this one up on the shelf of shame, right next to Henry Kissinger's, or the peace prize they gave to Kofi Annan and the entire UN in 2001, sandwiched between the UN's okay for the bombing of Serbia, the killing of untold numbers of Iraqis, many of them babies and children in the years of sanctions, and its greenlight for the bombing of Baghdad in 2003. In 1998 the Nobel crowd gave the prize to Medecins Sans Frontieres, whose co-founder Bernard Kouchner is now France's foreign secretary urging the bombing of Iran. Like Gore, Kouchner was a rabid advocate of the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia and onslaughts on Serbia. [/size]

[size=-1]The UN often has an inside track on the "Peace" prize. The UN Peace-Keeping Forces got it in 1988. In 1986 another enthusiast for attacking Iraq and Iran, Elie Wiesel, carried off the trophy. Aside from Kissinger, probably the biggest killer of all to have got the peace prize was Norman Borlaug, whose "green revolution" wheat strains led to the death of peasants by the million.[/size]

[size=-1]When Gore goes to get the prize he shares with the pr hucksters and falsifiers at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Gore should be forced to march through a gauntlet of widows and orphans, Serbs, Iraqis, Palestinians, Colombians, and other victims of the Clinton era. [/size]

[size=-1]Back in Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign Gore was told to earn his keep with constant pummeling of George Bush Sr for having been soft on Saddam. Gore duly criss-crossed the country yoking Saddam and Bush in fervid denunciation, his press aides passing out speeches flatteringly footnoted with references to the work of the journalists covering his campaign. Gore charged that Bush had given Saddam "one of those milquetoast routines George Bush is so famous for". "The cover-up of Bush's arming of Saddam was", Gore shouted, "bigger than Watergate ever was." Right before the 2000 election Gore called for expansion of the no-fly zones in Iraq and said that any Iraqi plane venturing into such zones should be shot down.[/size]

[size=-1]In early January, 1993, Thomas Friedman interviewed president elect Clinton and asked about Saddam. Clinton amiably responded, "I always tell everybody, I'm a Baptist. I believe in deathbed conversions. If he wants a different relationship with the US and UN, all he has to do is change his behavior." This elicited cries of outrage from the national security establishment, and its prime respresentative,vice president-elect Gore, who announced that there could never be normal relations with Iraq so long as Saddam remained in power. He reiterated the call for a coup, if not by the Iraqi military then by the CIA (which in point of fact had been in receipt of a 'presidential finding' from Bush, three months after the guns of the Gulf War fell silent, authorizing it 'to create conditions for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power').[/size]

[size=-1]Vice president Al Gore was then given authority in the Clinton Administration for Iraq policy. On April 14, 1993, Bush went to Kuwait, whose regime duly arrested 17 people charged with plotting to kill Bush with a bomb placed in a Toyota Landcruiser.[/size]

[size=-1]Again the national security establishment mustered in support of a plan to hold Saddam accountable and bombard Baghdad, a plan hotly advocated by Gore and his national security advisor, Leon Feurth. The two individuals most reluctant to endorse this plan were Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. "Do we have to take this action?" Clinton muttered to his national security team as the cruise missiles on two carriers in the Persian Gulf were being programmed.[/size]

[size=-1]Eight of the 23 missiles hit the residential Mansour suburb of Baghdad, one of them killing Leila al-Attar, a prominent Iraqi artist. According to Clinton's pollster Stan Greenberg, the bombing of Baghdad caused an uptick of 11 points in Clinton's popularity, a lesson Clinton and Gore did not forget. Years later, in the 2000 campaign, Gore out-hawked George Bush Jr on the subject of finishing the job in Iraq.[/size]

[size=-1]On June 29, 2000, Gore was in Chicago to talk about "energy policy incentives for cities". Danny Muller of Voices in the Wilderness went to Navy Pier, where the event was being held. Gore was at the podium amid wild ovations. Muller remembers the scene: "I raised my voice and asked 'Mr. Gore, why should anyone vote for an administration that kills 5,000 innocent children a month through sanctions in Iraq?' Gore stopped. And he laughed. He actually laughed. He said he would discuss this later in the day. I responded by saying that every ten minutes a child dies in Iraq due to sanctions and we do not have the time to wait."[/size]

[size=-1]Muller was still protesting as Gore's security goons hauled him off.[/size]

[size=-1]The specific reason why this man of blood shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC is for their joint agitprop on the supposed threat of anthropogenic global warming. Bogus science topped off with toxic alarmism. It's as ridiculous as as if Goebbels got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938, sharing it with the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for his work in publicizing the threat to race purity posed by Jews, Slavs and gypsies. (The peace prize actually went that year to the Nansen Committee for Refugees. Gore certainly played his part in creating Iraq's current 4 million refugees, among the greatest displacements of the past hundred years.)[/size]

[size=-1]The notorious "man-made" greenhouse gasses comprise about .26 per cent of the total greenhouse gas component of the earth's atmosphere and the influence of this component remains entirely unproven, as I have pointed out on this site many times,and will be doing so again in reflections that will be published early next year in my forthcoming book, A Short History of Fear. Gore's contribution to the debate has been an appalling mishmash of cooked statistics, demagoguery about "scientific consensus" and New Age hocus pocus about spiritual renewal. Anyone who has studied the antics of his co-winner of the peace prize, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will know that the IPCC's prime role every three years has been to ignore the work--some of it respectable scientific research--of its expert panels and issue entirely mendacious and to issue alarmist press releases designed to win headlines in the New York Times. [/size]

[size=-1]Of course Al Gore has been a shil for nuclear power ever since he came of age as a political harlot for the Oakridge nuclear laboratory in his home state of Tennessee. The practical beneficiary of the baseless hysteria over "anthropogenic global warming" is the nuclear power industry. This very fall, as Peter Montague describes at length in our current CounterPunch newsletter, this industry is reaping the fruits of Al Gore's campaigning. Congress has finally knocked aside the regulatory licensing processes that have somewhat protected the public across recent decades. The starting gun has sounded, and just about the moment Gore and his co-conspirators at the IPCC collect their prizes, the bulldozers will be breaking ground for the new nuclear plants soon to spring like Amanita phalloides--just as deadly--across the American landscape.[/size]

[size=-1]Toothless in Babylon[/size]

[size=-1]The way things are headed, in two or three months we'll have 95 percent of the American people wanting a pullout from the war in Iraq and 95 percent of Congress obediently voting funds to keep the troops there. At the start of October, only 27 percent of Americans wanted Congress to greenlight the $190 billion Bush has requested to go on fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Washington Post summed up its latest poll, conducted with ABC TV, thus: "Most Americans do not believe Congress has gone far enough in opposing the war."[/size]

[size=-1]Here we are in the gray dawn of the twenty-first century, but only a handful of senators and reps dare stand up to be counted on matters of war and peace. The Kyl-Lieberman bill recommending that Iran's Revolutionary Guards be placed on the US government's blacklist as a "terrorist organization" was clearly hatched as a way for Bush to attack Iran without seeking Congressional approval. It cantered through the Senate with only twenty-five opposing. The House approved a similar measure with only sixteen no's, jusy 12 of them Democrats. Notoriously, Hillary Clinton voted for Kyl-Lieberman, then amid a hail of criticism, tried to fix up a fudge vote for the record, sigining on to an amended version drafted by Senator James Webb.[/size]

[size=-1]The day before the Senate vote, in the Democratic debate at Dartmouth College candidates Clinton, Obama and Edwards all refused to commit to having all US troops out of Iraq by the end of their first White House term-December 2013. The shortest timeline for withdrawal is offered in Senator Russell Feingold's bill, which requires troops to be out of Iraq by June 30, 2008. That bill has only twelve Senate co-sponsors, Clinton and Obama conspicuous by their absence.[/size]

[size=-1]The Petraeus hearings showed us the feeble state of the anti-war forces on the Hill. A few senators grandstanding for their one-liners to be flashed up on CNN doesn't add up to anything more than popgun combat. No one laid a glove on Petraeus, and that failure is very significant. Winslow Wheeler worked on the Hill for thirty-one years as a staffer for various senators from both sides of the aisle, also for the GAO. These days he's the director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington. As CounterPunchers well know, his regular bulletins on defense matters, particularly military budgets and appropriations, are always knowledgeable and succinct. He really knows how the system works.[/size]

[size=-1]In the wake of Petraeus's easy victories in both the Senate and House hearings, Wheeler looked back at the 1972 hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, taking testimony from Secretary of State William Rogers on the war in Vietnam. The committee's chairman, William Fulbright, took Rogers apart, exposing time after time the Secretary's evasions and lies. Fulbright, Wheeler recalled, counterpunch.org/wheeler10032007.html.[/size]

[size=-1]"knew all the facts, uncovered by an assiduous professional staff that discovered a whole lot more than what the Defense and State departments wanted them to know." As the bruised Rogers and his entourage filed out, Wheeler heard one of the Secretary's staff hiss angrily to an underling, "Find out how that son of a bitch found all that out."[/size]

[size=-1]Petraeus endured no such relentless interrogation. There were no angry hisses, only smiles at the conclusion of his claims for the success thus far of his Surge. Yet the facts that the senators and representatives could and should have thrown at him were all available, many of them supplied to the relevant Congressional staffers by Wheeler's organization in the form of body counts, information from the United Nations and other sources, plus polling data from the people best qualified to assess whether their security had been enhanced by the Surge-namely, Iraqis.[/size]

[size=-1]But the senators and reps didn't use the material as Fulbright would have done. Beyond a few brief interrogatory flurries, they mostly stuck to their scripted speeches. As Wheeler concludes,[/size]

[size=-1]All that was politicking, not oversight. Oversightmeans finding out exactly what the executive branch is doing and what is going on in the world. Only that, not posturing, provides a sound foundation for competent legislation and the political coalitions needed to enact it. Put simply, if you do not know with some precision what the problem is, you are not going to solve it. And if you don't have the data, mere rhetoric will not always save you, especially when you fail to refute the opposing case.[/size]

​

[size=-1]How good is the staff work on the Hill these days? Ideally, in the battles that matter, it should be a blend of savage investigative zeal and experience in what stones to turn over and where to dig out the paydirt. How many battle-scarred oldtimers are there, like Wheeler or Jake Lewis, who remember how it was done? How many eager reporters are there for them to leak to? The Clinton era did dreadful damage to conscientious and effective oversight. The Democrats were out of power on the Hill for a decade, until 2007. I know of one 50-year-old who recently and successfully applied for a good staff job on an important committee who thinks he got the job partly because there weren't that many applicants.[/size]

[size=-1]And even if you have a terrific staff rustling up devastating data, you still need a senator or rep with the wits and moxy to turn the material into an effective interrogation. These days you can sit and watch C-SPAN all year long and rarely see anything beyond camera-preening by the likes of Chuck Schumer. Arlen Specter can take out the razor when he wants to. So can Feingold. So can a can few of the Republican ex-prosecutors. Not many others. You can chart Ted Kennedy's decline in effectiveness by the decline in the quality of his staff. Dig out a clip of Jack Brooks of Texas Roasting someone in the witness chair, to see how it used to be done. The place just isn't what it used to be.[/size]

[size=-1]Footnote: The history of Al Gore's warmongering on Iraq is laid out in Al Gore: A User's Manual co-written by your CounterPunch co-editors, Cockburn and St Clair. A shorter version of the second item, Toothless in Babylon, first ran in print edition of The Nation.[/size]

 

But the word DENIER is being used by the mainstream media to denounce anyone who doesn't embrace the man-made theory by linking them with Holocaust denial. If that isn't propaganda -- and a cheap way of silencing people -- then I don't know what is. It's the same trick the neocons use to denounce and marginalize anyone against their agenda as being anti-Semitic.

Sure, there are articles attacking Gore and the man-made theory of global warming. That's all part of the dialectic. One side of the argument could not exist without the other, so they pretend to give you both sides, while neither side will talk about the real reasons behind the recent global warming hysteria that has been continuously beat into people's heads via the corporate CFR-controlled media and the public education (indoctrination) system. I don't know about you, but I have seen the front pages of MANY establishment magazines championing the man-made global warming theory, complete with sensationalized images and titles suggesting impending doom for all humanity. I have seen countless features on network TV devoting hours to the man-made global warming theory.

If we were to weigh the two sides, it would appear that the man-made global warming theory is getting a lot more attention than the other side, and if you were to ask most schoolage children (who are being bombarded with this), they would tell you that it's a proven fact that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Why would the public indoctrination system be promoting this so heavily if it went against the agenda of the controllers?

So to say I am championing the establishment chorus line is ridiculous when you consider that the heads of big oil companies are embracing manmade global warming, that big-name oil families (ie. the Rockefellers) have bankrolled and continue to fund the environmental movement, and that this is all being used as a way to implement more global control in the form of laws, regulations and taxes, while further eviscerating national sovereignty. And it's a lot worse than this, because if you read the U.N.'s 'Agenda 21', they talk about literally rearranging society to the point where people will not be allowed to own their own property, they must live in designated "habitat areas" (which will be the overcrowded cities), and vehicle ownership will be prohibited. If the media really wanted to expose the global warming agenda (which they don't because they are in on it), they would talk about this... but they're not.

The elite think tank that is largely behind the birth of the modern-day environmental movement is the Club of Rome, which was created at the Rockefellers' private estate in Bellagio, Italy in 1968. In 1991, the founders of the Club of Rome published a book titled The First Global Revolution, and within this book we read:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

 

Let's not get to emotional, Skip. Sorry but I kinda disagree with your method of deleting and reassembling posts... it doesn't remind me of a free speech forum.

 

Also, what is your evidence for writers being paid $10,000 each to trash the manmade theory? And if this is in fact true, is there any evidence that those who are promoting this theory are being paid any less?

Also, do you consider the IPCC to be a "scholarly, scientific" organization, or more of a political one with a political agenda?

 

Pressed_Rat.

The vast majority of scientists are in the pockets of the
Corporations. Those Corporations fund and control the
universities they studied at, loaned them the money
to attend them, pay their salaries, provide all of their
fancy equipment and are the publishers of almost all the
scientific journals.

The Corporations don't like ANYTHING that interferes
with unrestrainedCapitalism.

So their bought-and-paid-for scientists '"discover" whatever
their Corporate masters want them to discover.

This is a no brainer.

You can find credentialed scientists to support just about
anything. Happens in Court all the time: You'll have two
groups of expert scientists with reams of information
supporting opposite viewpoints.

Anyway, whether you like it or not, we are doing serious
damage to this planet and if you can't see that you are
dumb as a brick.

There's no need to even include the '"Global Warming"
issue in a discussionof how much damage we are doing to
the planet.

Roads and mining and deforestation and toxic pollution and
industrial farming and ranching and dams and factories and
refineries and pipelines and construction are laying waste to
the earth. There's no arguing that. Near-earth-orbit satellite
photos don't lie andcan't be denied.

That is, they can't be denied by a rational person.

I'm sure YOU could deny them.


Littlefoot

 

No, scientists depend on big foundation GRANTS, and those who don't tow the establishment line don't get these grants. Those who don't tow the globalist, pro-NWO line are often marginalized and discredited and called "deniers." The environmental movement is a multi-billion dollar industry, controlled and manipulated by the global elite (which it is a wing of), and IT DOES receive massive corporate funding, including from big-oil and ultra-powerful families such as the Rothschilds and Rockefellers (both of which bankrolled the modern environmental movement).

Go back to post #42.

Some of you people need to get informed and study the history of the people and movements pushing this garbage.

I do not deny humans are causing damage to the environment, but I refuse to support the idea that they're causing global warming when I have seen absolutely no evidence to prove this.