Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterWH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
paully said:
I’m sitting here and thinking. Why can’t both sides of this discussion realize that there are pieces of information from both sides that express the truth. My teacher has the book “The Satanic Gasses” which obviously is about AGCC. Yes, and it’s written by scientists that dispute AGCC. In part they do it by comparing CO2 emissions over the last hundred years and comparing temperature trends. They don’t add up as the IPCC would like us to believe. There has been some warming, but not in line with emissions since the industrial revolution. In the grand scheme of things the earth has been warming and cooling for 13.7 billion years. Has anyone checked out the non-governmental panel on climate change. They have facts also, but they dispute the almost militant IPCC.

Nothing will ever be done to attempt to reasonably address potential AGCC because even as Christians who are debating this, we really haven’t shown a whole lot of charity toward each other. We seem to think that if our side is correct, then we are totally correct. Therefore the other must be totally incorrect, and that just doesn’t make sense.

We’ve told those that disagree with us that they don’t seek the truth. But the people that agree with us do seek the truth. HUH??? I don’t know of anyone that has all the facts and truth about anything. **Both sides on this thread have shown little ability to accept some of what the other side says. ** (except a few such as Kimmielittle).

We’ve exceeded 800 posts and not a single thing has been settled. I’ve never seen such at times discrete and other times blatant insults thrown at people in this thread just because they don’t see eye to eye.

My guess is that if we were thrown into a room without knowing who each other is, we would probably have great time as long as we stayed away from the topic of AGCC.

Finally, I don’t think that any of us doesn’t agree that whether there is AGCC or not, we have abused God’s creation. Squandered resources. Fouled our air and water. That has to stop. But for some that means buying a Prius. For others that means cutting down on meat. Geeeeesh, the power of methane in the arguement is 20 times greater than CO2.
For some it might mean not using air conditioning as much. The list goes on and on as to what various people do to chip in a little to tackle something much bigger than AGCC. I don’t like waking up when its 64 in the house, but my parents want to conserve. They recycle. They limit driving. They buy eggs and poultry from a friend that raises chickens, humanely. They use fans to help with air conditioning in the summer.

Well, it’s the happy time of year. It would be nice if we could remember that. Not many of us has shown the charity that Jesus would probably like us to show.

Merry Christmas
Paully
Click to expand...
And this is why I don’t think that internet forums ever ‘change someone’s mind’ — everyone comes to these equipped with their opinion, agree with those they agree with, disagree with those they disagree with - value their own links, and discount the links of those who they disagree with… then people attack the other’s opinion, then they attack the other’s intellect, the other’s motive, the other’s committment to faith, and it doesn’t get anyone anywhere - in fact I think it hurts us.

I’ve been on forums that went over 1000 posts on varied topics and in all that - the only advantage I’ve found is that in researching my own position, I became better informed about it - in trying to make my point. Found better ways to ‘argue’ for my position. Of course then I am sure I became more entrenched in the position, felt more confirmed in my opinion.

So I agree with you Paully - while I have always tried to be charitable in my posts on this and all topics (perhaps not always successful 😊) - I am curious to know if anyone has ever found that they were moved from an original position they held - not deepened in an existing position - but actually moved to consider that the ‘other side’ is correct? On this or any other topic?

For example - just the title of this thread “Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data” Yes it is a major scandal - but really is there anyone who thinks this scandal has PROVEN than every bit of data is fabricated? ---- 🤷

Oh well… may we all enjoy this last Sunday of Advent - I’m baking this weekend, making carmel corn for gifts - so wish I could send you all a jar! Blessings,
 
qui_est_ce said:
Kimmie-
Didn’t you have post that linked realclimate to one of Al Gore’s cohorts?
Click to expand...
Hiyas:)

yes, here’s the re-post
Hiyas:)
Click to expand...
Interesting enough in and of itself, but who owns realclimate.org? A whois.com search gives us the answer:
Click to expand...
whois.net/whois/realclimate.com
Click to expand...
Environmental Media Services, Washington DC. EMS was founded by one Arlie Schardt. And Mr Schardt just happens to be Al Gore’s communications director for his 2000 presidential run, among other things:
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ…Media_Services
Click to expand...
I hope this helps
 
AND who is EMS Environmental Media Services ]

activistcash.com/organiza…ew.cfm
Overview
Click to expand...
Code: 
           http://www.activistcash.com/images/logos/environmental_media_services.gif                If you’ve ever been advised to steer clear of a food, beverage, or other consumer product based on the claims of a nonprofit organization, you’ve likely been “spun” by Fenton’s multi-million-dollar message machine -- and Environmental Media Services (EMS) has probably been the messenger.  EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994.
Click to expand...
 
kimmielittle said:
AND who is EMS Environmental Media Services ]

activistcash.com/organiza…ew.cfm
Click to expand...
AND who is running Environmental Media Services
** Kenneth A. Cook **
Click to expand...
Code: 
   	 		**Biography**
Click to expand...
Ken Cook brought a history of liberal political activism with him when he started the Environmental Working Group (EWG). A graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia, he has authored dozens of articles, opinion pieces and reports promoting the lefty-environmental party line. Cook’s appointment to the board of directors at Environmental Media Services solidifies his place in the elite circle of professional environmental scaremongers. Cook got his start in the environmental movement in the late 1970s, serving as chief lobbyist (and later head of media relations) at the World Wildlife Fund. He also worked as a campaign aide for Michael Dukakis’s disastrous 1988 presidential run, helping to write the “What Not To Do” textbook for political campaigns. After Dukakis crashed and burned, Cook found a home in the offices of Island Press, a left-of-center environmental book publisher instituted by Andrew Mellon heiress Catherine Conover. Island Press also runs the Center for Resource Economics, where Cook held the title of Vice President for Policy and “incubated” the Environmental Working Group. Cook reorganized EWG in 1993 and placed it under the tax umbrella of the Tides Foundation.
Cook’s wife, Deb Callahan, is likewise no stranger to the environmental left. Callahan serves as president of the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental activist group. She also worked on green crusader Al Gore’s staff, back when he was a U.S. Senator.
Under Cook’s leadership, the Environmental Working Group has moved steadily to the left. Despite his ties to the DNC party structure, Cook pulled EWG out of a Clinton-era environmental advisory panel headed by then-Vice President Al Gore — saying of Clinton’s pesticide policy, “[health] risks have only gotten worse during the Clinton administration” and claiming that this generation’s most “progressive” White House actually “catered to the pesticide industry.” While Cook may not be the darling of the Democrats anymore, another political party just loves him: in 2000 an EWG report on farms was the basis of a glowing article in The Militant, the newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party.
Cook’s political adversaries and comrades alike have become accustomed to mudslinging. During the 2000 presidential primary season, Cook called for a boycott of GreenMountain.com, an alternative-minded energy company, after chairman Sam Wyly spent $2.5 million of his own money to run advertisements supporting candidate George W. Bush’s energy policy. “Be green without being red,” urged Mr. Wyly. “Lying… sleazy, political big-spender,” countered Cook, in a public statement containing enough errors to merit a retraction just four days later. Cook, true to form, apologized just long enough to satisfy his legal obligations before attacking Wyly yet again.

Background
Click to expand...
Co-founder & president, Environmental Working Group; board member, Environmental Media Services; former vice pres., Ctr. for Resource Economics; former press dir., World Wildlife Fund; husband of League of Conservation Voters president Deb Callahan
Click to expand...
activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/2825

is Chairman
 
kimmielittle said:
Hiyas:)

I’m afraid you have an argumentum ad hominem here.

Over a ten 10 ] year period $408,000 was received. 1/2 goes to the university. Leaving $204,000 divided by 10 years is what… $24,000 dollars a year…Which of course, has to produce test results. This amount somehow lines his pockets?

Proving his scientific data faulty? He no longer is an expert?

By your reasoning alone…you’ve proved COP15 a hoax…CRU a hoax…IPCC a hoax:shrug:

I hope this helps
Click to expand...
So you think that these global warming skeptics who accept thousands of dollars from the oil industry polluters are unbiased and credible?
 
sidbrown said:
So you think that these global warming skeptics who accept thousands of dollars from the oil industry polluters are unbiased and credible?
Click to expand...
No less creditable than the people who employ EMS for propaganda. No less creditable than scientists who bar those that disagree with them from participating. No less creditable than you, SidBrown. 👍

Where do you think scientists that are pro AGCC get money from? Certainly not unbiased sources, or sources without an agenda.

God bless
 
sidbrown said:
So you think that these global warming skeptics who accept thousands of dollars from the oil industry polluters are unbiased and credible?
Click to expand...
I believe that Kimmielittle has provided so much documentation about pros and cons, it would seem a bit underhanded to take a shot like this.
 
sidbrown said:
So you think that these global warming skeptics who accept thousands of dollars from the oil industry polluters are unbiased and credible?
Click to expand...
Just a reminder:

I’m sitting here and thinking. Why can’t both sides of this discussion realize that there are pieces of information from both sides that express the truth. My teacher has the book “The Satanic Gasses” which obviously is about AGCC. Yes, and it’s written by scientists that dispute AGCC. In part they do it by comparing CO2 emissions over the last hundred years and comparing temperature trends. They don’t add up as the IPCC would like us to believe. There has been some warming, but not in line with emissions since the industrial revolution. In the grand scheme of things the earth has been warming and cooling for 13.7 billion years. Has anyone checked out the non-governmental panel on climate change. They have facts also, but they dispute the almost militant IPCC.

Nothing will ever be done to attempt to reasonably address potential AGCC because even as Christians who are debating this, we really haven’t shown a whole lot of charity toward each other. We seem to think that if our side is correct, then we are totally correct. Therefore the other must be totally incorrect, and that just doesn’t make sense.

We’ve told those that disagree with us that they don’t seek the truth. But the people that agree with us do seek the truth. HUH??? I don’t know of anyone that has all the facts and truth about anything. Both sides on this thread have shown little ability to accept some of what the other side says. (except a few such as Kimmielittle).

We’ve exceeded 800 posts and not a single thing has been settled. I’ve never seen such at times discrete and other times blatant insults thrown at people in this thread just because they don’t see eye to eye.

My guess is that if we were thrown into a room without knowing who each other is, we would probably have great time as long as we stayed away from the topic of AGCC.

Finally, I don’t think that any of us doesn’t agree that whether there is AGCC or not, we have abused God’s creation. Squandered resources. Fouled our air and water. That has to stop. But for some that means buying a Prius. For others that means cutting down on meat. Geeeeesh, the power of methane in the arguement is 20 times greater than CO2.
For some it might mean not using air conditioning as much. The list goes on and on as to what various people do to chip in a little to tackle something much bigger than AGCC. I don’t like waking up when its 64 in the house, but my parents want to conserve. They recycle. They limit driving. They buy eggs and poultry from a friend that raises chickens, humanely. They use fans to help with air conditioning in the summer.

Well, it’s the happy time of year. It would be nice if we could remember that. Not many of us has shown the charity that Jesus would probably like us to show.

Merry Christmas
Paully
 
And from 4elise…who has certainly earned my respect. And we may disagree on AGCC 🙂

And this is why I don’t think that internet forums ever ‘change someone’s mind’ — everyone comes to these equipped with their opinion, agree with those they agree with, disagree with those they disagree with - value their own links, and discount the links of those who they disagree with… then people attack the other’s opinion, then they attack the other’s intellect, the other’s motive, the other’s committment to faith, and it doesn’t get anyone anywhere - in fact I think it hurts us.

I’ve been on forums that went over 1000 posts on varied topics and in all that - the only advantage I’ve found is that in researching my own position, I became better informed about it - in trying to make my point. Found better ways to ‘argue’ for my position. Of course then I am sure I became more entrenched in the position, felt more confirmed in my opinion.

So I agree with you Paully - while I have always tried to be charitable in my posts on this and all topics (perhaps not always successful ) - I am curious to know if anyone has ever found that they were moved from an original position they held - not deepened in an existing position - but actually moved to consider that the ‘other side’ is correct? On this or any other topic?

For example - just the title of this thread “Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data” Yes it is a major scandal - but really is there anyone who thinks this scandal has PROVEN than every bit of data is fabricated? ----

Oh well… may we all enjoy this last Sunday of Advent - I’m baking this weekend, making carmel corn for gifts - so wish I could send you all a jar! Blessings,
 
sidbrown said:
So you think that these global warming skeptics who accept thousands of dollars from the oil industry polluters are unbiased and credible?
Click to expand...
This is very interesting.

Do you have exact names, dates, places and amounts?
 
sidbrown said:
So you think that these global warming skeptics who accept thousands of dollars from the oil industry polluters are unbiased and credible?
Click to expand...
Hiyas:)

Actually, I was only pointing out your flawed logic in presenting your attempted argumentum ad hominem.

And you chose to cherry-pick those three from about 100 or more.
This, IMHO, is the same thing that CRU is being investigated for.

Personally, I would LOVE to see full disclosure of contributions by every side. Mr Mann - Jones - Gore - Cook et al, as well.

I hope this helps
 
paully said:
I believe that Kimmielittle has provided so much documentation about pros and cons, it would seem a bit underhanded to take a shot like this.
Click to expand...
Thank you…just call me kimmie, if you wanna
 
paully said:
He has got to have a HUGE sense of humor. He made us!!! 🙂
Click to expand...
One article in particular made me laugh: Obama gets on the plane in Copenhagen, where there’s snow. He comes back to the U.S…and arrives in the middle of a snowstorm. 🙂
 
paully said:
The amount of moisture in the atmosphere is around 4% and is static. It is the greatest contributor to greenhouse gases. That is why there is never dew or frost on a cloudy night. The clouds act as a blanket (greenhouse) to keep the heat trapped near the earth. It’s also why stays warmer at night when its very humid. At least that’s what the weather folks at the NOAA National Weather Service told me when I called

But how would they know?
Click to expand...
I am not saying that the water vapor isn;t the greatest contributor to greenhouse gases. I posted the link I did to show that it isn;t 95% as some people like to claim. And to also show how water vapor cannot be the cause of the change. Though it can be a feedback that amplifies the warming.
 
fultonfish said:
This is very interesting.

Do you have exact names, dates, places and amounts?
Click to expand...
Yes. I posted what I found out a few posts back. The global warming skeptic iceage site lists several people as experts or scientists in favor of a skeptical view toward global warming. . Upon looking into some of the names, hers’s what I found:
Robert C. Balling Jr -Balling has received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

Sallie Baliunas – Between December 1998 and September 2001 she was listed as a Scientific Adviser to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies.

Robert M. Carter- Sits on the advisory board os the Institute of Public Affairs which is funded by the mining and tobacco industry along with Monsanto.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top