View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
MULLDE102f
Joined: 15 Jun 1997 Posts: 131
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I watched NW30's video link in the interest of trying to take a fair look at the deniers’ arguments, and I was astounded that this could be construed as anything other than ridiculous by a reasonable person (a quick check with a geophysicist will clear that up http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/02/02/1844205/is-the-earth-gaining-or-losing-mass.)
Discouraging to see that there’s such a widespread lack of critical thinking in the US, although it looks like the majority is tired of the deniers, and will back the science based approach that the current administration supports. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20936
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Award-winning CNN anchor Deb Feyerick suggests that global warming may have attracted the approaching asteroid. You can look it up.
The absolute stupidity and unlimited bias of media people knows no bounds. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
windoggi
Joined: 22 Feb 2002 Posts: 2743
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll bet she thinks the world is only 5,000 years old too! Oops, wrong station. _________________ /w\ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17758 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did she train at Fox? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doggie, your the only one here that's been to Uranus, so don't be a hater... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
windoggi
Joined: 22 Feb 2002 Posts: 2743
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevenbard wrote: | Doggie, your the only one here that's been to Uranus, so don't be a hater... | You should try licking Uranus sometime. Kind of tangy. Oh, and that's you're, not your. _________________ /w\ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
windoggie wrote: | stevenbard wrote: | Doggie, your the only one here that's been to Uranus, so don't be a hater... | You should try licking Uranus sometime. Kind of tangy. Oh, and that's you're, not your. |
I knew it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
windoggi
Joined: 22 Feb 2002 Posts: 2743
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
the tangy part or the you're part? _________________ /w\ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17758 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No big surprise this:
Quote: | Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120 million to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarizing "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.
The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1 million or more.
Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust, told the Guardian that her organization assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes.
Check out our original reporting on Donors Trust:
Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement
Exclusive: Donors Trust, The Right's Dark-Money ATM, Paid Out $30 Million in 2011
"We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," she said in an interview.
By definition that means none of the money is going to end up with groups like Greenpeace, she said. "It won't be going to liberals."
Ball won't divulge names, but she said the stable of donors represents a wide range of opinion on the American right. Increasingly over the years, those conservative donors have been pushing funds towards organizations working to discredit climate science or block climate action.
Donors exhibit sharp differences of opinion on many issues, Ball said. They run the spectrum of conservative opinion, from social conservatives to libertarians. But in opposing mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, they found common ground.
"Are there both sides of an environmental issue? Probably not," she went on. "Here is the thing. If you look at libertarians, you tend to have a lot of differences on things like defense, immigration, drugs, the war, things like that compared to conservatives. When it comes to issues like the environment, if there are differences, they are not nearly as pronounced."
By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118 million distributed to 102 think tanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.
The money flowed to Washington think tanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore.
The ready stream of cash set off a conservative backlash against Barack Obama's environmental agenda that wrecked any chance of Congress taking action on climate change. |
That's in your backyard mrgybe, were you a donor, or were you at the trough helping slop up the money for lies? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The thoughtful anti global warming people are gaining a lot of credence, over here. Many media 'Science Correspondents' (qualifications not stated, of course - but I doubt they're just the tea boys) are putting what, on the face of, appear to be logical arguments, backed by facts.
One such, in todays paper, makes the obvious point that the world has not warmed as predicted, despitre the explosion in man made CO2 atmospheric pollutrion. i.e. the corrolation as predicted by the climate authorities is not valid.
He quotes reliable sources as back up for his stance - that global warming has been vastly exaggerated. Met office data shows no statistically significant global temp. rise since 1997. The fact, he claims, was confirmed last month by Raj Pachuari, chairman of the U.N. Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change. (I.P.C.C.) Many climate scientists are now claiming that how much the world may warm must be reduced. (Pachuari himself still disputes this, and says the current pause -and pause it clearly IS - must last for 30 years for him to be convinced otherwise.
(Must submit before being timed out - will follow on.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|