Tpoppa Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 So 97% of the scientific community studying this issue is getting rich off of their results?No. Not sure about your numbers...but the EPA isn't awarding research grants for impartial research. They are funding research projects that support their clearly stated agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted May 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Maybe you say this to be funny. But it's misleading.He was worth a couple million. Then invested heavily in green energy and is worth approximately 100 million.Pretty sure he didn't sell energy credits. Tomato/Tomato Either way..and I did some research on his current worth, he is almost to a billion now....he made his fortune based on the theories he was pushing and the legislation he still had substantial influence over. But it's ok, Obama told us this would stop when he became president. The whole lobbying getting rich after leaving office revolving door thing. Glad that is all cleared up. My post are seeped in sarcasm. Keep that in mind. I hate everyone, so I ridicule them. I am spot on with this one, Al don't give a shit about you, me or the planets fever. He only cares about making money and convincing the left that the right is evil and everyone will die if they don't vote for Dem's. See, if the Dems' win he gets more legislation to make him more money. Oh, and now he is worth more than Mitt Romney. So he is an evil bastard right? Edited May 13, 2014 by Tonik 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 No.Not sure about your numbers...but the EPA isn't awarding research grants for impartial research. They are funding research projects that support their clearly stated agenda.So their agenda is what? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 ^^^It's cleverly hidden all over their website. Check the grant page too. Seriously, the even the EPA doesn't think the EPA is impartial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted May 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 So their agenda is what? To make Al Gore rich. Are you not paying attention? Damn kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 ^^^It's cleverly hidden all over their website. Check the grant page too.Seriously, the even the EPA doesn't think the EPA is impartial.To protect the environment? Don't you think they would get a lot more money from big oil companies if the research showed that burning fossil fuels actually helped the environment? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Follow the money and you will find the greed, dishonesty, and corruption. It's not a red or blue thing...it's a green thing. Edited May 13, 2014 by Tpoppa 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Follow the money and you will find the greed, dishonesty, and corruption. It's not a red or blue thing...it's a green thing.There is a lot more money in denying climate change than in accepting it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Follow the money and you will find the greed, dishonesty, and corruption. It's not a red or blue thing...it's a green thing.Well, if we're going to use that level of symbolic logic, then follow the money, and the science behind asbestos toxicity leads right to corrupt politicians and junk scientists profiting from scaring the public about a made up relationship between exposure and cancer rates.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/john-oliver-climate-change-debate_n_5308822.html?utm_hp_ref=comedy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnone Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I guess I'd rather the greed and corruption be focused for things that are better, or less harmful, than to the ones that are more harmful. I accept corruption as something that will always be present and prefer none. But money, politics and greed without corruption is a utopia that only happens in fairy tales. Therefore, not all corruption is created equal so green energy corruption is better than big oil and gas corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 There is a lot more money in denying climate change than in accepting it. Are you sure? Let's say that I invest in Exxon or [insert other established evil corporation here]. My ROI might be 10-20% annually which is pretty damn good. But what if I am a politician or lobbyist that invests in a green energy startup that just happens to jump 300% or more after new EPA backed legislation is introduced??? BTW, for some reason you and I don't have access to these same investments and have probably never heard of the companies. We wouldn't want any impartial research that states that human impact on climate change has been greatly over estimated...do we? Well, if we're going to use that level of symbolic logic, then follow the money, and the science behind asbestos toxicity leads right to corrupt politicians and junk scientists profiting from scaring the public about a made up relationship between exposure and cancer rates.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/john-oliver-climate-change-debate_n_5308822.html?utm_hp_ref=comedy I'm sorry, I don't click on Huffington links. I got to have some standards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) It's a comedian - not like it's an asbestos ceiling tile or anything. Edited May 13, 2014 by smccrory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 The EPA cares about the environment... The EPA is a toothless dog that can only attack when given permission. It's far less useful than you'd like to believe. Then what is their agenda? That's the only agenda I can see stated on their website... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 The EPA cares about the environment... The EPA is a toothless dog that can only attack when given permission. It's far less useful than you'd like to believe.Effectiveness does not equal care, so I agree with your second para.They're hamstrung by industry and political forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Makes no sense to me how someone thinks himself intelligent enough to not believe in God can then throw out all that reasoning and logic only to fall into the pitfall of manmade global warming. The same type of people that are peddlers of religion are peddling man made global warming but seem to have found a way around some peoples defenses for logic. It's sad and I feel sorry for both groups for the same reason. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Makes no sense to me how someone thinks himself intelligent enough to not believe in God can then throw out all that reasoning and logic only to fall into the pitfall of manmade global warming. The same type of people that are peddlers of religion are peddling man made global warming but seem to have found a way around some peoples defenses for logic. It's sad and I feel sorry for both groups for the same reason. Completely different information sources my friend... God: supported by 1 text who's infallibility is contained within it's own text. it's infallible because it says it's infallible. Also written by bronze age goat herders.Climate change: Idea that human factors contribute to it is supported by 97% of the scientific community studying the phenomenon, thousands of peer reviewed publications, and mountains of data collected... Scientists studying climate change are as sure about it as they are about gravitation, evolution, and electromagnetism... I tend to trust the pronouncements of the scientific community. If there are holes in the data or the experimentation, the peer review process finds those holes, and exposes them. Edited May 13, 2014 by magley64 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Not at all completely different resources. Every time I think about entering the discussion of manmade global warming I go check to see if I'm making a mistake. You know, wouldn't want to be proven wrong. I haven't come across any information that can sway me to believe in it though. In fact all I can find is credible information to make me fall on the side of it being thought as a hoax. You can keep repeating all you want about 97%, just because you say it doesn't make it so. Real similar to the religious zealots shouting that theirs is the only way. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) You can keep repeating all you want about 97%, just because you say it doesn't make it so. Real similar to the religious zealots shouting that theirs is the only way. Good luck with that.http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/agreement-manmade-global-warming-20130516 the religious zealots don't have scientific evidence, or peer reviewed research... apples and ancient tales of oranges... Edited May 13, 2014 by magley64 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/dec/23/84-percent-world-population-has-faith-third-are-ch/ http://blog.heartland.org/2012/10/im-here-to-chew-bubble-gum-and-debunk-the-97-global-warming-myth-and-im-all-out-of-bubble-gum/ Edited May 13, 2014 by Uncle Punk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/dec/23/84-percent-world-population-has-faith-third-are-ch/ again apples and oranges, I could care less what the general population believes, but i do care what the peer reviewed data overwhelmingly supports. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) So you've got a blogger who says the consensus is bunk... How about NASA? http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus I mean, you can stuff your face in the sand all day, but the evidence is piling on. more and more research has been done, and it's becoming more and more conclusive... Back in 1970 you could say "well the science isn't in yet" but here, in 2014, you're just being disingenuous or pandering. Edited May 13, 2014 by magley64 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 http://blog.heartland.org/2012/10/im-here-to-chew-bubble-gum-and-debunk-the-97-global-warming-myth-and-im-all-out-of-bubble-gum/ I wholeheartedly disagree that 'They Live' is a B movie. That fight scene is a fucking classic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Of course, we could have gone a parallel direction to talk about the belief that immunizations cause autism and sexual promiscuity - the majority of those believers are also strongly religious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 The science in the 70s said that we were starting on an inevitable path to another ice age. I also remember reading articles during the oil crisis that had copies from the 1910 newspapers with scientists stating that there were only a couple more years left of fossil fuel. Stating and coming to unfounded conclusions has been the way of scientists for as long as the profession has existed. Keep on smoking that pipe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnone Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Pentagon and DOD are also believers in climate change. Yes scientists make mistakes and correct them over time. Religion does not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.