|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 23, 2010 20:11:05 GMT
Have any of you actually read the response to Mr. Monckton? It is short of current facts.....but is full of inuendo.
Matt......where is this bridge located at? And do you have clear title?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2010 20:27:44 GMT
Page 9 of the linked document is a good example of a man blabbering in the expectation that the members of his audience will sit politely while their eyes glaze over. The responses from the four scientists are eviscerating - none of the responses are by any of your favourite bogeymen.
Mostly his methods involve waffly comments that are hard to parse that end up with an "if all the previous is correct then there is no problem" Thats a lie? Two things that come to mind immediately are misrepresenting the IPCC projections for warming and misrepresenting the IPCC projections for CO2 rise, which are quite large porkies on the scale of things.
Then there is the quote on his slide made in 2009 that "Arctic sea ice steady for a decade". But:
I would say that that was a direct lie. The only quote in there isn't even a complete sentence Steve, much less contain the surrounding context!!!
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 23, 2010 23:20:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 24, 2010 15:47:07 GMT
As for trust, if you like the way the >$50 billion of public and big oil money ahs been spent promoting AGW, what does that really say about you? Big oil money has gone exclusively to skeptical causes. Of course you invert that because of your blinders.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 24, 2010 16:01:58 GMT
Matt: Can you site sources that big oil money has gone exclusevely to skeptical causes? Seems that CRU got a few shickles from BP.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 24, 2010 16:14:25 GMT
Matt: Can you site sources that big oil money has gone exclusevely to skeptical causes? Seems that CRU got a few shickles from BP. Could be. But Big Oil money does almost all go to skeptical causes. A common practice in covering one's tracks is to give a tad to the opposition.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 24, 2010 16:16:55 GMT
Matt: Can you site sources that big oil money has gone exclusevely to skeptical causes? Seems that CRU got a few shickles from BP. Could be. But Big Oil money does almost all go to skeptical causes. Really? How do you know that? Have you checked?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 24, 2010 16:21:47 GMT
Could be. But Big Oil money does almost all go to skeptical causes. Really? How do you know that? Have you checked? From the countless discussions of various entities linked to Big Oil. You want a list, google it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 24, 2010 16:31:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 24, 2010 18:02:10 GMT
As for trust, if you like the way the >$50 billion of public and big oil money ahs been spent promoting AGW, what does that really say about you? Big oil money has gone exclusively to skeptical causes. Of course you invert that because of your blinders. matt, There may be blinders, but I am not the one wearing them. Big oil companies have given huge sums of money to AGW promoters, to enviro-extremists and to research on energy alternatives to oil and coal. They have given far more to the politically popular AGW hype promoters than to skeptics. Perhaps, if you were actually open to being informed, you would have a different view. But since your position irt AGw is faith based, it really does not change in the presence of reason.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 24, 2010 21:23:18 GMT
accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years, [/blockquote][/quote] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_LobbyIn 2006 82% of $19 million went to Republican candidates. $12 million "over the years" "in land" is good PR.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 24, 2010 22:14:05 GMT
accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years, [/blockquote][/quote] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_LobbyIn 2006 82% of $19 million went to Republican candidates. $12 million "over the years" "in land" is good PR.[/quote] What research did Republicans carry out with that money? But see matt, we don't see eye to eye on the entire subject anyway. I'm glad there are still some sane politicians left to stop the anti-energy socialists that you think are going to solve our energy issues. California is a prime example of what happens when liberal Democrats are in charge of energy. Brown outs, black outs, unaffordable.....yep, that's what you get. Maybe we should check into how much Greenpeace and other environmental groups give to Democrats? George Soros? As an ad hominem bonus, judging by your posts you are 100% clueless on just how much energy we require as a nation and further you've yet to show that wind/solar is a viable part of large scale energy production. To you it's "simple, just build and install them". Sorry, that is just plain idiotic and typical of your stripe.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 25, 2010 0:15:43 GMT
What research did Republicans carry out with that money? But see matt, we don't see eye to eye on the entire subject anyway. I'm glad there are still some sane politicians left to stop the anti-energy socialists that you think are going to solve our energy issues. California is a prime example of what happens when liberal Democrats are in charge of energy. Brown outs, black outs, unaffordable.....yep, that's what you get. Maybe we should check into how much Greenpeace and other environmental groups give to Democrats? George Soros? As an ad hominem bonus, judging by your posts you are 100% clueless on just how much energy we require as a nation and further you've yet to show that wind/solar is a viable part of large scale energy production. To you it's "simple, just build and install them". Sorry, that is just plain idiotic and typical of your stripe. Nice diatribe. Too bad it doesn't even bother to attempt to counter my points. Yep, the left has sponsors. Nope, they ain't big oil.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 25, 2010 0:42:15 GMT
What research did Republicans carry out with that money? But see matt, we don't see eye to eye on the entire subject anyway. I'm glad there are still some sane politicians left to stop the anti-energy socialists that you think are going to solve our energy issues. California is a prime example of what happens when liberal Democrats are in charge of energy. Brown outs, black outs, unaffordable.....yep, that's what you get. Maybe we should check into how much Greenpeace and other environmental groups give to Democrats? George Soros? As an ad hominem bonus, judging by your posts you are 100% clueless on just how much energy we require as a nation and further you've yet to show that wind/solar is a viable part of large scale energy production. To you it's "simple, just build and install them". Sorry, that is just plain idiotic and typical of your stripe. Nice diatribe. Too bad it doesn't even bother to attempt to counter my points. Yep, the left has sponsors. Nope, they ain't big oil. Matt: Are you sure? Better check George Soros 2 billion loan gaurantee to drill deep off Brazil.....and it was the US that guaranteed that loan to him. (Me knows that Mr. Soros gets oil income)
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 25, 2010 2:47:18 GMT
What research did Republicans carry out with that money? But see matt, we don't see eye to eye on the entire subject anyway. I'm glad there are still some sane politicians left to stop the anti-energy socialists that you think are going to solve our energy issues. California is a prime example of what happens when liberal Democrats are in charge of energy. Brown outs, black outs, unaffordable.....yep, that's what you get. Maybe we should check into how much Greenpeace and other environmental groups give to Democrats? George Soros? As an ad hominem bonus, judging by your posts you are 100% clueless on just how much energy we require as a nation and further you've yet to show that wind/solar is a viable part of large scale energy production. To you it's "simple, just build and install them". Sorry, that is just plain idiotic and typical of your stripe. Nice diatribe. Too bad it doesn't even bother to attempt to counter my points. Yep, the left has sponsors. Nope, they ain't big oil. Well matt, "Big Oil" does sponsor both sides whether you choose to believe it or not. Not everyone on the Left are anti-growth, anti-capitalist kooks and industry haters. The point is the hypocrisy by Leftist environmental organizations who wish the death of Big Oil and Big Coal (pretty much Big anything), yet have sipped from the cup of poison. I gave you a link with several examples. Case and point. You see matt, many of us (the sane people) don't look at "Big Oil" as evil. We don't fall for the class warfare game Lefties have so perfected. In fact, we are thankful for the freedom of having affordable energy and the ability to fill up our cars with gasoline at countless locations. You wouldn't be able to waste bandwidth on this forum if it weren't for "Big Oil". Abundant cheap energy is the fuel the drives the engine of freedom. Government policies that limit the ability to keep the free flow of energy at market prices will destroy our economy. Many environmental groups think that is a good thing. Do you? Of course Big Government which has bottomless pits of money is always good right matt? Big Government pumps 1000x more into Big Government Climate Science (AGW) than Big Oil supposedly paid scientists to "distort the truth". Banning the incandescent light bulb (China owns the CFL industry), telling us what kind of toilets we must use, creating a non-existent crisis every other day......all products of the Left. There is no replacement for Big Oil. This is what it's really about isn't matt? Come one, admit it....
|
|