Global Warming, Bought & Paid For

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

"This from Investor’s Business Daily, "How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely “NASA whistleblower” standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute , which gave him “legal and media advice”?

That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s “politicization of science” program.
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly “censored” spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen’s OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different."

Looks like George got his money’s worth.

James Hansen also acted as a consultant to Al Gore’s slide-show presentations on global warming, he endorsed John Kerry for president, and received a $250,000 grant from the foundation headed by Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Looks like this “global warming science” has been bought and paid for.

The Global warming scam is simply a way for America to be brought to its knees, by communists-turned-environmentalists. They knew Americans would never buy into communism, but might buy this environmentalist crap.

2

Very interesting.

3

Global warming = Democrat’s 9/11.

Serves as justification for spending billions if not trillions over time to destroy the US economy.

4

After all the “All hell is going to break loose” hoopla, I can’t believe people accept and use his credentials, usufruct.

What a joke:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/hansen-all-hell-is-going-to-break-loose.html

Thank God great scientists like Joseph Fourier and Svante Arrhenius didn’t make such asses of themselves.

5

[quote]FreedomFighterXL wrote:
Global warming = Democrat’s 9/11.

Serves as justification for spending billions if not trillions over time to destroy the US economy.

[/quote]

(Improve the economy)

6

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"This from Investor’s Business Daily, "How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely “NASA whistleblower” standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute , which gave him “legal and media advice”?

That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s “politicization of science” program.
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly “censored” spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen’s OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different."

Looks like George got his money’s worth.

James Hansen also acted as a consultant to Al Gore’s slide-show presentations on global warming, he endorsed John Kerry for president, and received a $250,000 grant from the foundation headed by Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Looks like this “global warming science” has been bought and paid for.

The Global warming scam is simply a way for America to be brought to its knees, by communists-turned-environmentalists. They knew Americans would never buy into communism, but might buy this environmentalist crap.
[/quote]

So it doesn’t matter that the 5 guys who get paid to say there is no global warming are all funded by big oil but it does matter if 1 out of all other scientists (except for 5 fake ones) is funded by Soros?

Do you ever even think about what you’re posting?

7

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Very interesting.[/quote]

Damn, now we have to turn to the other 89,546 scientists.

8

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Very interesting.

Damn, now we have to turn to the other 89,546 scientists.
[/quote]

That are all paid to shill for GW otherwise they would be in a different line of work.

9

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Very interesting.

Damn, now we have to turn to the other 89,546 scientists.

That are all paid to shill for GW otherwise they would be in a different line of work.[/quote]

Hmmm so ALL scientsts lying about global warming for cash. There’s clearly no lie you won’t tell.

10

Wasn’t the earth more tropical millions of years ago? I could have sworn the earth was covered?

“Climates were warm, with no evidence of glaciation. As in the Triassic, there was apparently no land near either pole, and no extensive ice caps existed.”

I took that quote from wikipedia on the jurassic period. I think we have an impact in the speed at which it’s happening, but I don’t think that the recession of ice caps is neccessarily unnatural.

11

[quote]100meters wrote:
Hmmm so ALL scientsts lying about global warming for cash. There’s clearly no lie you won’t tell.[/quote]

Actually, most climatologist use the term climate change because “warming” isn’t the exact trend. The implications are not completely understood and no scientist would stake his or her credibility on the data as it stands now. Pop-science has really killed this debate by swinging it in the direction of “fact” without strong enough correlation.

If climate change is to be studied so as to be understood and taken seriously it must remain in the realm of science–which requires the utmost in objectivity and peer review. Al Gore cannot provide that.

12

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Very interesting.

Damn, now we have to turn to the other 89,546 scientists.

That are all paid to shill for GW otherwise they would be in a different line of work.

Hmmm so ALL scientsts lying about global warming for cash. There’s clearly no lie you won’t tell.[/quote]

I believe it was you that claimed all skeptical scientists did it because they were paid off by oil money. You have proven yourself incapable of civil discourse so I am am not going to waste any more time on you.

13

[quote]100meters wrote:

(Improve the economy)
[/quote]

This is absurd. Taxes and legislation to place an overemphasis on underdeveloped, inefficient, or non-existent technologies? They are environmental policies, not economic policies.

[quote]So it doesn’t matter that the 5 guys who get paid to say there is no global warming are all funded by big oil but it does matter if 1 out of all other scientists (except for 5 fake ones) is funded by Soros?

Do you ever even think about what you’re posting?[/quote]

First, no one person “in Exxon’s pocket” got as much as Hansen got. As a matter of fact, if you added all five up (no matter which five individuals you’re thinking about) they didn’t get near the amount of what Hansen got.

Second, you said the last time this topic came up it was 60 oil-drenched dissenters, which you refused to name. Suddenly, it’s five to one? What happened to the vast majority and scientific consensus? Not to mention that the “one” is a pioneer in the field of what is now vast consensus and dissents with the vast consensus on top of it all.

I’m pretty convinced you haven’t thought a lick about what you’ve been posting.

14

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
100meters wrote:
Hmmm so ALL scientsts lying about global warming for cash. There’s clearly no lie you won’t tell.

Actually, most climatologist use the term climate change because “warming” isn’t the exact trend. The implications are not completely understood and no scientist would stake his or her credibility on the data as it stands now. Pop-science has really killed this debate by swinging it in the direction of “fact” without strong enough correlation.

If climate change is to be studied so as to be understood and taken seriously it must remain in the realm of science–which requires the utmost in objectivity and peer review. Al Gore cannot provide that.[/quote]

An aversion to unnecessary religious references would help as well.

15

Wow, quality enough to make Science;

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=48F687F3-E7F2-99DF-3E042E20A4B66A99&pageNumber=2&catID=1

Makes it hard to come to a consensus when every new paper changes what you’re coming to an agreement on.

16

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Actually, most climatologist use the term climate change because “warming” isn’t the exact trend. The implications are not completely understood and no scientist would stake his or her credibility on the data as it stands now. Pop-science has really killed this debate by swinging it in the direction of “fact” without strong enough correlation.

If climate change is to be studied so as to be understood and taken seriously it must remain in the realm of science–which requires the utmost in objectivity and peer review. Al Gore cannot provide that.[/quote]

QFT

17

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Very interesting.

Damn, now we have to turn to the other 89,546 scientists.

That are all paid to shill for GW otherwise they would be in a different line of work.

Hmmm so ALL scientsts lying about global warming for cash. There’s clearly no lie you won’t tell.

I believe it was you that claimed all skeptical scientists did it because they were paid off by oil money. You have proven yourself incapable of civil discourse so I am am not going to waste any more time on you.[/quote]

Me thinks you’re confused/ or perhaps me?

IF you’re saying that the 99.999999% of all scientists who realize there is global warming are getting paid—then you’re lying or crazy.

if you’re not saying that—then apologies.

18

[quote]lucasa wrote:
100meters wrote:

(Improve the economy)

This is absurd. Taxes and legislation to place an overemphasis on underdeveloped, inefficient, or non-existent technologies? They are environmental policies, not economic policies.

So it doesn’t matter that the 5 guys who get paid to say there is no global warming are all funded by big oil but it does matter if 1 out of all other scientists (except for 5 fake ones) is funded by Soros?

Do you ever even think about what you’re posting?

First, no one person “in Exxon’s pocket” got as much as Hansen got. As a matter of fact, if you added all five up (no matter which five individuals you’re thinking about) they didn’t get near the amount of what Hansen got.

Second, you said the last time this topic came up it was 60 oil-drenched dissenters, which you refused to name. Suddenly, it’s five to one? What happened to the vast majority and scientific consensus? Not to mention that the “one” is a pioneer in the field of what is now vast consensus and dissents with the vast consensus on top of it all.

I’m pretty convinced you haven’t thought a lick about what you’ve been posting.[/quote]

What has been the economic impact of the towns/cities/states that have implemented Kyoto on their own? (hint:positive)

also:

You’re confused:

Hansen is one scientist “getting money from soros(why does this matter)”, but all other scientists also know there is global warming and aren’t getting “paid by soros”.

Yes there are 60 fake dissenters, maybe 5 or 6 are the same “scientists” always pointed out in the MSM.

And Soros is a guy that just happens to understand global warming exists, the exact same belief that Big oil companies have, but big oil pays people to lie about it. Little bit of a difference.

19

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Very interesting.

Damn, now we have to turn to the other 89,546 scientists.

That are all paid to shill for GW otherwise they would be in a different line of work.

Hmmm so ALL scientsts lying about global warming for cash. There’s clearly no lie you won’t tell.

I believe it was you that claimed all skeptical scientists did it because they were paid off by oil money. You have proven yourself incapable of civil discourse so I am am not going to waste any more time on you.

Me thinks you’re confused/ or perhaps me?

IF you’re saying that the 99.999999% of all scientists who realize there is global warming are getting paid—then you’re lying or crazy.

if you’re not saying that—then apologies.[/quote]

All global warming researchers are paid for their research. If they demonstrate it is not a big deal or worth worrying about they can kiss funding goodbye.

I find it very interesting that many/most scientists outside the field that do not have a financial stake view it with skepticism. Poor methodology and scare tactics are rampant.

20

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Very interesting.

Damn, now we have to turn to the other 89,546 scientists.

That are all paid to shill for GW otherwise they would be in a different line of work.

Hmmm so ALL scientsts lying about global warming for cash. There’s clearly no lie you won’t tell.

I believe it was you that claimed all skeptical scientists did it because they were paid off by oil money. You have proven yourself incapable of civil discourse so I am am not going to waste any more time on you.

Me thinks you’re confused/ or perhaps me?

IF you’re saying that the 99.999999% of all scientists who realize there is global warming are getting paid—then you’re lying or crazy.

if you’re not saying that—then apologies.[/quote]

What these scientists actually said in the last ICC report is that there is a climate change and that there is a 60% chance that we influence it to some unknown degree.

They also said that there is no empirical proof or even a theory on how we influence the climate exactly.

Meanwhile, according to Bjorn Lomborg, we could save 36000 malaria victims with the money spent on saving one climate change related death.

In the end we have bigger, more serious problems that we can adress NOW.