____
Gold Member
Offline
Australian Politics
Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: 
|
mariacostel wrote on Nov 3 rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: ____ wrote on Nov 3 rd, 2015 at 6:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 3 rd, 2015 at 5:51pm: ____ wrote on Nov 3 rd, 2015 at 4:51pm: Soren wrote on Nov 3 rd, 2015 at 4:40pm: Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake. Written by Bruce Everett Bruce M. Everett teaches energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. After six years in the US Dept of Energy in the 1970's, he spent most of his career at ExxonMobil in various executive positions in the international oil, coal, natural gas and electricity businesses, retiring in 2002. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-cli... You would be a more impressive debater if you targeted the message instead of the messenger. But naturally, being a Green and climate hysteric, your only recourse is to personal attacks since the message itself is UNASSAILABLE. You are wrong, he is right. ExxonMobil, a company that vehemently asserts that it does not hate your children, has been caught in a big fat enormous lie, and politicians want the corporation to pay. Over the weekend, Congress members asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate ExxonMobil to see whether the company violated federal laws that mandate that it disclose risks — in this case, risks that pertain to climate change. Four members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by California Democrat Ted Lieu, penned a letter to the SEC alleging that Exxon “may have omitted or misrepresented material information in its official filings”: Sen. Bernie Sanders and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley also demanded a federal investigation of the company this week. Essentially, politicians want to know whether Exxon helped fund climate change denialism after its own scientists confirmed that climate change is real.http://gawker.com/exxon-mobil-may-be-investigated-for-willfully-funding-c-174016... And you are STILL wrong and unable to debate the message! It is an admission of failure on your behalf. In early July, The Guardian reported that Exxon Mobil Corp., "the world's biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm's own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial." Two months later, the online publication InsideClimate News (along with a short film from PBS's Frontline) followed that up with a multi-part series, The Road Not Taken, which was described as an eight-month investigation into the history of: "Exxon's engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence, much of which is being published here for the first time. It describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed." In October, the Los Angeles Times, teaming with the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, started publishing its own reporting on the topic, the result of a yearlong research project. NPR did not report on any of these findings, which has made some listeners unhappy. Andrew Ratzkin, a listener to the New York City member station WNYC, wrote that the only reporting he heard on the issue was in September,
|
Forum
Pages: 
