Not even bothering to do it discretely anymore, wow.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...004399,00.html
Printable View
Not even bothering to do it discretely anymore, wow.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...004399,00.html
The director of 'Everything's Cool' at Sundance said the top 5 scientists who disagree with global warming were found to be on Exxon's payroll by some reporter. Anyone here of this? I believe him, but I haven't heard off it before.
That's brazen.
A moment of silence for Keith Moon.
Not discreet, and not suprising.
And we are ALL to blame. Insert needle, inject heroin, repeat.
shit I'll say global warming isn't happening for $10 k
but what if a billion people believed every word out of your mouth?Quote:
Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey
he'd still do it for only $10k...
they're sitting there on the other side of the table with the $10million offer, started low.
Your say-so ain't worth $0.02. Mine, on the other hand ... did they post a phone number?Quote:
Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey
The problem with science and scientists is that money will always play a role. Without it scientists cannot do their research and would be out of a job, so it makes sense that they would do what they can to support issues that have large amounts cash being funneled into research. Global Warming is one theory that a lot of people are spending a lot of money to prove, so its easy to come up with a theory supporting global warming and get grants and what not to prove it. Not too many people are funding research to dispel the global warming theories. Its a lot easier to float downstream than to swim against the current.
In my opinion the minority has convinced the majority that global warming is occurring and its our fault. I don't necessarily agree with that position one way or the other, but 30 years ago people were predicting an ice age so I'm not sure what made that change. One has to wonder though how much research money played a role in that switch. Obviously ethics come into play, but you'd be hard pressed to find any field where people are 100% ethical. I don't mean to start up a global warming debate but its just something to think about when deciding what and who to believe.
(1) Scientists would still have a job even if they proved the climate would be perfectly hunky-dory for the rest of eternity.
(2) Scientists are not trying to prove the theory or hypothesis that human activities have caused and will continue to cause global warming. They are trying to determine whether or not the hypothesis is correct. The most effective way to do that is to try to DISPROVE it. That is exactly what scientists have been trying to do. That is exactly what the money is being spent on.
(3) The "global cooling" hypothesis was never considered likely to be correct by scientists. The possibility was raised; data was collected and models were built; the hypothesis was promptly shot down.
(4) If you're looking for something to consider in deciding what to believe: how 'bout some facts and reason?
Yeah, but it's not like they'll notice these guys on their payroll. Did you see the follow up?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/01/D8N0VRD80.html
$39.5 Billion, a new US record. Not a bad living if you can still look at yourself in the mirror. I couldn't but...
Jay
You don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowntheskies
They'll be putting most of that profit back into new exploration, geological research, and drilling programs for the upcoming year. It sounds like a lot but considering it takes about 3 billion to drill some of their new wildcat wells in the Gulf of Mexico, at 10km depth under 7000 feet of water, it doesn't stick around long. That's for one well.
Not to mention some of the deep basin wells that take 3 months to drill at upwards of 10-20 million a shot. Plus new land purchases and whatnot. It's an expensive industry to play in don't think it all gets wasted away.
Like you know anything about scientific funding :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva
never heard of it...Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
Just cause it was worth repeatingQuote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
A scientist who can produce work that is publishable in a reputable peer reviewed journal that supports a natural explanation for the changes we've observed will have his career made with one paper.
While there is resistance to change. A good paper will get published somewhere an then it'll get a lot of attention.
I heard the spokesman for AEI try to defend their 10,000 dollars payments yesterday in a short interview. What a douchebag. Amazing to me that people are able to sleep at night after spending their working days trying to deceive people into buying more gas guzzling Tahoe's on the grounds that the 'science is still questionable'.
Its all about Exxon Mobil and others like them lining the pockets of a few of their crooked executives. More Tahoes = more demand for fuel = more huge beach houses for their executives that will eventually be washed into the ocean and paid for by all us unimportant taxpayers.
Such a racket, and yet there are those that still fall for it hook line and sinker. I throw up my arms and call myself convinced. The good news for me is that I benefit from using less energy and AEI, Exxon Mobil, and all the other asshats that are trying to blur the facts lose.
How about a moment of silence for Erik the Red?
Re: research money....
Ever apply for a research grant? They don't just give it away to any yahoo who comes up with an idea for a study. The proposal has to be backed up with prior research and usually must hold some promise for societal benefit or desemination of knowledge that will spur further research and development. The more money at stake, the tougher thestandards and qualifications. What AEI is doing is simply offering money to people who will write an over-blown letter to the editor.
This topic instantly shows peoples true party colors.
Seriously, 10k? Low-balling.
A moment of silence for Peter tosh.
You are obviously not trained in the sciences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowntheskies
But with their massive profits will they pay their dues to the people of Alaska who were impacted by their gross negligence? No, they'll just keep appealing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by bakers_dozen
My head hurts. A moment of silence for Stuart Sutcliff.
FYI - I'm not affiliated with any party. I'd love it if a centrist party that was socially liberal, economically conservative, gun friendly, anti-lobby, and progressively green (meaning realistically green, not radically green) would emerge from the ashes of the two failed parties, but I'm not holding out hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmorry326
The democrats, who have embraced the science behind global warming, are going to be taken for a dangerous ride by the ethanol, pro subsidized farm products crowd along with the supposedly economically conservative republicans (in words, almost never in action), while pretty much ignoring cellulosic ethanol other than to give it a tiny amount of funding in comparision to the amount given to corn and even soybean ethanol, which really has zero chance of reducing CO2 output, and most likely will do exactly the opposite.
Some Democrats have some good ideas but they tend to have poor plans of action.
http://www.theksbwchannel.com/news/10887861/detail.html
I'd rather see a tax on incandescent lightbulbs that would simply correct the markets failure that causes them to be more popular than flourescent bulbs because they are cheaper to buy initially even though they cost the consumer much more in the long run.
All of our politicans run scared from any new non sin related tax, democrat or republican. What we need to do is shift our taxes off of income and onto energy, then let the free markets take care of the rest. Taxing energy would be the single most effective method of controlling our CO2 output.
Quote:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb?
In California, the answer is a majority -- plus Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Decrying the inefficiency of the common light bulb, a Democratic Assemblyman from Los Angeles wants California to become the first state to ban it -- by 2012.
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine says compact fluorescent light bulbs, which often have a spiral shape and are being promoted by Wal-Mart, are so efficient that consumers should be forced to use them. The compact bulbs use a quarter the energy of a conventional light.
"Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," said Levine, who represents Sherman Oaks. "It's time to take a step forward."
Levine is known for his environmental bent. Last year, he authored legislation to require large supermarkets to recycle plastic bags. Schwarzenegger signed that bill but has not yet taken a position on the light bulb bill.
Levine isn't the only one who's seen the light. Democrat Jared Huffman, who represents San Rafael, is working on a similar bill.
The idea has annoyed some Republicans, who say people should be allowed to make their own choices about which bulbs to buy. But Levine, who heads the Assembly's Utilities and Commerce Committee, points out that the new bulbs are so efficient that electric utilities give them away.
He said replacing one 75-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent bulb would prevent 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide from being pumped into the atmosphere by electric plants. Carbon dioxide is a major component of the gases that most experts believe are responsible for global warming. Consumers could also save $55 over the life of a single bulb.
Fascinating.
A moment of silence for Bruno Hauptman.
Thanks for coming out to play, but this party has adult content.Quote:
This message is hidden because Jer is on your ignore list.
Totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by uglymoney
A moment of silence for D.H. Lawrence.
then I'd ask for more than $10K :fm:Quote:
Originally Posted by adam