Global Warming

[Disco08]

So again I ask yourself:
How many man-made pollutants caused this in the following examples?
How did the human race do this to the following?

Studying sea level changes in corals and organic materials from Vietnam and Barbados, scientists concluded that an influx of freshwater from the Antarctic 14,000 years ago increased sea levels by an average of 66 feet (20 meters) over 200 years, about 100 times faster than today. There is evidence that debris was coming off the Antarctic as a result of the melting of the ice sheet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0317_030317_iceshelf.html

The Earth probably reached its warmest about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. At this time the temperature would have been on average about 2C (3.6F) warmer than the present day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml

Today, scientists believe that 200 million years ago the Earth's continents were joined together to form one gigantic supercontinent, called Pangaea. As the rock plates that the continents sit on moved, the supercontinent broke up and began to move apart.

http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/evidence.html

It's no good just grabbing select little pieces of information without looking at them in context.

Your first example comes from the end of the most recent ice age, the end of which was caused by the earth moving closer to the sun. How do you take this to prove anything about the current situation?

The second example is caused by exactly the same thing. As the ice melts from the ice age, the temperature of the planet heats up, A few thousand years after is enough to melt most of the ice and still leave the earth close to the sun resulting in high mean temperatures.

Not sure what your third point proves or doesn't prove.

The earth isn't getting closer to the sun now though Livers, so which natural phenomenon is it that's causing the rise in temperatures if it's not the almost identical (in rate) rise in carbon dilution?

Because some scientists with vested interests in gaining Government grants, or millions of $$$ from some company wanting to get good publicity by looking like they are being 'green'?

See this I find amusing. You're more than happy to use the work of scientists to back up your flawed argument, but when their work doesn't fit in with your opinions they can't be trusted.

Are you seriously saying these scientists (all of them), who lead their fields and when choosing a career could have easily chosen an occupation which would have guaranteed them far more money are going to suddenly forget all about the reasons they became scientists, forget all their passion for learning, all their intrinsic integrity and instead go chasing money from companies trying to cloud what is probably the biggest issue science has ever been involved in?

:rofl
Rubbish!
While I agree with you that many manufacturing corporations have their best interests elsewhere apart from the environment, your idea that the environmentalist side have their interests on 'making the world a cleaner and sustainable place to live' ....is naive, at very best.

GreenPeace, the "grandaddy of the tree-huggers" is as large as any multinational company, with the only difference being that their product they are selling to the unscrupulous public is that of 'saving the world', whether it be animals, trees, or the latest fad....."climate change".

While Exxon have tankers and oil-rigs....GreenPeace have their own small naval fleet of ships dotted around the world, and also a small aviation fleet of helicopters.

If you asked 100 people who the leader of GreenPeace is, I'm tipping 99 of them wouldn't have a clue, yet they rake in millions of $$$ a year, which goes where? To save some trees in South America? To save some whales in Antarctica?
Yeah, right! :-X

GreenPeace is as corrupt as any government....and it's ironic that GreenPeace, something that was aimed at being the opposite of everything "big business" had to offer, such as the Exxons of this world, are no different to them in reality....only the product is different.

As the co-founder of GreenPeace, Paul Watson, once said:
"The secret to David McTaggart's success is the secret to Greenpeace's success: It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.... You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Greenpeace/ge-ar-gr.htm

Read the article Tigersnake...I may be a "slack arsed buffoon" as you called me, but at least I'm not a naive slack-arsed buffoon.

The parts I've highlighted are some of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen posted on this site, or any other site actually outside of Answers In Genesis.

Do you know how much revenue a company such as Exxon generates? To give you an idea, Exxon hands out more to skeptic groups and support organisations in one month than Greenpeace's yearly revenue. Exxon's profit in 2005 was a little over US$36 billion. The article you provided states Greanpeace's revenue as US$25 million. And you have the arrogance to call ts naive.

As a non-profit organisation Greenpeace have been investigted once from what I could find. Do you know what the investigation focused on? The transfer of funds from tax exempt sections to non-tax exempt sections or subsidiaries to fund further campaigns which weren't permissible for a tax exempt organisation.

Funnily enough though I could name any number of protests aimed at protecting the environment organised by Greenpeace.

 

[Liverpool]

Some scientists? How about the consensus of global climate science? Historically they have been notoriously conservative in their conclusions. Yet they state with 90% certainty that the current change in climate that we are observing is due to human activity.

What 'consenus' is that?
The scientists who believe in your theory?

Here you go...here's a "scientist" that agree with me...:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

It seems Mars' ice-caps are melting as well, and how much human intervention has caused this?
None....and another scientist agrees:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

[Disco08]

Do you have a link to a story that quotes the same scientist in 2007? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they've found quite a bit of new data on global warming since 2000 haven't they?

I think it's safe to assume that the consensus Pantera is referring to is real:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise"

Don't forget that this is coming from the scientific community of a country who refuses to cooperate with global efforts. If you have even a cursory glance at the interweb you'll find similar statements from the vast majority of EU and Commonwealth nations.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Some scientists? How about the consensus of global climate science? Historically they have been notoriously conservative in their conclusions. Yet they state with 90% certainty that the current change in climate that we are observing is due to human activity.

What 'consenus' is that?
The scientists who believe in your theory?

Here you go...here's a "scientist" that agree with me...:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

It seems Mars' ice-caps are melting as well, and how much human intervention has caused this?
None....and another scientist agrees:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

No, not any one scientist with ulterior motives that you seem to suspect (unlike the individual denialists that you provide), but a UN independent body that assesses the scientific literature in the area and publish reports that summarise the scientific consensus in the area.

Disco has summarised the issue nicely in the previous post.

 

[Liverpool]

Your first example comes from the end of the most recent ice age, the end of which was caused by the earth moving closer to the sun. How do you take this to prove anything about the current situation?

Purely showing that over the ages, Earth has changed considerably, without human intervention.

The second example is caused by exactly the same thing. As the ice melts from the ice age, the temperature of the planet heats up, A few thousand years after is enough to melt most of the ice and still leave the earth close to the sun resulting in high mean temperatures.

Again, another example of a massive climate change over millions of years, which resulted naturally, without human intervention.

Not sure what your third point proves or doesn't prove.

Not sure?

Continental drift is highly significant for the study of global climate for two principal reasons:

* We know that the current positions of the continents have a profound influence on the global climate. For example:
The southern hemisphere atmospheric circulation is stronger and more zonal (i.e. west-east flow) than that of the northern hemisphere because there is less continental land mass.
The presence of a land mass at the south pole has led to the build-up of a vast ice sheet, several kilometres thick and containing most of the Earth's fresh water, whereas the lack of a land mass at the north pole means that the ice there is very thin.
It is therefore likely that the changing positions of the continents have, over geological time, changed The Earth's climate. For example, at times when the majority of the land is near the equator, absorption of solar radiation will be greater and there will be less possibility of polar ice caps forming - thus the global climate is likely to have been warmer.
* Continents move from equatorial regions to polar regions and vice-versa. Thus, great care is needed in interpreting apparent changes in climate, as indicated by the geological record. For example, fossils of tropical plants and animals occur in Antarctica; this is simply because the Antarctic continent was once near the equator and not in itself an indicator of global climate change.

http://www.env.leeds.ac.uk/envi2150/oldnotes/lecture5/continental_drift.html

Gee, not a human intervention in site.
And all this info from scientists too.

See this I find amusing. You're more than happy to use the work of scientists to back up your flawed argument, but when their work doesn't fit in with your opinions they can't be trusted.

Works both ways Disco.
You and Pantheris are quite happy to go on about " the majority of scientists" this and the "consensus" that, trying to make out to all the posters that the whole scientific community agrees with your way of thinking, when in reality, and what I have stated before, is that BOTH sides have vested interests, and to be honest, NOBODY is 100% certain which side is correct, and anyways, we won't be around to prove otherwise.

All we can do is read our info and make our opinions, and this is my opinion, that while I agree that the Earth is heating up (as well as the other planets in our solar system), I believe, from what I have read and heard, that while there may be a small contribution by the human race in climate change or global warming on this planet, the majority of any change, is purely a natural one, as we have seen in the past on this planet.....as well as other planets that do not have any human race inhabiting them.
We are overstating our role in this change, and understating Mother Nature.
That's my opinion and I stand by it.

The parts I've highlighted are some of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen posted on this site, or any other site actually outside of Answers In Genesis.

Do you know how much revenue a company such as Exxon generates? To give you an idea, Exxon hands out more to skeptic groups and support organisations in one month than Greenpeace's yearly revenue. Exxon's profit in 2005 was a little over US$36 billion. The article you provided states Greanpeace's revenue as US$25 million. And you have the arrogance to call ts naive.

:hihi....c'mon Disco.
You have a crack at me about posting ridiculous things, and then tell me how much Exxon have spent buying skeptics...where did you get that info from yourself? From the GreenPeace Inc. forum itself?
And I never stated that GreenPeace was bigger than Exxon....so who cares how much money they make, or how much GreenPeace make......the point was, as the co-founder himself stated...they are simply a "myth generating machine", and using money gained to buy boast and helicopters, towards their anti-capitalism causes.
I called Tigersnake "naive", if he believes that the "saving the planet" business is any more pure and clean than the "oil making" business, and in light of some of the names Tigersnake has labelled me, I let him off lightly with 'naive'.

As a non-profit organisation Greenpeace have been investigted once from what I could find. Do you know what the investigation focused on? The transfer of funds from tax exempt sections to non-tax exempt sections or subsidiaries to fund further campaigns which weren't permissible for a tax exempt organisation.
Funnily enough though I could name any number of protests aimed at protecting the environment organised by Greenpeace.

Protests?
Ramming boats, trespassing on private property, vandalism, sabotage.....GreenPeace Inc. is an organisation that is a "leftist terrorist" organisation, using the banner of the 'environment' as some sort or moral protection.

I don't agree with killing whales......but when GreenPeace rammed the Japanese whaling ship.....and GreenPeace said they were rammed, and the Japanese said they were rammed....who did people automatically believe?
GreenPeace.
That's because the Japanese are painted as the 'big bad evil company killing innocent whales' and GreenPeace have a perception in the media as some sort of disorganised hippy group out there to save some whales, or some near extinct bug in the jungles of Nigeria, or something.....when in reality, they are a business, with an agenda, supporting many things out there outside of their original cause......of saving the environment.
They have people involved in the anti-war movement, S11, G8, the YourRightsAtWork/Union movements, and many other anti-capitalist organisations.
If people really believe that GreenPeace is a pure organisation simply to save animals and protect the environment, then they are naive.

Remember:

It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.... You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine." - Paul Watson - co-founder of Greenpeace.

 

[Disco08]

Purely showing that over the ages, Earth has changed considerably, without human intervention.

Again, another example of a massive climate change over millions of years, which resulted naturally, without human intervention.

As I said, both these examples were caused by the earth's proximity to the sun, which does not correlate at all with the current situation.

Gee, not a human intervention in site.
And all this info from scientists too.

Yep. Do you think the scientists who wrote this are stupid enough to forget to take it all into consideration when analysing the effect carbon emissions have on the climate?

Works both ways Disco.
You and Pantheris are quite happy to go on about " the majority of scientists" this and the "consensus" that, trying to make out to all the posters that the whole scientific community agrees with your way of thinking.

No, not the entire scientific community, but a very large portion of it as I've already shown you.

I believe, from what I have read and heard, that while there may be a small contribution by the human race in climate change or global warming on this planet, the majority of any change, is purely a natural one, as we have seen in the past on this planet.....as well as other planets that do not have any human race inhabiting them.
We are overstating our role in this change, and understating Mother Nature.
That's my opinion and I stand by it.

Good for you. Thank god you're not making the decisions. Is it safe to say that you're basing your opinion on purely anecdotal evidence?

c'mon Disco.
You have a crack at me about posting ridiculous things, and then tell me how much Exxon have spent buying skeptics...where did you get that info from yourself? From the GreenPeace Inc. forum itself?

It's public record Livers. Not hard to find at all.

And I never stated that GreenPeace was bigger than Exxon

No, but you did state "GreenPeace, the "grandaddy of the tree-huggers" is as large as any multinational company". Just a little exaggeration?

so who cares how much money they make, or how much GreenPeace make......the point was, as the co-founder himself stated...they are simply a "myth generating machine"

I thought your (grossly uninformed) point was they didn't really have any interest in helping to stop giant corporations destroy our environment?

 

[evo]

You're grasping at straws, Scouser.

The analogy of creation 'scientists' and man made global warming denial 'scientists', is a good one.

'Peer review', mate.I really should put it in my signature- I seem to be refering to it daily.

 

[Tiger74]

Hey Liv, the IPCC does have pretty side support. Even George W has gotten behind it.

As such, while I remain sus of a lot of the motives out there, the IPCC seems to be the most high calibre impartical platform to date.

 

[tigersnake]

GreenPeace, the "grandaddy of the tree-huggers" is as large as any multinational company,

GreenPeace is as corrupt as any government....

As the co-founder of GreenPeace, Paul Watson, once said:
"The secret to David McTaggart's success is the secret to Greenpeace's success: It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.... You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."

This is a doozy. For reactionaries like you liverpool, it dosn't matter what environmental groups do. If they stay disorganised and grow dreads and drinks soy chai, sit around at meetings saying 'man' a lot, or whatever you will dismiss them as a joke (and they are a bit of a joke I suppose, if well meaning). But if they corporatise, like Greenpeace has, to become efficient, self funding and goal oriented etc, you dismiss them as corrupt money makers. As usual, you want it both ways.

Grrenpeace corrupt as any government. What do you say to that? No big org is perfect. Greenpeace does a lot of good work, they make profits which fund their activities and they plough back into campaigns, they pay their staff pretty well, thats so they get good staff. Does all that make them corrupt? I don't reckon.

As for Wilson's comments, who cares? The world is full of prople who were once committed to a certain ideal but later reject it and condemn it. There are a couple of top World bank economist, one was the chief I'm pretty sure. Rose to the top in the business and economics game. Has renounced the lot, now says we need to do things different to focus more on environmental and social justice. Crazy talk right?

Point is, a former boss of Greenpeace saying they are crap doesn't mean they are crap. You can find any bozo anywhere who'll speak out for whatever cause you want.

 

[tigersnake]

Works both ways Disco.
You and Pantheris are quite happy to go on about " the majority of scientists" this and the "consensus" that, trying to make out to all the posters that the whole scientific community agrees with your way of thinking, when in reality, and what I have stated before, is that BOTH sides have vested interests, and to be honest, NOBODY is 100% certain which side is correct, and anyways, we won't be around to prove otherwise.

You have no logical argument liverpool, zero. You frame the whole debate as if its 50-50, its not, its 95-5. We are 95% sure that global warming is real and requires action. Again you are constantly argining on the basis you require %100. Its a ludicrous way to run a country, your life, a footy club, anything.

If the Tigers were in a GF and we were %95 sure Nathan Brown would get through the game on his bad leg and be fine, but a %5 chance he may re-injure it and never play again, you'd play him.

If those odd were reversed you wouldn't even think about playing him.

Why do I even need to say this? Its ridiculous.

The vested interests staement is stupid too stupid. Bloody cancer researchers have vested interests by your logic, more research funding, prestige. Everyone has bloody vested interest, its what they are based on and what the causes achieve that you have to look at.

Oil lobby: outcome-more pollution, continued GW, vested interests, $$$

Green lobby: outcome- less pollution, GW stemmed, cleaner environment, Vested interests: ?? they want a clean environment?? Greenpeace execs get more sex? I dunno, ridiculous.

 

[Michael]

I'm 100% certain that replying to Liverpool accelerates globing warming.

Gets me all hot and bothered

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

If the Tigers were in a GF and we were %95 sure Nathan Brown would get through the game on his bad leg and be fine, but a %5 chance he may re-injure it and never play again, you'd play him.

I think the reverse is more analogous to the situation. Would you play him if there was a 95% chance of catastrophe, or bury your head in the sand on the 5% chance that he will be ok.

(and its a normal season match, not a grand final)

 

[tigersnake]

Fair enough.

I'll use another example. There's a 100-1 shot named Coodentbeetme in a race, and the glamour horse 2-1 Super King. Those odds aren't plucked out of thin air, they are based on all sorts of variables, also its a fairly brutal system of peer review the racing game, just like science. You can't hide slow horses or dodgey research. Liverpool says 'I'm gunna back Coodentbeetme, I don't care what the form is, what the pro bookies are backing, I think he's gunna win and Super King has no chance'

Fair enough. He might win, but probably won't. Super King probably will. But be aware of the basis for your decision. If I back a 30-1 shot on a hunch, I know its just that, horses aren't 30-1 for no reason. Usually they don't win. Occassionally they do. I've never backed a 80-1 or 100-1 shot though.

People like Liverpool dismiss all the GW science, decades of research and building knowledge, just because they don't like the implications. He can do the same punting on horses, dismiss the odds and conventional wisdom and back on horses he like the look of or name or long odds, we know what will happen though, the arse will soon be out of his pants.

(It is seductive to dismiss evidence that you don't like the implications of, I never back Hawkes horses because the man annys me, I've lost some dough on that basis)

 

[jb03]

Fair enough.

I'll use another example. There's a 100-1 shot named Coodentbeetme in a race, and the glamour horse 2-1 Super King. Those odds aren't plucked out of thin air, they are based on all sorts of variables, also its a fairly brutal system of peer review the racing game, just like science. You can't hide slow horses or dodgey research. Liverpool says 'I'm gunna back Coodentbeetme, I don't care what the form is, what the pro bookies are backing, I think he's gunna win and Super King has no chance'

Fair enough. He might win, but probably won't. Super King probably will. But be aware of the basis for your decision. If I back a 30-1 shot on a hunch, I know its just that, horses aren't 30-1 for no reason. Usually they don't win. Occassionally they do. I've never backed a 80-1 or 100-1 shot though.

People like Liverpool dismiss all the GW science, decades of research and building knowledge, just because they don't like the implications. He can do the same punting on horses, dismiss the odds and conventional wisdom and back on horses he like the look of or name or long odds, we know what will happen though, the arse will soon be out of his pants.

(It is seductive to dismiss evidence that you don't like the implications of, I never back Hawkes horses because the man annys me, I've lost some dough on that basis)

Haven't you heard snakeman, you'll go broke backing favourites.

 

[tigersnake]

yeah don't back 'em much. My cash flow isn't great at the moment so I pester Gyppsy and my puntaholic brothers for mail on 10-1-plus good things. Still go broke.

 

[Liverpool]

As I said, both these examples were caused by the earth's proximity to the sun, which does not correlate at all with the current situation.

That may be true, but you are ignoring the fact that the sun is burning more brightly now, than in the past 1,000 years....surely this must play an effect our current situation, of a 0.2 degree rise in the Earth's temperature over the last 20 years?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

Yep. Do you think the scientists who wrote this are stupid enough to forget to take it all into consideration when analysing the effect carbon emissions have on the climate?

Disco,
Look, we both agree that the world is gradually heating up.
Where we differ, is that I think it's a combination of many scenarios.....nature, first and foremost (continental drift, the axis of the Earth, the oceans, the sun, solar radiance, volcanic eruptions, etc)....with the 'human factor' not being insignificant, but being much less than what people such as yourself are portraying, for the small rise in temperatures we are experiencing.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050212195414.htm

It's also interesting that the IPCC which yourself, Panthera, and Tigersnake are wetting your pants over doesn't state with 100% certainty that humans ARE definitely the reason why the Earth has been warming over the past 50 years....they simply state "very likely".
They don't know. No one knows. All scientists have their theories and ideas, as we do.
Your opinion, is no more valid than my opinion.

No, but you did state "GreenPeace, the "grandaddy of the tree-huggers" is as large as any multinational company". Just a little exaggeration?

I don't think so.
They might not be as big as Exxon....but they do have millions of 'members' around the world, and they are 'present' in over 40 countries, so I think they outdo my local milkbar, wouldn't you say?

I thought your (grossly uninformed) point was they didn't really have any interest in helping to stop giant corporations destroy our environment?

I think originally, GreenPeace were an organisation, with a handful of members/volunteers, that did have the environment first and foremost as their most important mission.
However, as they have grown and become a 'corporate entity', with offices, boats, helicopters, and staff dotted around the world, they are now no different to any other big business, in that they have branched off into many other areas.
GreenPeace have now aligned themselves with S11, G8, anti-war protests, and the recent anti-Workchoices/Union movement.....which the above have no immediate bearing on whales or trees.
They may have an interest in the environment, as that is their 'bread and butter' and the main way they gain funding from the public and other organisations, but it definitely isn't their sole mission anymore, compared to how they started 30+ years ago.
They are a big business, simple as that.

 

[Liverpool]

You're grasping at straws, Scouser.

The analogy of creation 'scientists' and man made global warming denial 'scientists', is a good one.

'Peer review', mate.I really should put it in my signature- I seem to be refering to it daily.

Evo,

It's like the Christianity thread mate.

Nobody can 100% prove anything....it is simply opinions and debunking...and debunking the debunkings.

We can all have our opinions, and until something or someone shows 100% unequivically, that the human factor is the main reason the Earth is heating up, then my opinion and that of scientists who don't believe that humans are the main factor, are just as valid as those who do think humans are the main reason.

Hey Liv, the IPCC does have pretty side support. Even George W has gotten behind it.
As such, while I remain sus of a lot of the motives out there, the IPCC seems to be the most high calibre impartical platform to date.

Tiger74,
That is also George W's opinion and he entitled to that.
I agree with the IPCC that the Earth is warming, however they use the term "most likely", as they themselves, cannot categorically say that the human race is 100% responsible for the global warming.
Just like I cannot 100% say for certain, and other scientists who agree with my version of events....that nature is the main factor behind this temperature rise.
It is all opinions, and with opinions come agendas.....on both sides.

 

[Tiger74]

Tiger74,
That is also George W's opinion and he entitled to that.
I agree with the IPCC that the Earth is warming, however they use the term "most likely", as they themselves, cannot categorically say that the human race is 100% responsible for the global warming.
Just like I cannot 100% say for certain, and other scientists who agree with my version of events....that nature is the main factor behind this temperature rise.
It is all opinions, and with opinions come agendas.....on both sides.

Only reason I mentioned George was given you and him seem political photocopies, its a sign that even global warming sceptics are changing their position.

Point of the IPCC is that while they say warming is happening and that it is PROBABLY (but not definitely) caused by humans, it is also PROBABLY best to take some action to minimize the impact.

If you have an illness, usually the doctor doesnt know 100% what is wrong. They still take action on treating the illness and its likely causes, because sitting on your butt and saying "until I know what is wrong with you 100% I am doing jack" will cause quite a few people to die.

 

[evo]

Evo,

It's like the Christianity thread mate.

Nobody can 100% prove anything....it is simply opinions and debunking...and debunking the debunkings.

We can all have our opinions, and until something or someone shows 100% unequivically, that the human factor is the main reason the Earth is heating up, then my opinion and that of scientists who don't believe that humans are the main factor, are just as valid as those who do think humans are the main reason.

It's not a 50/50 deal but have it your way Livers.I really don't have the energy for another 200 page thread.

Just remember which 'team' you are on in this debate.

 

[Liverpool]

Grrenpeace corrupt as any government. What do you say to that? No big org is perfect. Greenpeace does a lot of good work, they make profits which fund their activities and they plough back into campaigns, they pay their staff pretty well, thats so they get good staff. Does all that make them corrupt? I don't reckon.

You say the above....and Disco says this:

As a non-profit organisation Greenpeace have been investigted once from what I could find. Do you know what the investigation focused on? The transfer of funds from tax exempt sections to non-tax exempt sections or subsidiaries to fund further campaigns which weren't permissible for a tax exempt organisation.

So which is it people? :
Do they make the $$$ or don't they?
And we all know the answer to that, don't we.....

They don't get their flotilla of boats and helicopters from the nearest Op-Shop now.

You have no logical argument liverpool, zero. You frame the whole debate as if its 50-50, its not, its 95-5. We are 95% sure that global warming is real and requires action.

I've never stated that global warming isn't real.
Show me a post where I have said that the world is NOT heating up?
Show me a post where I deny global warming entirely?
Can't find one?

Oil lobby: outcome-more pollution, continued GW, vested interests, $$$
Green lobby: outcome- less pollution, GW stemmed, cleaner environment, Vested interests: ?? they want a clean environment?? Greenpeace execs get more sex? I dunno, ridiculous.

:rofl....c'mon Tigersnake....this is you being naive again... :scold
You admit that an organisation like GreenPeace is now run like any other business....paying staff well, making profits, investing in campaigns.....and yet you bury your head in the sand with comments like this.
Wherever there is large sums of money changing hands, there are vested interests, and if you think that oil manufacturers look at the bottom line as their main focus (I agree), then surely GreenPeace, being run as a business, also have vested interests as well to make money, so they can invest in future campaigns, buy boats, buy helicopters, transport their staff around the world, pay court fees, etc.
If you really thinkt he Green lobby only has a clean environment at heart, then you're dreaming.