Oilpatch CEO buys ad calling climate change a 'scam'
Newsbot @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:57 pm
Title: Oilpatch CEO buys ad calling climate change a 'scam'
Category: Environmental
Posted By: Robair
Date: 2009-12-09 08:06:17
Canadian
Schnek @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:57 pm
ok... my issue here, and i'm hoping someone can provide a better rebuttal because so far i've heard none. Out of sheer common sense and logic, is it not apparent that climate change is happening? In no other time in human history has there been such human intervention into the natural cycles of the planet. How completely ignorant is it to think that the amount of shit we pump into the atmosphere, and the utter degradation of the waterways and oceans is not having an adverse effect on the environment? It is irreponsible and morally reprehensible not to take a pro-active, then a reactive approach to a shift in global temperatures. If you don't believe in global warming, fine, all the power too you, it could possibly be a natural cycle of warming, fine, our records aren't complete enough to counter argue that. BUT it is in my opinion, completely narrow-minded and self-serving to not acknowledge the natural visual cues given to us on a daily basis, where once was blue water, now is unswimmable, what once was a nice park with hiking trails and streams, a new development for highclass business. Am I wrong?
Zipperfish @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:03 pm
A real live Albertasaurus!
commanderkai @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:09 pm
Schnek Schnek:
Am I wrong?
On this issue, yes. You brought up a huge variety of issues, but on climate change, you said it yourself. The evidence isn't there. That's not the scam. The scam was that we were told, and some people were muzzled or attacked because supposedly the "science was settled" and now...the science isn't there, oh but all these scientists, with lacking scientific data (or better yet, missing original data, or "value added" bullshit data), still say such a crisis is occurring to keep pocketing research funding from governments and universities.
That's the scam.
ridenrain @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:10 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
A real live Albertasaurus!
Your just being paid by big hot air.
Zipperfish @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:47 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
A real live Albertasaurus!
Your just being paid by big hot air.
And the money is rolling in, baby!
Robair @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:03 pm
Schnek Schnek:
It is irreponsible and morally reprehensible not to take a pro-active, then a reactive approach to a shift in global temperatures.
And what if the sun, or earths orbit, is shifting these temperatures? All the resources and effort wasted on your pro-active approach could have been spent figuring out how to adapt to a changing climate. Not trying to control something we have no control over.
They could also have been spent cleaning up the other many enviornmental issues you addressed.
BartSimpson @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:34 pm
Schnek Schnek:
ok... my issue here, and i'm hoping someone can provide a better rebuttal because so far i've heard none. Out of sheer common sense and logic, is it not apparent that climate change is happening?
Of course it is. We're near the end of an ice age and for an ice age to end the planet must first warm.
The hubris inherent in the complaint about climate change (be it warming or cooling) is that humans are somehow entitled to a stable climate. We're not.
4,000 years ago the Sahara was a lush plain with rivers and forests and etc. and then the climate changed and it became a desert. And that happened without human intervention. The assumption that we God-like humans are causing a warming cycle that started 20,000 years ago is utterly laughable. Why not take credit for the sunrise, too?
Schnek Schnek:
In no other time in human history has there been such human intervention into the natural cycles of the planet. How completely ignorant is it to think that the amount of shit we pump into the atmosphere, and the utter degradation of the waterways and oceans is not having an adverse effect on the environment? It is irreponsible and morally reprehensible not to take a pro-active, then a reactive approach to a shift in global temperatures. If you don't believe in global warming, fine, all the power too you, it could possibly be a natural cycle of warming, fine, our records aren't complete enough to counter argue that. BUT it is in my opinion, completely narrow-minded and self-serving to not acknowledge the natural visual cues given to us on a daily basis, where once was blue water, now is unswimmable, what once was a nice park with hiking trails and streams, a new development for highclass business. Am I wrong?
I don't know if you've noticed, but the water in almost every place in North America and Europe is cleaner than it's been in sixty years.
Also, forgive me for noticing a bit of hype in your post, but where are parks with hiking trails being converted into 'new developments for highclass business'?
Sorry, but your class-warfare bias is showing.
PluggyRug @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:42 pm
Robair Robair:
And what if the sun, or earths orbit, is shifting these temperatures?
Chandlers Wobble.
http://www.physorg.com/news171094752.html
OldChum @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:47 pm
Gee would a CEO say anything but while his plant is one of the worst offenders god sounds like our goverment .
PluggyRug @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:23 pm
OldChum OldChum:
Gee would a CEO say anything but while his plant is one of the worst offenders god sounds like our goverment .
Worst offenders of what?
OldChum @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:42 am
CO,2 emmissions
sandorski @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:11 am
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Robair Robair:
And what if the sun, or earths orbit, is shifting these temperatures?
Chandlers Wobble.
http://www.physorg.com/news171094752.html
If the Orbit has changed or we were wobbling, we'd know it. An Amateur Astronomer would even notice it.
DrCaleb @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:11 am
sandorski sandorski:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Robair Robair:
And what if the sun, or earths orbit, is shifting these temperatures?
Chandlers Wobble.
http://www.physorg.com/news171094752.html
If the Orbit has changed or we were wobbling, we'd know it. An Amateur Astronomer would even notice it.
It does wobble. Every 50,000 years, the north pole changes from pointing at Polaris (the north star) to Vega (a really crappy Chevy). It spends the intervening years between the two stars. The moon's gravity is what keeps us from spinning wildly out of control, so it limits extremes.
But that isn't what the paper from MIT is about. The chandler wobble is faster than that.
Here's a bit better explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble
What Sandorski has done though, is the opposite of his intention. He's shown climate change can be a sudden and natural process. And consequently, very likely.
sandorski @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:29 am
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
sandorski sandorski:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
If the Orbit has changed or we were wobbling, we'd know it. An Amateur Astronomer would even notice it.
It does wobble. Every 50,000 years, the north pole changes from pointing at Polaris (the north star) to Vega (a really crappy Chevy). It spends the intervening years between the two stars. The moon's gravity is what keeps us from spinning wildly out of control, so it limits extremes.
But that isn't what the paper from MIT is about. The chandler wobble is faster than that.
Here's a bit better explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble
What Sandorski has done though, is the opposite of his intention. He's shown climate change can be a sudden and natural process. And consequently, very likely.
Incorrect. I don't deny that Wobbling occurs, was just saying that if a Wobble had just occurred(or has in recent History), we would know it. Thus, trying to interject it into the current GW/GCC Debate is just a Strawman.