Global Warning is Very Real

[ilikeboobs]

Here's some more "the debate is over" science:

A researcher at Russia's oceanology institute says global warming has peaked — and the planet is now headed for a cooling period that will last through the end of the century.

Oleg Sorokhtin is a fellow of the Russian academy of natural sciences. He writes in an article for the Russian news and information agency that a cold spell will set in by 2012. H believes an even colder period will begin as solar activity reaches a minimum in 2041 — and that it will last 50 to 60 years.

Sorokhtin says warming and cooling are entirely natural processes — independent of human activity. He says the current warming trend is due to changes in things like solar activity, ocean currents, and salinity fluctuations in Arctic waters.

Meanwhile, British weather experts say 2008 will be the coolest year since 2000 because of a drop in sea surface temperatures off the western coast of South America — known as La Nina. But they say this year will still be one of the 10 hottest years on record.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320431,00.html)

Look, I know it's from Fox News and that Fox gets $500 Gazillion from Exxon each year, but it's getting me to think...isn't Exxon going to be broke pretty soon from funding all the global warming deniers?

 

[Popeye]

Look, I know it's from Fox News and that Fox gets $500 Gazillion from Exxon each year, but it's getting me to think...isn't Exxon going to be broke pretty soon from funding all the global warming deniers?

I highly doubt it, ExxonMobil is the world's largest company by revenue, at $377.6 billion for the fiscal year of 2006.

They've got plenty of money to buy "scientists" with.

 

[palerider]

I highly doubt it, ExxonMobil is the world's largest company by revenue, at $377.6 billion for the fiscal year of 2006.

They've got plenty of money to buy "scientists" with.

You get more dense by the minute. Oil companies have forked over 19 million in the past decade to (as you put it) "buy scientists". Advocates of anthropogenic global warming have forked over 50 billion in that same time. Are you able to recognize the difference between 19 million and 50 billion. If money, as you say, "buys" scientists, exactly who do you think has been able to buy the most? 19 million vs 50 billion. Surely you are bright enough to figure out who has bought the most influence.

 

[vyo476]

Advocates of anthropogenic global warming have forked over 50 billion in that same time.

Are you sure that all came from sources with a vested intrest in proving the existence of AGW?

 

[Pidgey]

I'd like to clarify one point that's come up in this discussion. It has to do with "emissions" and how clean they are. In the world of combustion (relative to this discussion), the primary bad emissions that most folks are talking about are NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen), CO (Carbon Monoxide) and SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide). When you're talking about gasoline, the sulfur compounds are primarily removed by way of further refinement at the refinery. The NOx emissions are reduced at the point of combustion by the EGR system and post-combustion by the Catalytic Converter in the exhaust piping. The CO is more controlled by the combustion controls on the whole and we've come a long way since the old days.

None of those emissions mentioned have much of anything to do with the actual efficiency of the machine and, therefore, the relative CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) that is produced from a single source (i.e., one car, one powerplant, etc.). The only way to make a significant dent in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that's produced by mankind is to reduce the total amount of fossil fuels burned. Period.

My impression is that there's not enough room left in the efficiency to be gained in gasoline-burning engines to be utilized such that there would be a significant downturn in the overall rate of CO2 addition to the atmosphere. Since the overwhelming bulk of the responsibility for the release of that CO2 lies squarely on the shoulders of the consumer (you and me), I don't much see the point of blaming the corporations.

 

[palerider]

Are you sure that all came from sources with a vested intrest in proving the existence of AGW?

Yep..

 

[Popeye]

Yep..

I looked through the thread, probably missed it, but where's the link?

 

[jpn of Seattle]

This thread has turned into the funniest thing I've found on-line in years!

I so love this 50 billion figure.

Let's see, that would be a million dollars each for 50,000 scientists!

Do you think there are 50,000 atmospheric scientists out there? I don't either. Probably more like 5,000. So that would be ten million dollars to each scientist.

Yeah, right!

p.s. where'd I pull that 5,000 scientist figure from? From my asshole, same place Palerider pulled his $50 billion figure!

This is great fun!

 

[jpn of Seattle]

I'd like to clarify one point that's come up in this discussion. It has to do with "emissions" and how clean they are. In the world of combustion (relative to this discussion), the primary bad emissions that most folks are talking about are NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen), CO (Carbon Monoxide) and SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide). When you're talking about gasoline, the sulfur compounds are primarily removed by way of further refinement at the refinery. The NOx emissions are reduced at the point of combustion by the EGR system and post-combustion by the Catalytic Converter in the exhaust piping. The CO is more controlled by the combustion controls on the whole and we've come a long way since the old days.

None of those emissions mentioned have much of anything to do with the actual efficiency of the machine and, therefore, the relative CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) that is produced from a single source (i.e., one car, one powerplant, etc.). The only way to make a significant dent in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that's produced by mankind is to reduce the total amount of fossil fuels burned. Period.

My impression is that there's not enough room left in the efficiency to be gained in gasoline-burning engines to be utilized such that there would be a significant downturn in the overall rate of CO2 addition to the atmosphere. Since the overwhelming bulk of the responsibility for the release of that CO2 lies squarely on the shoulders of the consumer (you and me), I don't much see the point of blaming the corporations.

Pidgey, Pidgey, Pidgey.

You're post is SO out of place. You are trying to make a rational argument. This is not a thread for rational arguments. This is a thread in which we can't even agree on the greenhouse effect!!!

This is a thread in which someone (okay, me) posts a graph showing how the Arctic ice sheet has been systematically shrinking since 1979 and the response is--get this--that the measurements are taken at the end of summer, when the ice is thin anyway, so it's false!!! I know it makes no sense, but that's the fun of it! Get it!?!

This is a comedy thread, where global warming deniers practice their skits! If they get good enough, they can testify before Senator Inhofe's Committee on Midieval Black Arts. Then comedians like Palerider can post links to it as part of their act!

Can't you find a way to spin your question in a more amusing fashion, like, oh I don't know, maybe propose that we all write $50 checks to ExxonMobile? Just because? Or something like that?

Come on, man, get with it!

 

[Pidgey]

I'm sorry.

I hate arguments where passion controls the rationale and the ultimate winner (regardless of whether actually right or wrong) is the person who can yell the loudest and/or longest. I want the quantifiable. The reason I stated what I stated was because of this particular quote:

It is to the oil companys' benefit to have government mandates on petroleum fuels. It takes far more crude oil to make a gallon of "clean burning" fuel than it does to make standard fuel and the refining expense is far greater as well.

While I believe that there is a measure of truth to that, I didn't actually think it applied to the overall global warming debate in a significant way.

Pidgey

 

[palerider]

This thread has turned into the funniest thing I've found on-line in years!

I so love this 50 billion figure.

It is clear at this point that you have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight. Do you honestly think that the scientists don't have staff, or that whole departments of universities aren't funded by this money? Do you have any idea of what it costs to fund a department at a university? Oh, I guess you don't since you never attended.

Here, read some facts about funding. Not that it will make you any smarter, but at least I can point out later that you were provided with facts that you either didn't understand or simply ignored.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

This is great fun!

Yes it is, I am curious to see exactly how far below the "average" level of stupidity you can go.

 

[Popeye]

It is clear at this point that you have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight. Do you honestly think that the scientists don't have staff, or that whole departments of universities aren't funded by this money? Do you have any idea of what it costs to fund a department at a university? Oh, I guess you don't since you never attended.

Here, read some facts about funding. Not that it will make you any smarter, but at least I can point out later that you were provided with facts that you either didn't understand or simply ignored.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7




Yes it is, I am curious to see exactly how far below the "average" level of stupidity you can go.

Ah yes, the loony Senator from Exxon, James Inhofe. What a surprise.

This is off topic but it speaks to the mental condition of the primary source for your ridiculous 50 billion assertion:

In March 2002, Inhofe made a speech before the U.S. Senate that included the suggestion that the 9/11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against the U.S. for failing to defend Israel. Among other things Inhofe has said, "I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel, and that it has a right to the land, because God said so."

Because "God said so"? LOL

If this is the best you can come up with, you've lost the argument.

I've been trying to look closer into this 50 billion figure, but though it's thrown around a lot, it's hard to pin down. Seems it includes, research, estimated cost (losses) of cutting greenhouse gas, and anything remotely connected with global warming. It can hardly be equated with the almost direct pay offs Exxon has made to your "scientists."

 

[palerider]

Ah yes, the loony Senator from Exxon, James Inhofe. What a surprise.

I have looked, but can find no credible source, or even a source with questionable credibility disputing the dollar figures mentioned. The writer from newsweek was given the financial information and had ample oportunity to call the numbers into question. She didn't. No one has. Why do you suppose that is?

Either you can credibly dispute the numbers or you can't. Attacking a source rather than the information is immature and juvenile at best, but it certainly doesn't constitute a valid response to the information.

By the way, had you read the article, you would see that it is dollars being talked about. Not losses due to business changes. Real dollars handed over to those who will say that we are causing global warming.

 

[Popeye]

I have looked, but can find no credible source, or even a source with questionable credibility disputing the dollar figures mentioned. The writer from newsweek was given the financial information and had ample oportunity to call the numbers into question. She didn't. No one has. Why do you suppose that is?

Either you can credibly dispute the numbers or you can't. Attacking a source rather than the information is immature and juvenile at best, but it certainly doesn't constitute a valid response to the information.

By the way, had you read the article, you would see that it is dollars being talked about. Not losses due to business changes. Real dollars handed over to those who will say that we are causing global warming.

That "article" on Inhofe's website was written by Marc Morano. His blog on Inhofe's website does nothing put promote climate change skeptics.

Morano was formerly with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show.

Involved with the Swift Boat ads, Limbaugh, and now Inhofe, and you expect me to take what this oily joker has to say seriously?

 

[ilikeboobs]

What are you global warming monkeys going to do when the earth starts going through a cooling period? According to a bunch of scientists now (must be paid by Exxon ) we're headed that way in a few years.

I'll be sitting here laughing my ass off at all you brainwashed morons who fought so hard to outlaw SUVs and fossil fuels and plastic bags. You're going to be begging people to drive big gas guzzlers to heat up the damn planet! Tards...