Climate Denialism paid by Exxon

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
"Hyperbole?" - sure, so what - nothing wrong with that - just fighting bubbles with bubbles.

"Equivocation?" Hardly. But if you didn't get the point, I can repeat it...

"Not much else?" Seriously, what else needs be said? It's a hoax. I admit it's a wonderful chicken little story where many of the faith are running around whining "we're destroying the planet" - where its leaders and major proponents are making truckloads of money in the process - not to mention doing arguably irreparable damage to the world's economy - and systems of government...

On the other hand -
If you're truly that concerned about posts using exaggeration for effect, being somehow ambiguous, or otherwise lacking in content, one would have thought the FIRST post you'd attack would have been the OP's - the title alone is worthy of such attention.

"Climate denialism?" :doh:

Seriously??? - That's not hyperbole, equivocation, or lacking in content? Or do you truly believe anybody is so stupid as to "deny climate?" Or better yet, that Exxon is out there paying people to do it?

"Yo dude, c'mere - I got's ten bucks if yooz sez der's no climate."
"Wow! Ten bucks! Cool! Sure!
--- Thanks Exxon!!"

(Though I have to admit, such hyperbole, equivocation, and content as that would make that a great infomercial - especially if they offer some sort of two-fer deal...) :cool:

Edwin is so worried about irreparable damage to the world's economy, but shows so little concern for irreparable damage to the world's ecosystems, and what that would mean not just for the world's economy, but for humanity at large. Never mind... so long as people are making money we shouldn't be concerned, so say the faithful free market fundamentalists. They don't like having their faith challenged by science, so they call science 'faith'.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EdwinWillers

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
19,443
5,258
Galt's Gulch
✟8,420.00
Country
Niue
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You're not really good at handling these things the rest of us like to call 'facts', are you? :p
Which "facts" would those be - that the earth is cooling, or that it's warming, or that the climate is changing? Because all three have been marched before us as "fact," no doubt a consequence of Doctor Thaumaturgy's (and I can call him that because he said he was - fact) educated belief in the evolution of the paleoenvironmental ratio of 13-C to 12-C (which equals 1.083 - I did the math :p) from either 1850 or 1898 ("the majority" hasn't come to consensus yet on that) to the present - to whit we are forced to conclude it's perfectly ok for the world's foremost experts on the subject to deplete an entire nation of its fleet of gas guzzling limousines to attend a conference on the disaster that is global warming (or cooling - take your pick).
Want to at least try contributing some counter-arguments, or even... facts? ;)
Nah - I deny climate, and spent my ten bucks on 2.5 gallons of gas.
 
Upvote 0

EdwinWillers

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
19,443
5,258
Galt's Gulch
✟8,420.00
Country
Niue
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Edwin is so worried about irreparable damage to the world's economy, but shows so little concern for irreparable damage to the world's ecosystems, and what that would mean not just for the world's economy, but for humanity at large. Never mind... so long as people are making money we shouldn't be concerned, so say the faithful free market fundamentalists. They don't like having their faith challenged by science, so that they call science 'faith'.
LOL - nice try Art. But this is a discussion about being paid by Exxon to deny the climate. Ecology is a different topic entirely.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
LOL - nice try Art. But this is a discussion about being paid by Exxon to deny the climate. Ecology is a different topic entirely.

Oh, I see... it's about Exxon funding denialism, and not about the free market fundamentalist faith that drives the denialism... my mistake.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
's ok... that's a different topic too...

LOL - I see; you've set yourself as the arbitrator of what comes under this topic. Interesting how all your ridiculous hyperbole supposedly fits under this topic. We wouldn't want to exclude that as off-topic now would we Edwin?
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In the absence of humans, what would the earths temperature be doing right now, rising or falling?

That's actually a very good question. Remember, if you read the IPCC and the reference scientific articles there are a number of known natural forcings that are discussed at length by the various scientists.

One thing that immediately springs to mind is that we should be on the downside going into another ice age. Imbrie and Imbrie (1980) we are several thousand years late going into the next ice age (according to Milankovich cycles).

Now on top of that you'd also have to see what the sun is doing and how the continents are arranged, since we know a good amount about past earth climates based on those forcings.

Right now the data indicate, based on past performance of the earth's climate system, that humans are having a large impact by pumping billions of tons of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
One thing that immediately springs to mind is that we should be on the downside going into another ice age. Imbrie and Imbrie (1980) we are several thousand years late going into the next ice age (according to Milankovich cycles).

Really? I thought they weren't due for another 30,000 years? Or is that a 'Big One' compared to maybe a 'little ice age'? Anyway, as a lay-person I thought more recent assessments were saying the next Milankovich cycle was a long way off? And we've already cancelled even this! You'll enjoy this podcast.

Ever wondered what comes after global warming, and when the next ice age will arrive? Paleo-climatologist Curt Stager has. He takes the really long view of the future of our climate. What will the world look like in a hundred thousand years? Will humans exist? And what is 'climate whiplash'?
Our Climate Future - Big Idea - 7 July 2011
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Which "facts" would those be - that the earth is cooling, or that it's warming, or that the climate is changing? Because all three have been marched before us as "fact,"

Oooops. The cooling meme was a popular press and marginal claim during the 70s, and while everyone seems to remember the Time "Coming Ice Age" cover story, few (and apparently no deniers) know the real story behind it. I would think someone who fancies themselves so educated on the subject would know that, but I forget you don't have no fancy science book learnin'.

Nah - I deny climate, and spent my ten bucks on 2.5 gallons of gas.

Fiddle while Rome burns.

Global Warming...haha..what a joke!!

Well, you can't argue against a post like this. Mainly because there's nothing of substance in it to argue against.
 
Upvote 0

EdwinWillers

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
19,443
5,258
Galt's Gulch
✟8,420.00
Country
Niue
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oooops. The cooling meme was a popular press and marginal claim during the 70s, and while everyone seems to remember the Time "Coming Ice Age" cover story, few (and apparently no deniers) know the real story behind it. I would think someone who fancies themselves so educated on the subject would know that, but I forget you don't have no fancy science book learnin'.
LOL - the "meme" as you refer to it was nevertheless put forth and accepted as fact by many who, as many are doing with the current "meme" of global warming, swallowing it hook, line and sinker like good little followers should.

And if you actually read what I wrote - admittedly in rather grand rhetorical style befitting the utterly grandiose claims of the "experts" - I'm not exactly someone who lacks "fancy science book learnin" - a claim I neither actually made (but nice try), nor is in fact true. But unlike some, I don't need to march forth my "credentials" in some vain attempt to make others look like silly, hick rubes - and ergo their "denialism" somehow proven full of "hick" error.

In other words incognito, the "I'm smart and you're not" argument for global warming is pure vanity.

There are so many topics one could discuss in this overall hoax, and within them so many categories - science, politics, psychology, economics...

Maybe we should start with the one already marched forth herein, since there are some here who are so impressed and taken by the vanity of "smarts" - the 97% agree argument.

You've seen the pictorial - 97 caricatures of people "who agree" and the differently colored 3 who don't - PROOF that.... well, let's think about - PROOF of nothing.

"Two independent studies..." - you know what that means? Two POLLS.

"Science" my dairy air.

I remember in one of my first (first of 5 - for those of you who are enamored by such inanity) college calculus courses sitting in lecture scratching my head for a couple classes trying to grasp some topic the professor was presenting. I wanted to raise my hand but no one in class was raising their hands - and frankly, I didn't want to be the first, or to otherwise appear somehow "dumb."

But at some point logic overcame emotion and I remember saying to myself, "to heck with this, I need this clarified" - and so I raised my hand. I felt every head in class turn my direction... but I asked the question anyway. I was shocked by what happened next - a dozen or so hands elsewhere went up after my question was answered, and continued through the end of the course.

A bunch of future engineers and physicists - too afraid of what their peers would think of them, that they would appear somehow "dumb" or some other nonsense.

"97% [of scientists] agree..." Well I have never given credence to polls - regardless their focus. First, for the simple reason that if someone needs to know what the majority is thinking before they can formulate their own opinion about a topic, their level of knowledge about the topic is very likely much less than their level of opinion and/or emotion - and the only effect of the poll is to reinforce what they already believe to be "true."

Moreover, I wonder just how many of the "97%" are absolutely convinced of their position (the poll demographic data isn't available), or how many would change their mind if peer pressure weren't a factor.

It's all speculation - but most importantly - it's a POLL. Big whoop.
 
Upvote 0

SOAD

Why do they always send the poor? (S.O.A.D.)
Jul 20, 2006
6,317
230
✟7,778.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I remember in one of my first (first of 5 - for those of you who are enamored by such inanity) college calculus courses sitting in lecture scratching my head for a couple classes trying to grasp some topic the professor was presenting. I wanted to raise my hand but no one in class was raising their hands - and frankly, I didn't want to be the first, or to otherwise appear somehow "dumb."

But at some point logic overcame emotion and I remember saying to myself, "to heck with this, I need this clarified" - and so I raised my hand. I felt every head in class turn my direction... but I asked the question anyway. I was shocked by what happened next - a dozen or so hands elsewhere went up after my question was answered, and continued through the end of the course.
STUPENDOUS!
You truely are a leader because you are unafraid to ask the questions nobody else is willing to ask, and that is why there is a high probability that global warming is a hoax. We can only hope you end up in a room full of scientists who believe in global warming so you can start the question and answer session. After all, all those scientists are simply afraid to raise their hand.


:D
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,119
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
LOL - the "meme" as you refer to it was nevertheless put forth and accepted as fact by many who, as many are doing with the current "meme" of global warming, swallowing it hook, line and sinker like good little followers should.

And if you actually read what I wrote - admittedly in rather grand rhetorical style befitting the utterly grandiose claims of the "experts" - I'm not exactly someone who lacks "fancy science book learnin" - a claim I neither actually made (but nice try), nor is in fact true. But unlike some, I don't need to march forth my "credentials" in some vain attempt to make others look like silly, hick rubes - and ergo their "denialism" somehow proven full of "hick" error.

In other words incognito, the "I'm smart and you're not" argument for global warming is pure vanity.

There are so many topics one could discuss in this overall hoax, and within them so many categories - science, politics, psychology, economics...

Maybe we should start with the one already marched forth herein, since there are some here who are so impressed and taken by the vanity of "smarts" - the 97% agree argument.

You've seen the pictorial - 97 caricatures of people "who agree" and the differently colored 3 who don't - PROOF that.... well, let's think about - PROOF of nothing.

"Two independent studies..." - you know what that means? Two POLLS.

"Science" my dairy air.

I remember in one of my first (first of 5 - for those of you who are enamored by such inanity) college calculus courses sitting in lecture scratching my head for a couple classes trying to grasp some topic the professor was presenting. I wanted to raise my hand but no one in class was raising their hands - and frankly, I didn't want to be the first, or to otherwise appear somehow "dumb."

But at some point logic overcame emotion and I remember saying to myself, "to heck with this, I need this clarified" - and so I raised my hand. I felt every head in class turn my direction... but I asked the question anyway. I was shocked by what happened next - a dozen or so hands elsewhere went up after my question was answered, and continued through the end of the course.

A bunch of future engineers and physicists - too afraid of what their peers would think of them, that they would appear somehow "dumb" or some other nonsense.

"97% [of scientists] agree..." Well I have never given credence to polls - regardless their focus. First, for the simple reason that if someone needs to know what the majority is thinking before they can formulate their own opinion about a topic, their level of knowledge about the topic is very likely much less than their level of opinion and/or emotion - and the only effect of the poll is to reinforce what they already believe to be "true."

Moreover, I wonder just how many of the "97%" are absolutely convinced of their position (the poll demographic data isn't available), or how many would change their mind if peer pressure weren't a factor.

It's all speculation - but most importantly - it's a POLL. Big whoop.
97% are "absolutely convinced?" Looks like you are reading into the word "agree", don't you? You don't need to be "absolutely convinced" of something to agree with it.

I LOVE the argument that scientists are "eletists" so therefore all the work they do, everything they read and research, all the facts they gather, are no longer useful. What a load of old toss.

It's not a matter of being impressed, intimidated by scientists, it's a matter of respecting the fact that, hey, maybe I DON'T know as much as them on a subject.
 
Upvote 0

Umaro

Senior Veteran
Dec 22, 2006
4,497
213
✟13,505.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Meh - that a small proportion of people disagree with the prevailing public opinion - particularly on PURELY religious matters such as AGW, is NEVER a valid argument that they're wrong - indeed the "appeal to the masses" logical fallacy is quite apropos in this case

Maybe we should start with the one already marched forth herein, since there are some here who are so impressed and taken by the vanity of "smarts" - the 97% agree argument.

You've seen the pictorial - 97 caricatures of people "who agree" and the differently colored 3 who don't - PROOF that.... well, let's think about - PROOF of nothing.

I'm calling a Poe. No one could seriously choose the validity of 35% of laymen deniers over 97% of climate scientists. (Especially while claiming 35% is prevailing public opinion.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gawron

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2008
3,152
473
✟5,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One thing that immediately springs to mind is that we should be on the downside going into another ice age. Imbrie and Imbrie (1980) we are several thousand years late going into the next ice age (according to Milankovich cycles).

I think you mean Milankovitch cycles. And no one should ever question such an appeal to authority. Oh, wait....

Quote

"One of the fundamental tenets of palaeoclimate modeling, the Milankovitch theory, is called into doubt by isotope analysis of a calcite vein, just reported in Science by Winograd and colleagues. The theory, which is backed up by a compelling bank of evidence, suggests that the ice ages determined, with unprecedented accuracy, in the new record cannot be reconciled with the planetary cyclicity. . .

Winograd and colleagues' evidence also turns on oxygen isotope data, this time from vein calcite coating the hanging wall of an extensional fault at Devils Hole, an aquifer in southern Nevada. In 1988, the authors published a date, 145,000 years, based on 234U-230Th dating for the end of the penultimate ice age (Termination II), marked by an increase in the 18O to 16O ratio, a change taken to mirror an increase in local precipitation. Although the date was only 17,000 year earlier than the previously accepted date of 128,000 years, if correct, this change is enough to bring Milankovitch mechanism into serious doubt. . .

I remain confused. The geochemist in me says that Devils Hole chronology is the best we have. And the palaeoclimatologist in me says that correlation between accepted marine chronology and Milankovitch cycles is just too convincing to be put aside. . .

One side will have to give, and maybe - just to be safe - climate modellers should start preparing themselves for a world without Milankovitch."

Source Upset for Milankovitch theory

Also, if we are a few thousand years late into our next ice age, I can see where that would be a problem. How can the ignorant masses who dare to question science while still buying gas and fiddeling while Rome burns be responsible for that?
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...the way all reason is ignored, I'm sure, by the "faithful" who are in all sincerety defending "the faith" - ala Pope Urban VIII and his plethora of "qualified experts." Boy, talk about ideological rants...
I was a skeptic for a while - I didn't know what to believe, so I read up on both sides. The agw side seems more likely to be true than the denier side, but it's not gospel.

"Every national science academy on the planet?" ... is wrong. ;)
You say you're a sciency guy. Have you looked at the other side with any seriousness?
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Oooops. The cooling meme was a popular press and marginal claim during the 70s, and while everyone seems to remember the Time "Coming Ice Age" cover story, few (and apparently no deniers) know the real story behind it. I would think someone who fancies themselves so educated on the subject would know that, but I forget you don't have no fancy science book learnin'.

You mean like James Hansen?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think you mean Milankovitch cycles. And no one should ever question such an appeal to authority. Oh, wait....

Quote

"One of the fundamental tenets of palaeoclimate modeling, the Milankovitch theory, is called into doubt by isotope analysis of a calcite vein, just reported in Science by Winograd and colleagues. The theory, which is backed up by a compelling bank of evidence, suggests that the ice ages determined, with unprecedented accuracy, in the new record cannot be reconciled with the planetary cyclicity. . .

Winograd and colleagues' evidence also turns on oxygen isotope data, this time from vein calcite coating the hanging wall of an extensional fault at Devils Hole, an aquifer in southern Nevada. In 1988, the authors published a date, 145,000 years, based on 234U-230Th dating for the end of the penultimate ice age (Termination II), marked by an increase in the 18O to 16O ratio, a change taken to mirror an increase in local precipitation. Although the date was only 17,000 year earlier than the previously accepted date of 128,000 years, if correct, this change is enough to bring Milankovitch mechanism into serious doubt. . .

I remain confused. The geochemist in me says that Devils Hole chronology is the best we have. And the palaeoclimatologist in me says that correlation between accepted marine chronology and Milankovitch cycles is just too convincing to be put aside. . .

One side will have to give, and maybe - just to be safe - climate modellers should start preparing themselves for a world without Milankovitch."

Source Upset for Milankovitch theory
That article is pay for view according to the link. Do you have access to Nature? That article was from October 92. Did this upset stand or was it overthrown by subsequent data?
 
Upvote 0