Rename "Global Warming Forum"

[Heckler]

Originally Posted by coyote

That’s not very much, Greenpeace alone gets an annual income of $23.4 million. If we are ever going to have a real debate on this subject climate skeptics should get at least the same amount of money these environmental groups do. Open your wallet Rex Tillerson you cheap bastard!!!

They have the combined resources of the oil companies....that's a pretty big pile of money....much more than 23.4 million.....

Greenpeace isn’t motivated by greed? Do you really think they wouldn’t care if the Turner Foundation stopped giving them checks every year? Are all the corporations that pushed for the Kyoto Treaty, like General Electric, DuPont, and Enron, are they not motivated by greed? What is greed? Is Al Gore not motivated by greed? He seems to be enjoying the wealth he accumulated from the success of his film.?

excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves....

One could argue that Gore is greedy by the above definition, but that wouldn't apply to an organization...though it might to people within it that it could apply to....

from what I know of activists, most are NOT motivated by money, though they need some to accomplish their stated goals.

Entirely different motivation's factor in with CEO's....typically money being the most important....

[/quote]
If Environmental groups are distorting science why shouldn’t Exxon Mobile support skeptics to correct them?[/quote]

You kind of have the last part backwards there...

In fact...you got the whole fucking thing backwards....nice try though

[coyote]

Originally Posted by Heckler

They have the combined resources of the oil companies....that's a pretty big pile of money....much more than 23.4 million.....

Sure the combined resources of the oil industry is above $23 million, but they don’t use their accumulated resources to fund skeptics to the extent Greenpeace backers spend their causes.

Originally Posted by Heckler

excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves....

One could argue that Gore is greedy by the above definition, but that wouldn't apply to an organization...though it might to people within it that it could apply to....

from what I know of activists, most are NOT motivated by money, though they need some to accomplish their stated goals.

Entirely different motivation's factor in with CEO's....typically money being the most important....

Oh sure, activists aren’t greedy, and you and I aren’t greedy, it’s always some other guy who is greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their self-interest, the great achievements of civilizations have not come from well meaning activists, but by innovators seeking a personal fortune.

Originally Posted by Heckler

If Environmental groups are distorting science why shouldn’t Exxon Mobile support skeptics to correct them?

You kind of have the last part backwards there...

In fact...you got the whole fucking thing backwards....nice try though

I respectfully disagree.

[Upton]

Originally Posted by coyote

That’s not very much, Greenpeace alone gets an annual income of $23.4 million. If we are ever going to have a real debate on this subject climate skeptics should get at least the same amount of money these environmental groups do. Open your wallet Rex Tillerson you cheap bastard!!!

Greenpeace's income is peanuts compared to the oil companies. Exxon Mobil, alone, is worth over 500 billion. One can only guess at how much money has been spread around, behind the scenes, to global warming deniers.

Exxon Mobil Worth Tops $500 Billion






World's Largest Oil Company Has Been Fighting Global Warming Regulation Exxon Mobil Corp. hit a new milestone with the disclosure that it is now worth more than half a trillion dollars. The oil giant is flush from its control over every aspect of pumping and delivering oil and gas. In the past, it has used a tiny fraction of that money to influence government and the public on the issue of global warming. Given oil's role in causing the heating of the atmosphere -- as an energy source, it's second only to coal, in terms of carbon content -- it's probably no surprise that Exxon's now well-known efforts were designed to obscure scientific consensus and prevent action on an issue that seems, by most credible accounts, to be growing ever more urgent. Exxon, of late, has insisted that it is not a "climate change denier" and that it wants to play a constructive role. There are about a half a trillion ways it could do that.

[coyote]

Originally Posted by Upton

Greenpeace's income is peanuts compared to the oil companies. Exxon Mobil, alone, is worth over 500 billion. One can only guess at how much money has been spread around, behind the scenes, to global warming deniers.

Well DUUUHHHH, Exxon is a corporation while Greenpeace is a non-profit.

[CrankyYankee]

Originally Posted by coyote

Well DUUUHHHH, Exxon is a corporation while Greenpeace is a non-profit.

If you go back and review the thread, I believe you will find you were complaining that the skeptics were underfunded.

Now you are going DUH? when it's pointed out that that is not the case?

[coyote]

Originally Posted by CrankyYankee

If you go back and review the thread, I believe you will find you were complaining that the skeptics were underfunded.

Now you are going DUH? when it's pointed out that that is not the case?

Skeptics are under-funded, Environmental organizations get way more cash form their backers. We all know Exxon has plenty of cash, so if we are ever going to have any sort of honest debate about global warming, the oil companies need to cough-up more cash to climate-skeptic organizations. Do you have any ideas on how to do that?

[Upton]

Looks like Exxon Mobil will have to throw around some more of their 500 billion in an attempt to debunk this new report.

Urgent Action Needed on Global Warming

Climate change is real and happening at an ever faster pace, a United Nations scientific panel said in a hard-hitting report issued Saturday on tackling global warming.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was delivering its fourth and final report on the science of climate change and the impact of human-produced greenhouse gases at a conference in Valencia, Spain.

The report produced by the Nobel prize-winning panel warns of the devastating impact for developing countries and the threat of species extinction posed by the climate crisis.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, presenting the report, warned that some of the effects of rising levels of greenhouse gases may already be irreversible.

The U.N. head said the situation was already "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" could head off the crisis.

He told the panel he was hopeful that the report's findings could help bring about "a real breakthrough" in climate change negotiations in Bali, Indonesia, next month.

The Bali talks will set the groundwork for the successor to the Kyoto treaty, which expires in 2012.

They will also guide global climate policy for at least the next decade, and dictate the types of long-term investment decisions made by big industries and utilities.

Written by more than 2,500 top government-appointed scientists, Saturday's report contains a summary for policymakers attending the Bali talks, outlining the scientific evidence for global warming and ways to deal with it.

However, panel member Achim Steiner, Executive Director of United Nations Environment Programme, said the report was also meant to serve as a "civilian's guide" to dealing with climate change. He said he hoped individuals could use the information contained in the report to take practical steps to curbing gas emissions.

The reports warns that in spite of the protocols adopted by many western countries after Kyoto, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise by between 25 and 90 per cent by 2030.

The report also predicts a rise in global warming of around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

The U.N. panel -- the recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore -- was asked if goals of reducing emissions could be achieved without the contribution of China and especially the United States, which was one of only a few countries that did not sign up to the Kyoto treaty.

Ban Ki-moon said he had "high expectations" that both countries would play a "constructive role" at the upcoming talks.

"Both countries I think can and should lead each in its own way," he said.

Scientists say up to an 85 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions is needed to head off potential catastrophic changes that could lead to more floods and famine.

However, the disagreement over how the cuts should be managed may well stall the Bali talks.

Some countries are thought to be in favor of mandatory caps on emissions, which could hit the industrial output of major carbon dioxide producers such as the United States.

Mandatory caps are also unlikely to be supported by developing countries, who fear they could be a barrier to growth.

Opponents of the caps -- thought to include the Bush administration -- favor voluntary restrictions and suggest postponing mandatory caps until the richer world is better able to pay for it, and cleaner energy technologies are more developed.

Writing in the International Herald Tribune on Friday, the U.N. head said the world was "on the verge of a catastrophe if we do not act."

However, he insisted that he remained optimistic that international cooperation could still help reverse the damage caused by unchecked temperature rises.

U.N.'s landmark report on warming - World environment - MSNBC.com

[satv365]

Name it Islamofreedomchrist and you'd get neocon attention to it.

[coyote]

Originally Posted by Upton

Looks like Exxon Mobil will have to throw around some more of their 500 billion in an attempt to debunk this new report.U.N.'s landmark report on warming - World environment - MSNBC.com

How do we get them to do that?

[Upton]

Originally Posted by coyote

How do we get them to do that?

They're obviously already doing it, as they are the principal funders of the global warming skeptic crowd. We know that, of course, but I wonder how much money is exchanging hands that is not reported. I'm sure it's a handsome sum.