Well, I'm shocked. Big Oil acting like Big Tobacco and spreading confusion when they know the truth.

Reprobate scum.

What say you now, deniers?

Clearly since no one measured the temperature 800,000 years ago we cannot prove that the climate is changing.

Clearly since no one measured the temperature 800,000 years ago we cannot prove that the climate is changing.

Since no one took pictures, we cannot prove there was an 800,000 years ago. All we know about prehistoric times came to light with the Flintstones.

Since we cannot see air we cannot know for sure if it is there.

So let me get this straight. You guys are upset because the big oil funded firm did not listen to its guys. The guys who's opinion is being proven further off every day. And you think it makes big oil funded firm look bad because even though they have been vindicated? I am still a little confused, these guys were regurgitating flawed ideas but they are still the heroes in your book? Ok ok, i'm starting to understand, you think the verdict was in in 1995 and the plethora of data that refutes it is all wrong. Fine, so even though the alarmist are changing their story at breakneck speed they are still infallible to you? I'm just wondering because it would seem the company made the right call and yet is still vilified for it.

"Ostrich award goes to salamandator!"

Yes because I'm the one who freaked out before any sort of reasonable conclusions were reached.

Still it is funny that usually if someone has even received a free pen from an oil company he is discredited in the eyes of the envro-nazis, this time they are not because you agree. Interesting they can only be a bought and payed for if they disagree but are literately perfect is they subscribe to your propaganda.

So at the congressional hearings today--Gore and Gingrich spoke--but another scientist who was not buying the global warming was not allowed to speak.

"
So at the congressional hearings today--Gore and Gingrich spoke--but another scientist who was not buying the global warming was not allowed to speak.

#8 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-04-24 09:48 PM"

MURPHY, Scientist? Link please. Thanks,

"UK political advisor and non-scientist, Lord Monckton"

Lord Monckton

That's who Murphy was talking about?

No way. That's way too stupid even for Murph. I have to read those links now. . .

Wow. It was Monckton.

*headdesk*

Stupid beyond all belief.

...and the right greedily bought into their spin and defended the naysayers with bravado. dumb bitches, no wonder they run to god whenever they don't understand something and rely on big business to manage their lives.

yeah regime

Im shocked too
imagine someone or something not falling for the algore investment plan?

They already have analyzed paleo climatic data from 80,000 years ago, and the changing temperatures have been unprecedented. You need to read the IPCC report.

OK. Regime, NorthTurd,726 and Let-U-Spray should give back all the petro they have used since 1995.

That's gasoline, plastic, and a thousand other things.

Oh my!

The phony outrage!

The fake indignation!

The silly posing!

What a bunch of hypocrite cunts. If you were men I'd call you losers. But no matter how you are plumbed you are stupid cunts.

The coalition disbanded in 2002, but some members, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute, continue to lobby against any law or treaty that would sharply curb emissions. Others, like Exxon Mobil, now recognize a human contribution to global warming and have largely dropped financial support to groups challenging the science.

At least Exxon is bright enough to not fund the deniars anymore.

That's progress, innit?

Be Well.

Industry Ignored Own Scientists on Climate

Pales in comparison to....

Nation Buys Into Bullshit Man Made Global Warming and Screws it's self Into the GROUND.

Bin Laden Determine To Strike In US

Nation Buys Into Bullshit Man Made Global Warming and Screws it's self Into the GROUND.

#17 | Posted by Mato at 2009-04-26 04:44 AM | Reply | Flag: fights fact with fiction

fights fact with fiction
posted by panchovilla

You've got to be kidding, DFiant.

1) Inhofe's "report" is a compilation of quotes, taken out of context, disputed by the actual researchers and scientists.

2) Many of the researchers have issued statements condemning the misuse of their research, findings and the misrepresentation of their view by Inhofe.

3) The quotes used by Inhofe have been clipped to make Inhofe's case.

4) There are no signatures other than Inhofe's on that report. There's a good reason for that.

5) I see he's been busy "updating" his "work" and has removed two of the original researchers after he was slammed by them.

It's completely embarrassing that you'd try and pass that offal off as anything other than what it is, propaganda.

One thing I don't understand, Mato, is how driving more efficient cars and living in more efficient homes will screw us.

Oh, I take it back. Inhofe's moved on of the "featured" Scientists to the report and off the front page. Let me illustrate my point:

From the Inhofe report:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.

Everyone Knows, "You can tell an attorney is lying because his mouth is moving"

If this Global Warming BS is so real, why in the he11 would anyone let Al Gore (an attorney with a vested personal monetary interest in his viewpoint) discuss this before congress, and then forbid a real honest to God scientist to even appear and testify.

The Global Warming Environmental Wackos are that afraid of the TRUTH!

and then forbid a real honest to God scientist to even appear and testify.

Curt, are you willing liar, or just ignorant of who it is you're actually referring?

Clue; The person you're referring to isn't a "real honest to God scientist." He's not even a bad scientist. He's not a scientist at all.

Last time I checked Inhofe was politician. Since when did he suddenly become a scientist? Did some home state Jr. college give him an honorary degree?

Only his equally uneducated peers would buy into his bullshit.

why in the he11 would anyone let Al Gore (an attorney with a vested personal monetary interest in his viewpoint) discuss this before congress

Why in the hell would anyone let Pennsylvania judges with vested personal monetary interests sentence juvenile offenders to prisons they're invested in?

"an attorney"

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-04-26 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag: makes up shit

Gore graduated from Harvard with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government cum laude on June 12, 1969. Then he joined the Army. After that he went to Vanderbilt divinity school. He attended law school at Vanderbilt but never graduated.

You've got to be kidding, DFiant.

1) Inhofe's "report" is a compilation of quotes, taken out of context, disputed by the actual researchers and scientists.

posted by Yav

I'm not trying to pretend that man doesn't have a contribution to the globes temperature. I'm just unwilling to believe it's as bad as some would have you believe or a "doomsday" scenario as it's often preached. There is so much contradictory "evidence" on both sides of the argument and usually when that's the case the truth is somewhere in the middle. Please do try not to swallow all the BS hook, line, and sinker.

Who's kidding who? I didn't see Inhofe's name mentioned once in that article. Just a bunch of reputable experts in the field pointing out flaws.

Really? The website is Inhofe's. The report cited bears his name.

From the first page of the cited (and linked in your link) report:

"U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Minority Staff Report (Inhofe)
www.epw.senate.gov/minority
Original Release: December 11, 2008"

"Matthew Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@Inhofe.Senate.gov (202) 224-9797
U.S."

Page 85:
"Senator Inhofe's 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report"

Just a bunch of reputable experts in the field pointing out flaws

No, actually you didn't see that at all. You read a bunch of partial quotes, out of context, clipped and cherry picked to make Inhofe's case. You obviously haven't read or checked out anything I posted, nor delved into the actual report itself. This means, that despite your admonition:

Please do try not to swallow all the BS hook, line, and sinker.

(with all due respect) your statement applies more to your argument than mine. Don't swallow Inhofe's bullshit hook, line and sinker. You've fallen for a fallacious argument of appeal to authority, and worse - the appeal to authority isn't based on the actual full quotes or the actual research of those (legitimate researchers/scientists) cited.

Of course I know why this was compelling to you. It supports your view. We seldom bother to ask "where'd the food come from?" when we're being fed what we want to eat. That's human nature, of course.