The North Pole could melt this year

[Chris]

Ice is also melting on Mars, and other planets are getting warmer as well...it's not just Earth. Glaciers have been melting for YEARS. There are large cut-outs in the mountains from glaciers that completed melting thousands of years ago...was it Humans. There were glaciers thousands of years ago that were melted before we started burning fossil fuels. As far as my "butt buddies" ... If they were "butt buddies" of mine, they'd be alot better than your butt buddy.

You misunderstood. I did not say they were your butt buddies. I said they were your Exxon butt buddies.

 

[Charles_Main]

Personally I think were all fucked anyways.

lol

 

[BrianH]

Odd.

I can't find any evidence of volcanic activity under the polar ice cap in any reputable scientific journal.

I see a LOT about it in right wing blogs, though.

Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice | LiveScience

I posted this earlier....

 

[jreeves]

I guess you don't know how to use google. No wonder you don't know anything. Check out sourcewatch.org. It shows who is pulling your strings.

That's not the point, it is against copyright laws to post someone else's work without citing it in your post.

 

[jreeves]

jreeves, the author of the article quoted above works for the tobacco industry and the oil industry. Check out this profile......

Singer was born September 27, 1924, in Vienna, Austria. Singer received a B.E.E. from Ohio State University in 1943 and a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948.

In the early 1990s, Singer's wife, Candace Carolyn Crandall, was Executive Vice President of SEPP and is currently a Research Associate of SEPP. [1]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute lists Singer as "expert" on their website. [2]

[edit]Affiliations
1989- Director and President, Science and Environmental Policy Project, a foundation-funded, independent research group, incorporated in 1992, to advance environment and health policies through sound science. SEPP is a non-profit, education organization.
1993- Member of the board of the International Center for a Scientific Ecology.
1994- Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
2002 Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health
Editorial Advisory Board, The Cato Institute
Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis
Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom
2006- Member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.
It should be noted that, according to Environmental Defense, October 26, 2005: [3]

The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
[edit]Climate Change "Expert"
The National Center for Public Policy Research [4] lists Singer as someone that journalists can interview on climate change policy.[5]

[edit]Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[1]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]

[edit]Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

I hope your Exxon donor list, isn't coming from Greenpeace because Greenpeace isn't exactly a non partisan source. So until you start citing your post, you can't be taken seriously. I am sure that Greenpeace thinks that all anti-global warming studies are funded by Exxon.

 

[jreeves]

I hope your Exxon donor list, isn't coming from Greenpeace because Greenpeace isn't exactly a non partisan source. So until you start citing your post, you can't be taken seriously. I am sure that Greenpeace thinks that all anti-global warming studies are funded by Exxon.

Nevermind....

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: S. Fred Singer

 

[jreeves]

Nevermind....

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: S. Fred Singer

Greenpeace funded....

Enviromental wacko... of course greenpeace is going to say they're funded by Exxon.

 

[jreeves]

Greenpeace funded....

Enviromental wacko... of course greenpeace is going to say they're funded by Exxon.

Your beloved greenpeace...
Blockading a naval base in protest of the war in Iraq; * Boarding an oil tanker for a "banner hang"; * Breaking into the central control building of a nuclear power station; and * Padlocking the gates of a government research facility.
"The law says that tax-exempt contributions must be spent on tax-exempt programs. Greenpeace is spending tax-exempt contributions on non-exempt -- and oftentimes illegal -- programs," Hardiman said. "This is a clear violation of the law."
Because Greenpeace receives significant donations from large entities, such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Turner Foundation, the report also calls into question the accountability of these donors.
"The state of California has a series of statutes designed to protect the public from impropriety on the part of non-profits," Hardiman, said." And in the case of Greenpeace, it's clear violations of the law mean that the state's Attorney General should take action. And if the state's Attorney General proves unwilling, we would encourage him to grant PIW 'relator status' so that we can."

Nonprofit Watchdog Files IRS Complaint Against Greenpeace, Seeks Federal Probe

Public Interest Watch (PIW) was established in 2002 in response to the growing misuse of charitable funds by nonprofit organizations and the lack of effort by government agencies to deal with the problem. PIW works to fight charitable trust abuse by exposing individual cases of abuse and advocating for stronger governmental oversight, including requirements for greater financial disclosure by charitable organizations.


PIW is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit corporation, with additional offices in California. PIW is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization, which means contributions to PIW are not tax-deductible. To learn more, visit Public Interest Watch.

Now I know why you don't cite sources.....

 

[Chris]

Your beloved greenpeace...
Blockading a naval base in protest of the war in Iraq; * Boarding an oil tanker for a "banner hang"; * Breaking into the central control building of a nuclear power station; and * Padlocking the gates of a government research facility.
"The law says that tax-exempt contributions must be spent on tax-exempt programs. Greenpeace is spending tax-exempt contributions on non-exempt -- and oftentimes illegal -- programs," Hardiman said. "This is a clear violation of the law."
Because Greenpeace receives significant donations from large entities, such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Turner Foundation, the report also calls into question the accountability of these donors.
"The state of California has a series of statutes designed to protect the public from impropriety on the part of non-profits," Hardiman, said." And in the case of Greenpeace, it's clear violations of the law mean that the state's Attorney General should take action. And if the state's Attorney General proves unwilling, we would encourage him to grant PIW 'relator status' so that we can."

Nonprofit Watchdog Files IRS Complaint Against Greenpeace, Seeks Federal Probe

Public Interest Watch (PIW) was established in 2002 in response to the growing misuse of charitable funds by nonprofit organizations and the lack of effort by government agencies to deal with the problem. PIW works to fight charitable trust abuse by exposing individual cases of abuse and advocating for stronger governmental oversight, including requirements for greater financial disclosure by charitable organizations.


PIW is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit corporation, with additional offices in California. PIW is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization, which means contributions to PIW are not tax-deductible. To learn more, visit Public Interest Watch.

Now I know why you don't cite sources.....

Greenpeace? I use sourcewatch.org Why do you make up stuff?

 

[Chris]

Greenpeace funded....

Enviromental wacko... of course greenpeace is going to say they're funded by Exxon.

From Wiki....


A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[40]

In 2007, the nonprofit advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists called Singer a "climate contrarian." [41] ABC News has reported that Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once received an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon.[42].

 

[Foxfyre]

Sourcewatch.org is a highly partisan group dedicated to casting doubt on anything positive on the conservative/GOP side of the ledger. Their reports are frequently misleading at best; downright dishonest at worst. Doubt that? Just follow the money.

The fact is that philanthropists, foundations, and corporations do give charitable contributions to numerous organization. Exxon has given large contributions to the Boy Scouts of America and also the Girl Scouts for instance. Should we presume that these youth organizations are in the pocket of the oil companies?

It is normal and natural for corporations to fund groups or research that a) they appreciate and/or b) wish to encourage. This is true of ALL corporations who give to all manner of causes and programs and projects. I haven't done detailed research, but many of those scientific research projects that have received funding from the oil companies have also received funding from groups doing wind, solar, and hydro energy stuff. Of course those attempting to discredit those scientists don't mention that. How do I know this? Because a scientists who has received funding from all those industries for a research project has told me so.

One cannot automatically assume that independent scientists will slant or distort their findings to accommodate a contributor. If one is wholly or mostly funded by the oil companies, then he would be suspect. If all or most of his funding comes from other sources, a contribution from an oil company is not damning.

Those who point aghast at a scientific group that received a $10,000 (or whatever) contribution from Exxon rarely look to see where the funding for the pro-AGW groups is coming from, and how that could be in serious jeopardy if they in any way suggested that AGW is grossly exaggerated or isn't happening at all.

Some people only want to hear what they want to believe. And some of us want to be right about this and think it is prudent to look at ALL of the science instead of just that which supports our adopted point of view.

 

[BrianH]

Exactly, these scientists are getting "desired" results. They do just as you do, they ignore any evidence pointing the other way and claim that it's not credible. Kirk uses volcano activity on the equator to explain the little ice age and the cooling of the world, but thinks it completely inconceivable that volcanic activity underneath the arctic ice could melt the ice. Very biased IMO and a lack of understanding in logical argument.

 

[jreeves]

From Wiki....


A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[40]

In 2007, the nonprofit advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists called Singer a "climate contrarian." [41] ABC News has reported that Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once received an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon.[42].

This scientist is paid off too I guess?



Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has
authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous
scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the
United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one
of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of
climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of
being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a
very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives
point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by
mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a
September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post inCanada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest
environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful
battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.”
Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers”
mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's
role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and
preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and
U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global
warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last
century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who
signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in
which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

 

[jreeves]

This scientist is paid off too I guess?



Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has
authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous
scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the
United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one
of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of
climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of
being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a
very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives
point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by
mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a
September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post inCanada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest
environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful
battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.”
Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers”
mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's
role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and
preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and
U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global
warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last
century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who
signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in
which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

We'll go through all 300 of them if necessary....

 

[jreeves]

From Wiki....


A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[40]

In 2007, the nonprofit advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists called Singer a "climate contrarian." [41] ABC News has reported that Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once received an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon.[42].

Lmao....$10,000 is enough for Singer to sell out his reputation.....Lmao....

 

[Chris]

Lmao....$10,000 is enough for Singer to sell out his reputation.....Lmao....

LMAO!!! What reputation?

The guy works for the Petroleum Institute and the tobacco companies.

He will burn in Hell.

 

[jreeves]

LMAO!!! What reputation?

The guy works for the Petroleum Institute and the tobacco companies.

He will burn in Hell.

Sure he does, proof please? So do the other 300 scientist in the report I posted right? You do realize global warming hysteria is big business right?

 

[Chris]

Sure he does, proof please? So do the other 300 scientist in the report I posted right? You do realize global warming hysteria is big business right?

Newsweek article on you and your friends.....


Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com

 

[jreeves]

Newsweek article on you and your friends.....


Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com

You do realize that Nobel peace winners don't take 10,000 dollars to sell out their reputation right?

 

[Chris]

You do realize that Nobel peace winners don't take 10,000 dollars to sell out their reputation right?

You have adopted the three rules of lying...deny, deny, deny.

Great article. Everyone should read it.


Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com