Forums Index >> General >> global warming part 33: exxon payola for bad scien...
LC may soon reach the point where he becomes confrontational...like most of us who attempt to debate the right wingers!
First stage: interpreting whether their misinformation stems from misinterpretation of the facts, echoing of bad facts, or deliberate misrepresentation of the facts...
Plan: reinstruct
Outcome: they recycle misinformation
Plan: reinstruct
Outcome: they recycle misinformation
Plan: rather than confront a viscious cycle of bad thinking, you cut to the quick and address the bad thinker. Or, you drop the endeavor altogether.
Personally, I don't like it when entrenched ideology gets the last word...
I see what you are trying to say( I think) but
You still don't get the simplest of concepts
So how can CO2 increase without decreasing oxygen
It doesnt.. The atmosphere would thicken hence trapping the RAD. Energies.
It (O2) HAS to decrease
the burning of fossil fuels causes C02 to increase
at the expense of O2
So are you saying the atmosphere is thickening
because of increasing oxygen ??????
^LMAO
You still don't get the simplest of concepts
No, I think you dont get it.
Just because the binding of O2 and carbon to make CO2 doesnt mean
photosynthesis stops. ( each time you take a breath doesnt mean there is a pause in photosynthesis)
The burning of fossil fuels causes C02 to increase
at the expense of O2.
Obvious, did u also know that grass is green?
So are you saying the atmosphere is thickening
because of increasing oxygen ???
No.. I am saying any increase of any mass will become denser.
Are you saying the convertion of O2 into CO2 cause a decrease of O2 due to a
pause of photosynthesis while O2 is being coverted???
Or (I like this better) you are saying increase of CO2 cause a decrease of O2
due all plant life being killed by increasing temperature because of trapped
Rad energy, thus haulting photosynthesis.
Let me add;
O2 is constant as is CO2.
I hope your science teacher is not reading this..
LOL
Last edited: Thursday, October 05, 2006 at 2:21:04 PM
@ LC50
You have to read player 36's comment first
I was making that same point to him
Notice I said "the issue is climate"
@ vash
Just put what I've been saying on the shelf, some day
it will make sence to you.
T raider
^comical.
Just like I said before, u lack circumspection.
FYI;
Air is 21% oxygen
so if CO2 doubles (say 350ppm or so)
air will be 20.965% oxygen
^that is just crazy talk.
simple subtraction only work on fixed numbers, not on constant variables.
LMAO
Does that make
Sence
Or did u mean seance?
Last edited: Friday, October 06, 2006 at 11:25:14 PM
: :
Exxon mobil has been paying groups to promote anti-global warming "science."
Exxon had given $2.9 million to 39 groups that "have been misinforming the public about the science of climate change."
The groups _ among more than 50 listed on Exxon's Web site as receiving funding for "public information and policy research" _ include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group based in Washington, and the Tempe, Ariz.-based Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which Ward said disputes the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
"It's bizarre that a company like ExxonMobil should be funding an organization that so clearly is putting out information that is at odds with the opinion of the scientific community," Ward told The Associated Press.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4201411.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/business/21green.html?ref=worldbusiness
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story
By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.
This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
Many of you bought it. Way to go, einsteins. How is it that you smart people keep getting it wrong? Something is predisposing you to error.
Predisposing you...tired of being wrong all the time? I'm tired of you being wrong. Many of you need to reflect long and hard. What is predisposing you to alternate visions of reality? Only to be exposed as wrong again, later when the facts come out.
Some of us just seem to get it...and I'm not all that bright either, so it can't be about intelligence...what are your predispositions anyway, YOU THINKERS OF BAD THOUGHTS? And what is it about being republican that seems to lead to constantly coming down on the wrong side of the facts? Is there a requisite will to delusion ? Because that's what it seems like to me...you must really want to be wrong to be wrong so often.