Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Sep '06 04:18
    It turns out (surprise surprise) that the energy companies have been funding dodgy pseudo-scientific organisations to lie about climate change:

    http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

    In light of this, will George W Bucking Fush now sign the Kyoto Treaty?
  2. Standard member Esoteric
    Cognitive Junta
    20 Sep '06 04:27
    Originally posted by howardgee
    It turns out (surprise surprise) that the energy companies have been funding dodgy pseudo-scientific organisations to lie about climate change:

    http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

    In light of this, will George W Bucking Fush now sign the Kyoto Treaty?
    I doubt he will. He will personally lose alot of money from big business if he did.
  3. Standard member scottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    20 Sep '06 04:27
    Originally posted by howardgee
    It turns out (surprise surprise) that the energy companies have been funding dodgy pseudo-scientific organisations to lie about climate change:

    http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

    In light of this, will George W Bucking Fush now sign the Kyoto Treaty?
    £10 says he won't.
  4. 20 Sep '06 16:09
    He won't sign the treaty because there's nothing anyone can do to mitigate this naturally occurring cyclical phenomenon. Moreover, it would be stupid to hamstring our economy when the Europeans can't even meet their obligations under the treaty and their participation has caused economic growth to stall. Lastly, why should he sign it when the Chinese, Indians and the developing countries will not be bound by it, yet those countries are the greatest polluters? Besides, in another eight years, everyone will have forgotten about global warming and instead will be talking about global cooling.
  5. Standard member Draxus
    Mr. Bombastic
    20 Sep '06 18:07
    Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
    He won't sign the treaty because there's nothing anyone can do to mitigate this naturally occurring cyclical phenomenon. Moreover, it would be stupid to hamstring our economy when the Europeans can't even meet their obligations under the treaty and their participation has caused economic growth to stall. Lastly, why should he sign it when the Chi ...[text shortened]... ne will have forgotten about global warming and instead will be talking about global cooling.
    I'm not sure if I agree with the issue or not, but you can't just say that this is a "naturally occuring cyclical phenomenon." That very statement is what is being argued here. If you say that, you are going to have to produce some sort of counter-evidence.

    Good points otherwise
  6. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Sep '06 18:23
    Originally posted by howardgee
    It turns out (surprise surprise) that the energy companies have been funding dodgy pseudo-scientific organisations to lie about climate change:

    http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

    In light of this, will George W Bucking Fush now sign the Kyoto Treaty?
    Let's not be innocent, are there any neutral surveys?

    Should studies put forth by 'green' organisations be dismissed, just because they are the interested party?

    Rebuttal of studies should be done by attacking its contents, not by ad hominem.
  7. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    20 Sep '06 21:57
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Let's not be innocent, are there any neutral surveys?

    Should studies put forth by 'green' organisations be dismissed, just because they are the interested party?

    Rebuttal of studies should be done by attacking its contents, not by ad hominem.
    Isn't this whats happening in the article in post 1. There is one organisation trying to shut up another organisation.
  8. 20 Sep '06 23:14
    why should he sign it when the Chinese, Indians and the developing countries will not be bound by it, yet those countries are the greatest polluters?
    actually the biggest polluter is the US by a long way. China second.
  9. 21 Sep '06 01:33
    Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
    He won't sign the treaty because there's nothing anyone can do to mitigate this naturally occurring cyclical phenomenon. Moreover, it would be stupid to hamstring our economy when the Europeans can't even meet their obligations under the treaty and their participation has caused economic growth to stall. Lastly, why should he sign it when the Chi ...[text shortened]... ne will have forgotten about global warming and instead will be talking about global cooling.
    Nonsense.
    You've been reading too much of the aforementioned Pseudo-science.
    Or are you being paid by Exxon-Mobil?
  10. 21 Sep '06 01:34
    Originally posted by howardgee
    Nonsense.
    You've been reading too much of the aforementioned Pseudo-science.
    Or are you being paid by Exxon-Mobil?
    Oh, my mistake, you are just a complete hill-billy redneck Jerk:

    (From your profile):
    "We live in Dallas, Texas, the greatest city in the United States of America."

    That figures!
  11. 21 Sep '06 14:49
    Originally posted by howardgee
    Oh, my mistake, you are just a complete hill-billy redneck Jerk:

    (From your profile):
    "We live in Dallas, Texas, the greatest city in the United States of America."

    That figures!
    The evidence from your side must be pretty compelling if have to resort to name calling, but the truth is there is nothing approaching consensus among climate scientists as to the causes of global warming. Based upon your response I gather that you’re some pasty-faced vegan teen activist and that I've insulted your religion. Maybe when you have something to add to the discussion we can continue this dialogue; until then, go eat a hamburger or something.
  12. 21 Sep '06 15:02
    Originally posted by Draxus
    I'm not sure if I agree with the issue or not, but you can't just say that this is a "naturally occuring cyclical phenomenon."
    Of course I can...and I did! Moreover, so do all of these folks:

    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N35/C1.jsp

    http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N33/C1.jsp

    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/speech/2006/20060719-sp.html

    http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/national-academy-fails-global-warming-ref

    http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05394.cfm

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N23/EDIT.jsp
  13. 22 Sep '06 03:52
    Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
    The evidence from your side must be pretty compelling if have to resort to name calling, but the truth is there is nothing approaching consensus among climate scientists as to the causes of global warming. Based upon your response I gather that you’re some pasty-faced vegan teen activist and that I've insulted your religion. Maybe when you have s ...[text shortened]... d to the discussion we can continue this dialogue; until then, go eat a hamburger or something.
    Did you even read the site I posted?

    Obviously not, or you would have not made such a glibly incorrect statement:

    "this naturally occurring cyclical phenomenon."

    Educate yourself with a factual site instead of the lies you are spreading:

    http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

    (That is if you can stop servicing your sister for long enough)
  14. 22 Sep '06 03:58
    Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
    Of course I can...and I did! Moreover, so do all of these folks:

    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N35/C1.jsp

    http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N33/C1.jsp

    ...[text shortened]... gencon/019,05394.cfm

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N23/EDIT.jsp
    More right wing nonsense of the type discredited by the sites I mentioned.

    Take your first weblink for instance to the NCPA:

    The NCPA is in reality

    "A right wing think tank with programs devoted to privatization in the following issue areas: taxes, Social Security and Medicare, health care, criminal justice, environment, education, and welfare."
    http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10242

    Please stop propogating lies, you nasty Texan, Bush supporting liar.
  15. 22 Sep '06 05:16
    Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
    Of course I can...and I did! Moreover, so do all of these folks:

    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N35/C1.jsp

    http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N33/C1.jsp

    ...[text shortened]... gencon/019,05394.cfm

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N23/EDIT.jsp
    Another of your sources is dicredited:

    "Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as ...the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide"
    http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

    this removes all your co2science links as valid sources.

    Any more lies you want to spread, evil spawn of Bush?