Greenpeace Says Fossil Fuel Industry Misleads On Climate Science

originally posted by: swanne
I am not a big subscriber to AGW and this is not because I take my data from Fossil Fuel Corps, but because I take my data from the NOAA herself.

This is just another tactic aimed at discrediting the remaining scientists who entertain a healthy skepticism towards the AGW theory.

*eyeroll*

Yes, some scientists get corrupted by money from Big Oil Corps (just like so many scientists are given funds so to promote AGW theory). But some scientists also like to use their own brain and form their own conclusion, even if they get silenced by new bullying tactics.

Until someone actually produces some ACTUAL evidence of climate scientists taking bribes to push climate science I REFUSE to believe it is true. I know it is possible, but possibility isn't an affirmation that something happened. So either drop that crappy rhetoric from your lexicon or go produce some damn evidence. If you want to stick to the science, great, but don't pull out unsourced political claims to back your points. It makes me distrust your claim about caring about the science.

However, this does not mean that we should continue polluting the Earth. I hope this century will see the end of Fossil Fuel indeed, but I also hope that science will not be turned into a propaganda tool in the process.

Science has been a propaganda tool for a LONG time already. I think you missed the boat on that one. But that applies to anti-science and science both being propaganda tools.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Al Gore isn't a scientist... I don't care about his opinion on the matter. Do you know what a scientist is? Do you know what a politician is?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have already provided countless evidences in those countless of threads in which you and I debated about the same very topic.

My time is limited, and I already know that you are biased towards supporting AGW. I fail to see how presenting to you my evidences a hundredth time will convince you of anything, so I hope you don't mind if I pass the (albeit quite tempting) invitation.

a reply to: swanne

Do you. I just request you stop repeating the lie that scientists are accepting bribes to push climate science until you can actually produce some concrete evidence of it happening. I've yet to EVER see concrete evidence of that silly claim.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

scientists= many, your example 2! tecnically that is many, ho hum. By the way seeing how you're all stuck up about evidence and peer review, did you sight any bank statements showing mohey changing hands? or do we just take Greenpeace word for it? I mean the IPCC would not mislead about hockey stick gradients that didnt fit the agenda would they

You think that I care what you believe?

Why would I provide any of such evidences to you? To change your mind? I don't want to change your mind, you can keep your ignorance if you like, I believe you are old enough to investigate/ignore evidences by yourself.

Why, You don't know how to run Internet searches?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why, You don't know how to run Internet searches?

I certainly do and I haven't found any evidence there either, but in any case, you made the claim. Not me. Don't pretend like the evidence is a google search away when we both know that isn't the case. I'm sure you can find TONS of sources (probably conservative in nature) making this claim, but they'll all fail to produce evidence that it is true. Or they'll link other circumstantial evidence with it, but never anything concrete.

ETA: I just read your edit. Lol nice deflection there buddy. Instead of actually producing some evidence you get angry at me for asking you to produce evidence. Thanks I know who is really trying to be ignorant here.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t

scientists= many, your example 2! tecnically that is many, ho hum. By the way seeing how you're all stuck up about evidence and peer review, did you sight any bank statements showing mohey changing hands? or do we just take Greenpeace word for it?

Actually I pointed out three in the OP. Way to read it buddy...

And in any case, it is three more scientists than you've pointed out. I find it funny that any about of dubious evidence can be used to "prove" that climate scientists accept bribes to push climate science, but when I produce concrete evidence and actual NAMES of scientists doing it to push anti-climate science, suddenly the evidence isn't good enough. Lol you are so transparent.

I mean the IPCC would not mislead about hockey stick gradients that didnt fit the agenda would they

Who knows? Asking a question isn't affirmation that it is true. Care to prove this question is true or are you just trying to muddy the waters (as I highly suspect)?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Or they'll link other circumstantial evidence with it, but never anything concrete.

You mean just like what Greenpeace did?

From the source:

Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that if the Greenpeace findings were true, they were "deeply, deeply disconcerting."

He emphasized that while accepting money from industry to do research is not itself a breach of ethics, taking money from any source without transparency is "totally unacceptable."

There is a lot of "if's" flying around, not a lot of evidence.

a reply to: peck420

Be honest, you just don't want to believe this is true so you are looking for anything to deny it. It's so funny that ATS member are so adverse from actually following up on a real conspiracy instead opting to buy into the obvious conspiracy. I believe ATS has a word for that... Started with an s....

More like pollution denial, focus on climate instead.

Just discuss the weather, not toxic waste.

So now I'm off topic, right?

They should do a movie like Thank you for Smoking, only call it Thank you for Driving.

Lobbyists are why the American people were lied to about cigarettes, they manipulate the narrative with "contributions" to promote the corporate cover up. Not of 'changes in the weather' but to focus on that instead of the real 800 lb. gorilla in the room, the choking fumes and effluent run off from our civilization.

Switch bait, people are waking up. Corporate lobbyists buy, bribe, pay off our government to look the other way while this occurs.

Now back to the weather report.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: introvert

Oh? So in your opinion, the side which is following the establishment is always the "good" side, and absolutely immune to corruption.

I call this naivety.

That is absurd.

What I am saying is that climate deniers have created their own "establishment", which they deem the "good side" and believe that anything outside of that is a grand conspiracy.

originally posted by: intrptr
Lobbyists are why the American people were lied to about cigarettes, they manipulate the narrative with "contributions" to promote the corporate cover up. Not of 'changes in the weather' but to focus on that instead of the real 800 lb. gorilla in the room, the choking fumes and effluent run off from our civilization.

Yea and the lobbyists paid for by the oil companies are doing it with climate science now. It's funny that you pointed out the EXACT thing the big oil companies are guilty of and accused cliamte scientists of it. Btw, exactly what lobby DOES do this in support of climate science? That is another point that climate deniers fail to point out as well.

Switch bait, people are waking up. Corporate lobbyists buy, bribe, pay off our government to look the other way while this occurs.

Lol... You are getting it but for some reason are refusing to see that it is your own camp that is guilty of it. After all, its governments pushing climate change science, not corporations. So now your rhetoric is getting conflicting.

Now back to the weather report.

Climate != weather.

a reply to: Ghost147

Even if you do deny man-made climate change, exactly what is so bad about being conservative with resources, aiming to be environmentally friendly, and reducing your ecological footprint?

Unfortunately many who deny climate change are staunch capitalists who would love nothing better than to watch the world burn,rape the planet for all its resources and all while sitting on a giant pile of cash. They also just don't understand the science behind it either.

So stupid,crazy people with lots of money is something to look out for when uncovering the AGW conspiracy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Be honest, you just don't want to believe this is true so you are looking for anything to deny it. It's so funny that ATS member are so adverse from actually following up on a real conspiracy instead opting to buy into the obvious conspiracy. I believe ATS has a word for that... Started with an s....

Yup, sure something like that.

Or, maybe it is because, unlike you, I have actually worked with the science community, from the end of the funder.

Your average scientist couldn't tell you where all of their funding comes from, just how much has been allocated to their specific project.

Do you think that when I make my yearly to the local University, that each scientist is told..."ooohhh, Peck made another donation, he likes his cars baby blue...quick, bust out a study that shows how much better baby blue cars perform?"

Nope, they are told that their funding is secure for another fiscal year, so they get back to their work.

Everybody is going to go cherry pick the handful...yes, handful, of incidents (on every side) of corruption...and promptly use that to ignore the thousands of honest science presented.

So far, the science says we are warming. We think we know why, we can even model fairly accurate predictions, but, for whatever reason, something is missing. The models never line up as precisely as we need them too to call it settled science. Than the media morphs that into "denial", and folks like you press that all over social media, without even having a clue what it is you are pressing.

You want irony...if the scientific community had treated tobacco as you wish us to treat climate...smoking would still be good for you...it was 'settled science' at one point.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

After all, its governments pushing climate change science, not corporations.

Nice.

"Governments" are paid to look the other way by corporate lobbyists. They are paid to push "Climate", ignore pollution.

Try not to be too obvious.

originally posted by: peck420
So far, the science says we are warming. We think we know why, we can even model fairly accurate predictions, but, for whatever reason, something is missing. The models never line up as precisely as we need them too to call it settled science. Than the media morphs that into "denial", and folks like you press that all over social media, without even having a clue what it is you are pressing.

For someone who supposedly worked in science you should know that there is no such thing as "settled science". You should also be aware of margin of error and that no scientific prediction is ever 100% accurate. These are all concepts that extend to ALL disciplines of science.

You want irony...if the scientific community had treated tobacco as you wish us to treat climate...smoking would still be good for you...it was 'settled science' at one point.

Read this thread "Mr. Settled Science".
I really hate the term "settled science"

a reply to: intrptr

Paid by who exactly? Which lobbying platform is dumping tons of money into pushing climate change? Keep in mind the Koch brothers have allocated $889 million to their causes (one of which is climate change denial). So find me a comparable source of money to that figure from the lobbyists pushing climate change. Otherwise I'm going to interpret your words as a bunch of hot air.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

Paid by who exactly?

Lobby denialist?

Edit: Thats why they are called "Lobbyists". CEOs don't walk onto the senate floor and hand out checks on camera, they pay third parties (lobbyists) to catch them 'in the lobby' and make 'contributions' to their 'campaign'. Its more private that way, making bribes to government officials is illegal.

They used to get arrested for it, now the practice is 'legal', which I'm sure you are about to remind me of.

a reply to: intrptr

Don't deflect. I'm asking you to produce some evidence. I've already produced evidence that your side of the debate is overly shady, all I got from you is a bunch of words and reasoning. Well that isn't evidence.