Greenpeace founder: Humans not to blame for global warming

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's everything you need to read about the Heartland Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute

Why are you so concerned who funds the Heartland Institute? Why are you not in the same way concerned about those organisations and scientists who are funded by the state to give a certain answer? The state is corrupt too, y'know.

In any case, the piece I quoted (oil money or not) seemingly debunks your 97% claim - which sounds like the result of a Zimbabwean Presidential result if you ask me - it would be like my claiming that 97% of Britons want out of the EU.

But EVEN IF a majority or 97% of scientists said AGW was real does this make it true? No, it does not. Science is often wrong.

[The Don]

Why are you calling us climate change deniers as though we're on a par with holocaust deniers?

In any case, green groups and AGW groups recieve their funding from pro-AGW governments which are doing exactly the same with as the oil companies are with those climate change sceptics. Both are funded by biased sources, it's simply a question of who you believe has the most believable theory. The University of East Anglia was the prime example of a pro-AGW group, funded by the state, which was attempting to come up with the answers the state demanded.

To add to that, powerful interest groups make huge amounts of money out of government subsidies and regulations that come with the climate change industry: the subsidies given to wind farms, solar companies and the regulations that come with it all which is why so many large corpoations back the concept of climate change as that red tape will help drown out their competition. David Cameron's father-in-law is one example of a rich man who benefits (and his family benefit) personally from AGW theory.

No, you're dead wrong and it's ridiculously tedious that the only 'evidence' you have are those leaked emails, which again as I've said multiple times and provided sources for, were taken out of context. The only source you've provided was based on information from heartland institute which works for exxon oil. I can dig up the 97% sources again, but what's the point? You don't want to agree, even though the people you're quoting have actual direct links to oil companies and reason to be corrupt. You keep arguing "yeh but the scientists would get extra funding!" but there's virtually no reason to believe they are lying whereas i've provided countless proof as to why all your sources are not academic, and as to why they aren't to be trusted. If 97% of academics believe something, and the 3% that disagree have ties to companies which lose money if the popular opinion is accepted, which one is logically the more likely to be accurate? You don't want to follow logic though as that would mean accepting you're wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are you so concerned who funds the Heartland Institute? Why are you not in the same way concerned about those organisations and scientists who are funded by the state to give a certain answer? The state is corrupt too, y'know.

In any case, the piece I quoted (oil money or not) seemingly debunks your 97% claim - which sounds like the result of a Zimbabwean Presidential result if you ask me - it would be like my claiming that 97% of Britons want out of the EU.

But EVEN IF a majority or 97% of scientists said AGW was real does this make it true? No, it does not. Science is often wrong.

If you can't see why people payed by OIL COMPANIES opinions shouldn't be listened to when it comes to discussing climate change then there is literally zero hope for you. You keep making accusations, start actually proving them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, you're dead wrong and it's ridiculously tedious that the only 'evidence' you have are those leaked emails, which again as I've said multiple times and provided sources for, were taken out of context. The only source you've provided was based on information from heartland institute which works for exxon oil. I can dig up the 97% sources again, but what's the point? You don't want to agree, even though the people your quoting have actual direct links to oil companies and reason to be corrupt. You keep arguing "yeh but the scientists would get extra funding!" but there's virtually no reason to believe they are lying whereas i've provided countless proof as to why all your sources are not academic, and as to why they aren't to be trusted. If 97% of academics believe something, and the 3% that disagree have ties to companies which lose money if the popular opinion is accepted, which one is logically the more likely to be accurate? You don't want to follow logic though as that would mean accepting you're wrong.

But you seem to want me to accept it as though it's a religion - something I have to say that the climate change movement seems to have the characteristics of. I have said that let's accept that AGW is real, then even if it is - as you believe it is - the best thing to do, and the only rational thing, is to simply adapt to it.

I look at the history of global temperatures and don't find it convincing that we are changing the temperature. Indeed, given that the predictions of rapid climate change over the past decade have turned out to be false...... the record of history is coming in my direction.

[The Don]

But you seem to want me to accept it as though it's a religion - something I have to say that the climate change movement seems to have the characteristics of. I have said that let's accept that AGW is real, then even if it is - as you believe it is - the best thing to do, and the only rational thing, is to simply adapt to it.

I look at the history of global temperatures and don't find it convincing that we are changing the temperature. Indeed, given that the predictions of rapid climate change over the past decade have turned out to be false...... the record of history is coming in my direction.

I just want you to use common sense and not deny something which has been agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of experts in that field. What's the point of debating someone that illogical?

[God]

Just Take a look...


From some smart guy in this youtube video. If you don't have 10 minutes of your time to watch this enlightening video Ill sum it up the best I can. http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with...e-7?g=2&c=mtla


Basically here is the graph. 4 blocks. For Rows we have Are we the reason for Climate Change ( Global Warming ) True or False.
For the Columns we have Do we take action, Yes or No.

Most of the debates on this issue has been Are we causing Global Warming, we aren't looking at the right area now are we? We need to look at Are we going to Take Action to STOP Global Warming, Yes or No.

Now if we do take action and it all turns out to be false, then we probably will have the cost of all our efforts, and a Global depression will probably follow. If We do take action and It turns out its true we are causing it, then we still have the cost to deal with, but we are happy because we can continue to live on our planet as normal.

Now if we Do not take action and it turns out to be False, Great, no harm done. Yet if we don't take action and things turn out to be true. We will face Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse.


Thing is we need to stop arguing if its true or false we are affecting the environment, we need to decide if we are going to take action. And with that we need to look at the risks on each side. I know whats written down would be the most extreme cases, but that's the most likely outcome.

We nee to decide, Whats more risky. Spending Money and a Global Depression, or Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse (which includes Global Depression).

Honestly no doubt I would Take action, and I plan take my efforts further in the future.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1004x644.

[GommeInc]

They all seem wrong, mainly because they keep changing their minds. The thousands of scientists that now say we are the cause of it said we didn't not so long ago, and that it is or should be called climate change and not global warming. When they changed their minds and started stating it should be called global warming and that man started/created it I just gave up and labelled it as unsure and unstable - if they keep changing their minds then I can't be bothered listening to either side.

[God]

They all seem wrong, mainly because they keep changing their minds. The thousands of scientists that now say we are the cause of it said we didn't not so long ago, and that it is or should be called climate change and not global warming. When they changed their minds and started stating it should be called global warming and that man started/created it I just gave up and labelled it as unsure and unstable - if they keep changing their minds then I can't be bothered listening to either side.

What your talking about is a paradigm shift. People didn't think it was the cause of our actions, that the Earth was warming up at a much faster rate than normal. With the great amount of Scientific research, it proves we are the reason.
97% of scientists can't be wrong.

[GommeInc]

What your talking about is a paradigm shift. People didn't think it was the cause of our actions, that the Earth was warming up at a much faster rate than normal. With the great amount of Scientific research, it proves we are the reason.
97% of scientists can't be wrong.

Yet their previous exhaustive researche stated there is no way humans are the cause and it was caused by oceans or whatever the last reason was. They keep changing their mind that I've given up caring As long as we improve technologies to be less wasteful and harmful to the environment, but at the same time at no great cost to humans which may cause some to inevitably suffer, I honestly could not give a crap as to force it upon people is nothing more than scaremongering.