Global warming

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:27 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:08 pm
One has to laugh at the knee jerk reaction that alarmists have when ever someone questions their unproven theory that Co2 causes global warming.
The most popular tactic is the "smear".
No the most popular tactic is the truth, on the other hand, the heresay and hot air babbled when evidence is asked from the denier lunatics, is hilarious
This is followed by by the old ANC/Zuma trick of "denying" that an alarmist scientist admitted for example that the hiatus existed. (When in fact they are actually recorded saying this!! And even the IPCC aadmit it.)
Again another dumb oil funded propaganda paper ?
The deniers must be dumber than Mugabe himself, do they actually understand the science and what the truth is, let me feed it in again ;)

In response to a recent US government report on the impact of climate change, a spokesperson for the science-denying American Enterprise Institute think-tank claimed that “we just had […] the biggest drop in global temperatures that we have had since the 1980s, the biggest in the last 100 years.”

These claims are blatantly false: the past two years were two of the three hottest on record, and the drop in temperature from 2016 to 2018 was less than, say, the drop from 1998 (a previous record hot year) to 2000. But, more importantly, these claims use the same kind of misdirection as was used a few years ago about a supposed “pause” in warming lasting from roughly 1998 to 2013.

At the time, the alleged pause was cited by many people sceptical about the science of climate change as a reason not to act to reduce greenhouse pollution. US senator and former presidential candidate Ted Cruz frequently argued that this lack of warming undermined dire predictions by scientists about where we’re heading.

However, drawing conclusions on short-term trends is ill-advised because what matters to climate change is the decade-to-decade increase in temperatures rather than fluctuations in warming rate over a few years. Indeed, if short periods were suitable for drawing strong conclusions, climate scientists should perhaps now be talking about a “surge” in global warming since 2011

The “pause” or “hiatus” in warming of the early 21st century is not just a talking point of think-tanks with radical political agendas. It also features in the scientific literature, including in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and more than 200 peer-reviewed articles.

Research we recently published in Environmental Research Letters addresses two questions about the putative “pause”: first, is there compelling evidence in the temperature data alone of something unusual happening at the start of the 21st century? Second, did the rise in temperature lag behind projections by climate models?

In both cases the answer is “no”, but the reasons are interesting.

Reconstructing a historical temperature record from instruments designed for other purposes, such as weather forecasting, is not always easy. Several problems have affected temperature estimates for the period since 2000. The first of these was the fact that uneven geographical distribution of weather stations can influence the apparent rate of warming. Other factors include changes in the instruments used to measure ocean temperatures. Most of these factors were known at the time and reported in the scientific literature, but because the magnitudes of the effects were unknown, users of temperature data (from science journalists to IPCC authors) were in a bind when interpreting their results.

A more subtle problem arises when we ask whether a fluctuation in the rate of warming is a new phenomena, rather than the kind of variation we expect due to natural fluctuations of the climate system. Different statistical tests are needed to determine whether a phenomena is interesting depending on how the data are chosen. In a nutshell, if you select data based on them being unusual in the first place, then any statistical tests that seemingly confirm their unusual nature give the wrong answer. (The statistical issue here is similar to the fascinating but counterintuitive “Monty Hall problem”, which has caught out many mathematicians).

When the statistical test is applied correctly, the apparent slowdown in warming is no more significant than other fluctuations in the rate of warming over the past 40 years. In other words, there is no compelling evidence that the supposed “pause” period is different from other previous periods. Neither is the deviation between the observations and climate model projections larger than would be expected.

That’s not to say that such “wiggles” in the temperature record are uninteresting – several of our team are involved in further studies of these fluctuations, and the study of the “pause” has yielded interesting new insights into the climate system – for example, the role of changes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Global warming didn’t stop in 1998. Don’t be fooled by claims that it stopped in 2016 either. There is only one thing that will stop global warming: cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.


Then there's the other old canard - "I was misquoted"
Another dumb tactic is to say, "Read the whole quote". (Of course one does read the whole quote like the Hulme quote - anyone with a single brain cell would understand that the quote is TRUE.
No it is an absolutely outstanding tactic to expose the truth, cherry picking quotes as deniers often do as they are desperate to misinform, as they have no credibility whatsoever, leads to a misunderstanding, if you read beyond the cherry picking the message is entirely different.
Despite hysterical alarmist denials and Hulme's later weasel words.)
The next tactic is to whine about "Cherry Picking". (Of course, unlike alarmists who love inordinately long and verbose puffery in order to make a single point - real scientists cut through the puffery, like a rapier through the fog of embroidered, meandering waffle, cutting right to the meat and potatoes.)
No it has been proven over years that Oil funded advertising/misinformation outlets, propagandists pick their lines very carefully to misinform, lie and deceive, an earlier post of a youtube clearly shows how the idiot was caught out and then actually trying to deny he said things that he clearly did proven very clearly on the video for everyone to see :lol:
The next false claim is that "the science is settled". Which of course it is not, as the relation between the earth's warming and Co2 is not congruent as alarmists have claimed ad nauseum.
Then, true alarmist believers unleash, what in their blinkered minds is the biggie "clincher" - "All these scientists, despite their impeccable credentials are in the pay of "Big Oil". (This of course is utter nonsense and has been proven to be false time and time again!)
Who says that You ? Or your oil funded propagandists ? :lol:

i don't know where you get your information from but sorry that is completely false and you are utterly misled. There is a difference between scientists who is paid by oil to lie, and scientists conveying the truth, trying to confuse the two will not improve your stance. Especially when the majority of denier "experts" does not even specialize in climate science. Most aren't even scientists at all ! :lol:

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.

The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.

Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained.

What about the remaining uncertainties? Shouldn’t we wait for 100% certainty before taking action? Outside of logic and mathematics, we do not live in a world of certainties. Science comes to tentative conclusions based on the balance of evidence. The more independent lines of evidence are found to support a scientific theory, the closer it is likely to be to the truth. Just because some details are still not well understood should not cast into doubt our understanding of the big picture: humans are causing global warming.

In most aspects of our lives, we think it rational to make decisions based on incomplete information. We will take out insurance when there is even a slight probability that we will need it. Why should our planet’s climate be any different?
The visceral anger, hate and abuse is palpable and entirely out of proportion to the discussion.
And it is without any logic.
Not at all whatsoever, the truth is simply exposed, and rightfully so :wink:
Just because deniers don't have any evidence doesn't mean the logic of truth does not exist.

The deniers really grasping at air bringing this one up time and time again as they can grasp at no straws left.

You must be living in a make believe world then, as the very basis of science is to question, cross check, share information worldwide ! double check, experiment. repeat many times, sometimes over years to make sure the conclusion is solid , there is not "stiffling" a debate, the truth is simply being exposed, so are the lies.

You keep repeating this drivel about science trying to hide something, like a broken record time and time again, the truth is there you just need to read it:

Lets look at the myth:
Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
'Perhaps the most infamous example of this comes from the "hide the decline" email. This email initially garnered widespread media attention, as well as significant disagreement over its implications. In our view, the email, as well as the contextual history behind it, appears to show several scientists eager to present a particular viewpoint-that anthropogenic emissions are largely responsible for global warming-even when the data showed something different.


Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained.

What about the remaining uncertainties? Shouldn’t we wait for 100% certainty before taking action? Outside of logic and mathematics, we do not live in a world of certainties. Science comes to tentative conclusions based on the balance of evidence. The more independent lines of evidence are found to support a scientific theory, the closer it is likely to be to the truth. Just because some details are still not well understood should not cast into doubt our understanding of the big picture: humans are causing global warming.

In most aspects of our lives, we think it rational to make decisions based on incomplete information. We will take out insurance when there is even a slight probability that we will need it. Why should our planet’s climate be any different?
Last edited by zander on Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:14 am, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
heisan
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5392
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:45 pm
Closest Airfield: Rhino Park
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 83 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by heisan » Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:32 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:08 pm
The key here is "Asking questions".
Something which is verboden, not allowed by the alarmist brigade who will go to any lengths to stifle any questions or debate.
Horse manure. You yourself posted (or commented on) a recent thread on Avcom about a potential error in the climate models. That error was not ridiculed or stifled. It was actively debated, and corrections were brought into the accepted model to allow for these variations. Every scientist knows and understands that their work cannot be perfect - and will always be willing to look at new information.
Not only that but absolutely refusing to make their computer models and data available for scrutiny.
Whoopee, so one guy a few years ago lost some data. The current IPCC models are fully published. The entire model, every single model parameter, every scrap of data is available to anybody who wants it.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Well done... You quoted his words exactly (instead of the usual misquotes). Of course, you failed to mention that this quote was from his discussion on the plot of a fictional book he would like to write...
Justin Schoeman

ZU-FSR (Raven)
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:09 pm

Came across this guy.. he's hilarious
Language warning :wink:



User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:33 am

Hilarious indeed, this hyperactive Oil "expert" is the perfect example of how deniers argue:

The typical denier story, it is always a story like I talked to this person or I saw this statistics or I asked this facility. Creating his own twisted perspective instead of what the science as a whole explains.

His argument is pretty much that financial institutions don't act as if there is global warming, so it can't be true. :lol: The same institutions that act as if there is infinite growth. :lol: =D> The same institutions that don't act on reality, they just create make believe housing market bubbles until they collapse. #-o Look at the military overseas, they are preparing. Look at insurance companies, they are preparing, look at every government on the planet (except one). They acknowledge it. Where is the big scam?

The second clip even more hilarious, this clown interrupts the presenter as if he is afraid to directly answer his questions, then tries to sway the topic to the ozone !

In one instance saying "i believe", then after that "No i know" i don’t "believe" :lol: :lol: #-o

Then this clown rambles off half the clip about the saudi’s oil reserves and the oil prices, not having to do anything about global warming and makes a dumb statement coming to his own conclusion claiming it has a 1% impact when in fact Fossil Fuel co2 emissions created by humans is 100 times more than even the biggest volcanic eruptions combined ! ! !

In his wiki pic he looks like Dracula himself :lol: :lol:
Last edited by sampie on Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:02 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:39 am

Caught out and exposed...again :lol:



User avatar
SlowApproach
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 11:01 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: Arse-end of Centurion
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 20 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by SlowApproach » Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:47 am

:roll: This is going nowhere.

Reminds me of the kiddies' song that goes...

"Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning..."
Behind every angry woman is a man who has absolutely no idea what he did wrong.
Triaan
Lining Up
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:05 am

Not at all. An absolute Eye opener with regards to the facts about Human Induced Climate Change, and all the Lies that have been exposed by those choosing to pretend it doesn't exist. =D>
User avatar
MadMacs
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2315
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:41 pm
Closest Airfield: GRJ
Location: On my bed
Has liked: 158 times
Been liked: 29 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by MadMacs » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:54 am

Skymaster wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:08 pm
One has to laugh at the knee jerk reaction that alarmists have when ever someone questions their unproven theory that Co2 causes global warming.

No wonder they don't want questions!
Exactly my original point and now just look at the abusive vitriol spewed forth after your post.
The closest I get to flying these days is when I put my cellphone in 'flight mode'.
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:07 am

sampie wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:33 am
Hilarious indeed, this hyperactive Oil "expert" is the perfect example of how deniers argue:
He does have some good points.
I'd sooner entertain a straight talking blabber mouth than a smooth talking 'scientist' with an image and money to uphold, behind the veil of 'research'.
In any event he has a unique way of looking at things which literally makes a joke of Global Warming... again this type of guy may be correct.
Any scientist, worth their weight in gold, would never rule out the 'impossible'.
;)
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:32 am

;)
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:25 pm

vanjast wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:07 am
sampie wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:33 am
Hilarious indeed, this hyperactive Oil "expert" is the perfect example of how deniers argue:
He does have some good points.
I'd sooner entertain a straight talking blabber mouth than a smooth talking 'scientist' with an image and money to uphold, behind the veil of 'research'.
In any event he has a unique way of looking at things which literally makes a joke of Global Warming... again this type of guy may be correct.
Any scientist, worth their weight in gold, would never rule out the 'impossible'.
;)
Money to uphold ?? Climate research is but barely a drop in the ocean compared to what big oil is coining by the second ! ! And you want to talk about Money "behind the veil of research? :lol:

The only points this clown have is the story he tells over as he wants to see it.
Taking sides with an Oil businessmen that does not have even the slightest clue about climate change over the Expertise of thousands of scientists around the world, in collaboration is beyond ludicrous :lol:

His view is fogged by his own selfish intentions and absolutely baseless, He makes a literal joke of himself, and he doesn't even have a science degree #-o :lol:

Scientists always question everything that's why they dedicate their lives towards the truth :wink:
Last edited by sampie on Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:26 pm

Richard Keen ? :lol: Around we go...again, just another scientist paid to propagate lies:
Funny how they always seem to come in 1s.

And the ways they deceive never ceases to amaze #-o

"Why isn’t Keen’s work published in the scientific literature? Because the literature is reserved for science, not sophomoric frauds"

"His global warming quiz is quite informative.”

Which raises some interesting, amazing, and (in)convenient questions. Specifically, why would two scientists Picking Some Cherries out themselves as corrupt or incompetent?

You would think it is the sort of thing that they would want to keep quiet. Certainly nothing to be proud of.

Why do I say that? Let’s have a look at Keen’s Quiz

We start with some blatant cherry picking of historical data with a collection of historical examples of warm periods and extreme weather events. This is followed by quoting

Thomas Jefferson “A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep.

His conclusions are that “There’s nothing new about climate change and “global warming”, “Destructive climate events are not new, either!” Apparently implying that climate rationalists have ever said otherwise, which they have not. This is a Straw Man fallacy used to try and create the impression that he is somehow revealing something that climate science ignores.

Put simply, it is a lie. Climate scientists are well aware of historical climate changes … in many cases they are the ones who discovered them, and they have most certainly factored them into the science.

Let’s be clear here, we are not talking about complicated or arcane matters of climate science. Why cherry picking and misrepresenting data is bad science is 2nd year undergrad at most. Practice this kind of nonsense in your Jr year and watch yourself get tossed out of the program. When done by someone who is naive it is bad science. It is fraud when practiced by professionals who allegedly know better.

Pushing on, he then repeats the bogus “The Earth is Cooling” meme, and actually goes so far as to reproduce the obviously fraudulent “Monthly Temperature Projections” that Gunter used. It’s bad enough when a hack journalist feigning competence about climate issues peddles this farce, but that someone in the sciences would be presenting it as legitimate is completely inexcusable.

Apparently not finished with destroying any credibility he may have ever had as an academic, Keen goes on to make the absurd claim that the name of the phenomena “global warming” has been changed to “climate change” to disguise this supposedly inexplicable recent cooling.

Hello! Reality calling Richard Keen! You just cited the 20 yr old Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! not the “Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming“. It is called the IPCC because real scientists have been calling the phenomena “climate change” for decades.

Having discredited himself beyond all question Keen then ventures into misrepresenting the facts to make political points. He attempts to credit the virulently anti-science Bush administration with having achieved CO2 reductions that are in fact a consequence of disastrous economic policies.

This is followed by an equally flawed and misleading analysis of Kyoto, and then falsely crediting Bush with causing normal fluctuations in sea level.

Why isn’t Keen’s work published in the scientific literature? Because the literature is reserved for science, not sophomoric frauds. Is Keen so grossly incompetent that he does not recognize this for total nonsense? or so corrupt that he presents it even though he realizes that it is lying crap? Certainly any 3rd or 4th yr undergraduate in any branch of science should have had no trouble exposing this pathetic sham for what it is.

Equally, since Pielke tacitly endorses Keen, we must ask the same questions of him. Frankly, if Pielke has even a shred of integrity as a scientist he will not merely withdraw his implied endorsement of Keen, but will in fact denounce this fraud.

Regardless, they are certainly not doing the skeptic cause any favours, but then Deniers1 never do. Every time the skeptics present or accept utter idiocy as credible they discredit themselves in the process , and thereby diminish any hope of ever being taken seriously.

Certainly any respect I may have had for Pielke has evapourated as a result of this.
Last edited by sampie on Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
nicofly
Lining Up
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:22 am
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: constansia kloof
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 2 times

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

Unread post by nicofly » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:34 pm

But ExxonMobil disagrees that any of its early statements were so stark, let alone conclusive at all. “We didn’t reach those conclusions, nor did we try to bury it like they suggest,” ExxonMobil spokesperson Allan Jeffers tells Scientific American. “The thing that shocks me the most is that we’ve been saying this for years, that we have been involved in climate research. These guys go down and pull some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and the selective use of materials.”

One thing is certain: in June 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen told a congressional hearing that the planet was already warming, Exxon remained publicly convinced that the science was still controversial. Furthermore, experts agree that Exxon became a leader in campaigns of confusion. By 1989 the company had helped create the Global Climate Coalition (disbanded in 2002) to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change. It also helped to prevent the U.S. from signing the international treaty on climate known as the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 to control greenhouse gases. Exxon’s tactic not only worked on the U.S. but also stopped other countries, such as China and India, from signing the treaty. At that point, “a lot of things unraveled,” Oreskes says.

But experts are still piecing together Exxon’s misconception puzzle. Last summer the Union of Concerned Scientists released a complementary investigation to the one by InsideClimate News, known as the Climate Deception Dossiers (pdf). “We included a memo of a coalition of fossil-fuel companies where they pledge basically to launch a big communications effort to sow doubt,” says union president Kenneth Kimmel. “There’s even a quote in it that says something like ‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’ So it’s pretty stark.”

Since then, Exxon has spent more than $30 million on think tanks that promote climate denial, according to Greenpeace. Although experts will never be able to quantify the damage Exxon’s misinformation has caused, “one thing for certain is we’ve lost a lot of ground,” Kimmell says. Half of the greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere were released after 1988. “I have to think if the fossil-fuel companies had been upfront about this and had been part of the solution instead of the problem, we would have made a lot of progress [today] instead of doubling our greenhouse gas emissions.”

Experts agree that the damage is huge, which is why they are likening Exxon’s deception to the lies spread by the tobacco industry. “I think there are a lot of parallels,” Kimmell says. Both sowed doubt about the science for their own means, and both worked with the same consultants to help develop a communications strategy. He notes, however, that the two diverge in the type of harm done. Tobacco companies threatened human health, but the oil companies threatened the planet’s health. “It’s a harm that is global in its reach,” Kimmel says.

To prove this, Bob Ward—who on behalf of the U.K.’s Royal Academy sent a letter to Exxon in 2006 claiming its science was “inaccurate and misleading”—thinks a thorough investigation is necessary. “Because frankly the episode with tobacco was probably the most disgraceful episode one could ever imagine,” Ward says. Kimmell agrees. These reasons “really highlight the responsibility that these companies have to come clean, acknowledge this, and work with everyone else to cut out emissions and pay for some of the cost we're going to bear as soon as possible,” Kimmell says.
FLY it like you borrowed it
nicofly
Lining Up
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:22 am
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: constansia kloof
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by nicofly » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:35 pm

FLY it like you borrowed it
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:41 pm

MadMacs wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:54 am
Skymaster wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:08 pm
One has to laugh at the knee jerk reaction that alarmists have when ever someone questions their unproven theory that Co2 causes global warming.

No wonder they don't want questions!
Exactly my original point and now just look at the abusive vitriol spewed forth after your post.
Science is questioned all the time, and the facts are always given in return, nothing to get excited about :wink: Proof of Man Made Climate Change has been Proven Countless of Times Globally over years it is not theory, it is reality.

Return to “123.45”