Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
yeah, go back to trusting the tobacco companies over the anti smoking extremistsI'd trust them before I'd trust the cultists who cling tenaciously to their computer models no matter how at variance with reality they may be.Sure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.
Sure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.English language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
again flacaltenn is misrepresenting what he/she reads. I guess it's some kind of a nervous ticSure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.English language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Actually some GW drone unit posted a thread on "evidence discovered from early 1980s Exxon SECRET INTERNAL memo on GW" I read it and it was AMAZING SCIENCE !!!
Like I said -- far more accurate than the UN IPCC phoney science circus that's cited as the "consensus" among climate scientists. They DID have the truth all to themselves. About 20 years before the "climate guys" started to put their pants on right side out....
lol.. you think you're smarter than the climate scientists.
no doubt your vast intellect and training gives you that right.
like I said... wacko.
The problem here is that you don't what climate actually SAY about what they know. You're getting INTERPRETATIONS of their work through an active propaganda channel linked to political aims.
For instance -- Bet you think that it's been PROVEN that the Earth climate was perfectly stable for the past 2000 or 10,000 years. Because of all the MIGHTS, COULDs and MAYBEs that you've heard being trumpeted about. But there is ample evidence of warm/cool episodes in man's recent past approaches approaching changes of a couple degrees. ALL BEFORE the industrial revolution..
You can continue the neener -- neener -- OR you can actually study what the climate science has stated. It's no harder than reading Scientific American actually.. Means a LOT of us are more than capable of understanding temperature charts, and proxy data, and the simple ass statistical preparation that goes into most of these "landmark" studies..
no. I know the right hates the idea that it isn't somehow G-d's will.
I figure G-d is pretty ok with men using what they learn to prevent tragedy.
and i'm really tired to the winger politicians listening to the zealots than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.
That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.
Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..
I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.
Looks to me like there's a dismissal of evidence that doesn't correspond with the theoretical global warming models is all that you are worried about.
Yeah that's really good science. I'm sure people like Freeman Dyson, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, etc... will totally agree with you. Oh wait! Those are all physicists and it's mostly scientists in the physics community that have bailed on this global warming thingee.
*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
Sure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.English language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Actually some GW drone unit posted a thread on "evidence discovered from early 1980s Exxon SECRET INTERNAL memo on GW" I read it and it was AMAZING SCIENCE !!!
Like I said -- far more accurate than the UN IPCC phoney science circus that's cited as the "consensus" among climate scientists. They DID have the truth all to themselves. About 20 years before the "climate guys" started to put their pants on right side out....
jillian what a weird character this JimBowie1958 is Maybe too much time in the sun?What a complete tool!but he doesn't get to reject the basic science required by his job.
and according to Scientific American, the consensus is above 97%.
How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
which hasn't moved the political needle one iota because of people like the o/p and their representatives in congress.
Could you show me wherein this diagram of the Scientific Method where consensus and Climate Change are?
Thanks, dear.
No one says the consensus is IN the model.
What the overwhelming majority of scientists living on the Earth say is that there is a consensus on the sciences -- on what the models are predicting or leaning towards.
stop drinking the koolaid
The problem here is that you don't what climate actually SAY about what they know. You're getting INTERPRETATIONS of their work through an active propaganda channel linked to political aims.
For instance -- Bet you think that it's been PROVEN that the Earth climate was perfectly stable for the past 2000 or 10,000 years. Because of all the MIGHTS, COULDs and MAYBEs that you've heard being trumpeted about. But there is ample evidence of warm/cool episodes in man's recent past approaches approaching changes of a couple degrees. ALL BEFORE the industrial revolution..
You can continue the neener -- neener -- OR you can actually study what the climate science has stated. It's no harder than reading Scientific American actually.. Means a LOT of us are more than capable of understanding temperature charts, and proxy data, and the simple ass statistical preparation that goes into most of these "landmark" studies..
no. I know the right hates the idea that it isn't somehow G-d's will.
I figure G-d is pretty ok with men using what they learn to prevent tragedy.
and i'm really tired to the winger politicians listening to the zealots than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.
That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.
Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..
I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.
Looks to me like there's a dismissal of evidence that doesn't correspond with the theoretical global warming models is all that you are worried about.
Yeah that's really good science. I'm sure people like Freeman Dyson, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, etc... will totally agree with you. Oh wait! Those are all physicists and it's mostly scientists in the physics community that have bailed on this global warming thingee.
*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
No. It's a dismissal of science deniers.
You know, like everyone should....
But thanks for the youtube vid. No doubt it is more compelling than all of the peer-reviewed data.
that's what happens when they don't go to school.
they start resenting the people who actually know what they're talking about.
Science deniers? Who the hell is denying the existence of science?
no. I know the right hates the idea that it isn't somehow G-d's will.
I figure G-d is pretty ok with men using what they learn to prevent tragedy.
and i'm really tired to the winger politicians listening to the zealots than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.
That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.
Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..
I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.
Looks to me like there's a dismissal of evidence that doesn't correspond with the theoretical global warming models is all that you are worried about.
Yeah that's really good science. I'm sure people like Freeman Dyson, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, etc... will totally agree with you. Oh wait! Those are all physicists and it's mostly scientists in the physics community that have bailed on this global warming thingee.
*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
No. It's a dismissal of science deniers.
You know, like everyone should....
But thanks for the youtube vid. No doubt it is more compelling than all of the peer-reviewed data.
Science deniers? Who the hell is denying the existence of science?
Anyone who denies climate change or evolution.Science deniers? Who the hell is denying the existence of science?
Sure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.English language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Actually some GW drone unit posted a thread on "evidence discovered from early 1980s Exxon SECRET INTERNAL memo on GW" I read it and it was AMAZING SCIENCE !!!
Like I said -- far more accurate than the UN IPCC phoney science circus that's cited as the "consensus" among climate scientists. They DID have the truth all to themselves. About 20 years before the "climate guys" started to put their pants on right side out....
GW "Drone"?
lmao... you know... science is your friend.
You really should stop having contempt for it.
That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.
Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..
I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.
Looks to me like there's a dismissal of evidence that doesn't correspond with the theoretical global warming models is all that you are worried about.
Yeah that's really good science. I'm sure people like Freeman Dyson, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, etc... will totally agree with you. Oh wait! Those are all physicists and it's mostly scientists in the physics community that have bailed on this global warming thingee.
*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
No. It's a dismissal of science deniers.
You know, like everyone should....
But thanks for the youtube vid. No doubt it is more compelling than all of the peer-reviewed data.
Science deniers? Who the hell is denying the existence of science?
Anyone who denies climate change or evolution.
again flacaltenn is misrepresenting what he/she reads. I guess it's some kind of a nervous ticSure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.English language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Actually some GW drone unit posted a thread on "evidence discovered from early 1980s Exxon SECRET INTERNAL memo on GW" I read it and it was AMAZING SCIENCE !!!
Like I said -- far more accurate than the UN IPCC phoney science circus that's cited as the "consensus" among climate scientists. They DID have the truth all to themselves. About 20 years before the "climate guys" started to put their pants on right side out....
It concerns the ARCTIC
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
Exxon knew about climate change decades ago, spent $30M to discredit itagain flacaltenn is misrepresenting what he/she reads. I guess it's some kind of a nervous ticSure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.English language usage: polluting not Pollution.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Actually some GW drone unit posted a thread on "evidence discovered from early 1980s Exxon SECRET INTERNAL memo on GW" I read it and it was AMAZING SCIENCE !!!
Like I said -- far more accurate than the UN IPCC phoney science circus that's cited as the "consensus" among climate scientists. They DID have the truth all to themselves. About 20 years before the "climate guys" started to put their pants on right side out....
It concerns the ARCTIC
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
How did he misrepresent it.
Your article says nothing about the science. It just discusses the conclusions and company direction.
Your tic is more like a spasm.
The problem here is that you don't what climate actually SAY about what they know. You're getting INTERPRETATIONS of their work through an active propaganda channel linked to political aims.
For instance -- Bet you think that it's been PROVEN that the Earth climate was perfectly stable for the past 2000 or 10,000 years. Because of all the MIGHTS, COULDs and MAYBEs that you've heard being trumpeted about. But there is ample evidence of warm/cool episodes in man's recent past approaches approaching changes of a couple degrees. ALL BEFORE the industrial revolution..
You can continue the neener -- neener -- OR you can actually study what the climate science has stated. It's no harder than reading Scientific American actually.. Means a LOT of us are more than capable of understanding temperature charts, and proxy data, and the simple ass statistical preparation that goes into most of these "landmark" studies..
no. I know the right hates the idea that it isn't somehow G-d's will.
I figure G-d is pretty ok with men using what they learn to prevent tragedy.
and i'm really tired to the winger politicians listening to the zealots than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.
That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.
Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..
I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.
Looks to me like there's a dismissal of evidence that doesn't correspond with the theoretical global warming models is all that you are worried about.
Yeah that's really good science. I'm sure people like Freeman Dyson, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, etc... will totally agree with you. Oh wait! Those are all physicists and it's mostly scientists in the physics community that have bailed on this global warming thingee.
*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
No. It's a dismissal of science deniers.
You know, like everyone should....
But thanks for the youtube vid. No doubt it is more compelling than all of the peer-reviewed data.
Exxon knew about climate change decades ago, spent $30M to discredit itagain flacaltenn is misrepresenting what he/she reads. I guess it's some kind of a nervous ticSure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Actually some GW drone unit posted a thread on "evidence discovered from early 1980s Exxon SECRET INTERNAL memo on GW" I read it and it was AMAZING SCIENCE !!!
Like I said -- far more accurate than the UN IPCC phoney science circus that's cited as the "consensus" among climate scientists. They DID have the truth all to themselves. About 20 years before the "climate guys" started to put their pants on right side out....
It concerns the ARCTIC
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
How did he misrepresent it.
Your article says nothing about the science. It just discusses the conclusions and company direction.
Your tic is more like a spasm.
jillian what a weird character this JimBowie1958 is Maybe too much time in the sun?What a complete tool!but he doesn't get to reject the basic science required by his job.
and according to Scientific American, the consensus is above 97%.
How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
which hasn't moved the political needle one iota because of people like the o/p and their representatives in congress.
Could you show me wherein this diagram of the Scientific Method where consensus and Climate Change are?
Thanks, dear.
No one says the consensus is IN the model.
What the overwhelming majority of scientists living on the Earth say is that there is a consensus on the sciences -- on what the models are predicting or leaning towards.
stop drinking the koolaid
that's what happens when they don't go to school.
they start resenting the people who actually know what they're talking about.
The problem here is that you don't what climate actually SAY about what they know. You're getting INTERPRETATIONS of their work through an active propaganda channel linked to political aims.
For instance -- Bet you think that it's been PROVEN that the Earth climate was perfectly stable for the past 2000 or 10,000 years. Because of all the MIGHTS, COULDs and MAYBEs that you've heard being trumpeted about. But there is ample evidence of warm/cool episodes in man's recent past approaches approaching changes of a couple degrees. ALL BEFORE the industrial revolution..
You can continue the neener -- neener -- OR you can actually study what the climate science has stated. It's no harder than reading Scientific American actually.. Means a LOT of us are more than capable of understanding temperature charts, and proxy data, and the simple ass statistical preparation that goes into most of these "landmark" studies..
no. I know the right hates the idea that it isn't somehow G-d's will.
I figure G-d is pretty ok with men using what they learn to prevent tragedy.
and i'm really tired to the winger politicians listening to the zealots than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.
That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.
Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..
I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.
Looks to me like there's a dismissal of evidence that doesn't correspond with the theoretical global warming models is all that you are worried about.
Yeah that's really good science. I'm sure people like Freeman Dyson, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, etc... will totally agree with you. Oh wait! Those are all physicists and it's mostly scientists in the physics community that have bailed on this global warming thingee.
*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
No. It's a dismissal of science deniers.
You know, like everyone should....
But thanks for the youtube vid. No doubt it is more compelling than all of the peer-reviewed data.
Exxon knew about climate change decades ago, spent $30M to discredit itagain flacaltenn is misrepresenting what he/she reads. I guess it's some kind of a nervous ticSure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Actually some GW drone unit posted a thread on "evidence discovered from early 1980s Exxon SECRET INTERNAL memo on GW" I read it and it was AMAZING SCIENCE !!!
Like I said -- far more accurate than the UN IPCC phoney science circus that's cited as the "consensus" among climate scientists. They DID have the truth all to themselves. About 20 years before the "climate guys" started to put their pants on right side out....
It concerns the ARCTIC
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
How did he misrepresent it.
Your article says nothing about the science. It just discusses the conclusions and company direction.
Your tic is more like a spasm.
