See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Warming Is Seen as Wiping Out Most Polar Bears
Source:
The New York Times
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/s ... en=42d971c103c46def&ei=5087%0A
Published: Sep 8, 2007
Author: JOHN M. BRODER and ANDREW C. REVKIN
Post Date: 2007-09-09 01:39:50 by robin
Ping List: *Global Climate Change* Subscribe to *Global Climate Change*
Keywords: None
Views: 406
Comments: 36
September 8, 2007 Warming Is Seen as Wiping Out Most Polar Bears By JOHN M. BRODER and ANDREW C. REVKIN WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will disappear by 2050, even under moderate projections for shrinking summer sea ice caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, government scientists reported on Friday. The finding is part of a yearlong review of the effects of climate and ice changes on polar bears to help determine whether they should be protected under the Endangered Species Act. Scientists estimate the current polar bear population at 22,000. The report, which the United States Geological Survey released here, offers stark prospects for polar bears as the world grows warmer. The scientists concluded that, while the bears were not likely to be driven to extinction, they would be largely relegated to the Arctic archipelago of Canada and spots off the northern Greenland coast, where summer sea ice tends to persist even in warm summers like this one, a shrinking that could be enough to reduce the bear population by two-thirds. The bears would disappear entirely from Alaska, the study said. “As the sea ice goes, so goes the polar bear,” said Steven Amstrup, lead biologist for the survey team. The report was released as President Bush was in Australia meeting with Asian leaders to try to agree on a strategy to address global warming. Mr. Bush will be host to major industrial nations in Washington this month to discuss the framework for a treaty on climate change. The United Nations plans to devote its general assembly in the fall to global warming. A spokeswoman for the White House declined to comment on the report, saying it was part of decision making at the Interior Department, parent of the survey. In the report, the team said, “Sea ice conditions would have to be substantially better than even the most conservative computer simulations of warming and sea ice” to avoid the anticipated drop in bear population. In a conference call with reporters, the scientists also said the momentum to a warmer world with less Arctic sea ice — and fewer bears — would be largely unavoidable at least for decades, no matter what happened with emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. “Despite any mitigation of greenhouse gases, we’re going to see the same amount of energy in the system for 20, 30 or 40 years,” said Mark Myers, the survey director. “We would not expect to see any significant change in polar conditions regardless of mitigation.” In other words, even in the unlikely event that all the major economies were to agree to rapid and drastic reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, the floating Arctic ice cap will continue to shrink at a rapid pace for the next 50 years, wiping out much of the bears’ habitat. The report makes no recommendation on listing the bears as a threatened species or taking any action to slow ice cap damage. Such decisions are up to another Interior Department agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the Endangered Species Act. That decision is due in January, officials have said. The wildlife agency had to make a determination on the status of a threatened species because of a suit by environmental groups like Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council. In some places, the bears have adapted to eating a wide range of food like snow geese and garbage. But the survey team said their fate was 84 percent linked to the extent of sea ice. Separate studies of trends in Arctic sea ice by academic and government teams have solidified a picture of shrinking area in summers for decades to come. A fresh analysis by scientists of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to be published Saturday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, says sea-ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean will decline by more than 40 percent before the summer of 2050, compared with the average ice extent from 1979 to 1999. This summer the ice retreated much farther and faster than in any year since satellite tracking began in 1979, several Arctic research groups said. John H. Broder reported from Washington, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin, *Agriculture-Environment* (#0)
Sure they will. There numbers have been increasing.
NOAA Scientists Say Arctic Ice Is Melting Faster Than Expected 40% of Arctic ice cap will be gone by midcentury, Seattle scientists say Polar bears could face extinction by 2050, report finds Experts forecast large decline in Arctic sea ice U.S. Geological Survey: Polar Bears Could Soon be Extinct By 2050
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Giving me a bunch of links means nothing. I could do the same. You have shown yourself uninterested in examining how the science has been corrupted by a political agenda. I didn't think anyone on this forum was into government control that much.
Every one of these links are to news articles within the last few days. They are not just a bunch of meaningless links and one of the news links I posted are long. Furthermore they are easily understood by the average reader. They refer to very recent scientific studies and have been published in a variety of places, which is why I posted more than one link. As I've mentioned before I expect global warming to be politicized, and it is. The Bush Regime, who long held out against Global Warming, thanks to Big Oil interests, has now changed its mind; attempting no doubt to subvert the process. Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
That statement right there shows you really don't know what is going on. And I understand those links are to news articles. You didn't even bother to read the paper I showed you. It was very easy to read and understand. It also showed how bogus the science is. You don't seem interested in the truth which supprises me. I didn't take you for a kool aide drinker.
Well I see you as agreeing with Big Oil, that makes me very suspicious. A group of scientists is accusing ExxonMobil of spending millions to "manufacture confusion" over global warming. ... UCS report found that between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil has funnelled about $16 million to 43 advocacy groups and 16 individuals in an effort to "manufacture uncertainty" and ultimately stall government action that would require a mandatory cut in greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. The group said the figures in the report were compiled from ExxonMobil corporate reports. Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Pass the Kool-Aid. We'll need it, the way the earth is heating up.
See that's what I meant. Actually you are the one agreeing with Big Oil. That's why I said you don't know what's really going on. By buying into AGW you are promoting all those things you fight against on other threads. Are you Pro UN? Pro NGOs? Pro ruling elite? Pro business? Are you on the side of the Rockefellers et al? That's who is pushing AGW. All funded by oil money! I'm on the side of real science. CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time Read it this time, please.
According to Union of Concerned Scientists you are agreeing with Big Oil. A group of scientists is accusing ExxonMobil of spending millions to "manufacture confusion" over global warming. ... UCS report found that between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil has funnelled about $16 million to 43 advocacy groups and 16 individuals in an effort to "manufacture uncertainty" and ultimately stall government action that would require a mandatory cut in greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. The group said the figures in the report were compiled from ExxonMobil corporate reports. A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
I've read that shit before. I've even posted it on other forums. You seem to see through the bullshit everywhere but here. I don't get it. Since you refuse to read my link let me try from a different angle. Answer this one question: Who do you believe was behind 9/11?
In this 2004 report, Zbigniew Jaworowski criticizes the results from shallow ice core samples. March 19, 2004 Later, deep ice core samples are used. His 2004 report is old based on old data. The new data is stronger and his criticisms do not stand against 3.2km ice core samples. In the report he published in 2007, he is accusing the UN of trying to get more funding due to Global Warming, which he considers erroneous. The UN will try to get money any way it can, what's new. I see no reference to the deep ice core samples either. He keeps going back to old data, shallow ice core samples, as far as I can tell. I see no reference to the newer deep ice core samples in this 2007 paper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski His works on ice cores were published in Jaworowski (1994, 1992) and in reports Jaworowski (1990, 1992). In Jaworowski he (1992) suggested that the long-term CO2, record is an artifact caused by the structural changes of the ice with depth and by postcoring processes. However, increases in CO2, and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence argues that the atmospoheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone. [1] Similarly Hans Oeschger [2] states that "...Some of (Jaworowski's) statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view".
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Here is a quote from that paper: CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time You still didn't read the paper and you didn't answer my question. Who do you believe was behind 9/11?
Yes I read the paper and posted my opinion as well as the opinions of other scientists on his paper. They think he's a kook, and they are scientists. I gave some details why I find his report out of touch. I also explained some motivation. Who benefits? Big Oil. The UN will always look for ways for money, that doesn't negate the fact that most scientists believe that there is Global Warming. And I have stated many times, including in the ping list definition, that I created many months ago, that this issue will be politicized. I wonder if this one scientist you found in some obscure school in Warsaw benefits too. Or maybe he just latched onto his contrary idea early, back in 1992, and won't let go of it, despite the newer deep ice core sample data that refutes his criticisms.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
I doubt you read the paper because the stuff you posted shows you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. You claim his report was in error because he used 2004 data. That right there tells me you didn't read it. You didn't answer my question about 9/11. Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself. Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself. By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world. A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield Then, the issue of spurious heat influences on the thermometers that NOAA uses to monitor global temperatures has reared its ugly head. Personally, I've been waiting for this one for a long time. Ordinary citizens are now traveling throughout their home states, taking pictures of the local conditions around these thermometer sites. To everyone's astonishment, all kinds of spurious heat sources have cropped up over the years next to the thermometers. Air conditioning exhaust fans, burn barrels, asphalt parking lots, roofs, jet exhaust. Who could have known? Shocking. Next, my own unit and I published satellite measurements that clearly show a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics which all of the leading computerized climate models have been insisting is a warming mechanism (Spencer et al., August 9, 2007 Geophysical Research Letters). That tells me you didn't read my post very carefully. I very carefully said that his 2004 report used the old data. Then I specifically stated I could not find anything in his 2007 paper that refers to the newer deep ice core samples, only the older sampling. I also notice that you have refused to respond to the report by the Scientists I posted earlier (twice since you ignored it), that Exxon has spent millions to spread disinfo about Global Warming. So now I find your comments here three times as suspicious. The poll was whether or not Global Warming is man made or not. That's a reasonable question that we should all ponder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change There is a VERY LONG LIST here that I will post separately. If you have to ask me my position about 9/11 then that tells me you don't read many thread on this 4um. I post a great deal about that subject and I have stated my views many, many, many times. 9/11 was clearly an inside job, probably out of Cheney's office in cahoots with or directed by the likes of Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and all the other dual-citizen ZioNazis and Traitors who have taken over our govt in a silent coup. What's more important is that the official govt line is a lie, and as I've posted many times, exactly how it was done is less important.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
This is just too long to post, but there are very few dissenting voices. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
You of all people standing on wikipedia?
I did respond to it. You missed it obviously. I can't believe you bought into that propaganda because that's all it is.
Do you understand that AGW is pushed by the same people with the same agenda? Do you understand why I am shocked that you have bought into it? I've posted Carry_Okie's research so many times I'm getting tired of it. Read it, understand what it is telling you. Here is a quote: Well, hell, just take brown bears and dye them white. Who's to know the difference? Every 20 years, for the past 100 years, "scientists" have howled global warming, global cooling, global warming, global cooling, globing warming. Apparently no one remembers in the '70's they were screaming global cooling. I remember seeing a movie about it with Paul Newman. I'm sure he never talks about that one. I don't believe a thing these "scientists" say? Who made them God anyway? Why do some people think every idiotic pronouncement of theirs is gospel? Throughout history scientists have been more wrong than right, and "global warming" is a perfect example.
"Life is short, break the rules, forgive quickly, kiss slowly, love truly, laugh uncontrollably and never regret anything that made you smile."
Federal government funding and a PhD in arrogance.
wiki is good for some things, they referenced everything to other links if you are so critical, you can go to the original source.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
This is your response to the Exxon disinfo campaign? Wow! Well, given that you have bought into their disinfo campaign, it is to be expected.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
It's you have bought into Big Oil, not me.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
See you did miss it because that wasn't what I was talking about.
Why don't you repost it then? Is it worth reposting?
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
You can't be against "all the other dual-citizen ZioNazis and Traitors who have taken over our govt in a silent coup" on one issue and with them on another. That's exactly what you are doing. Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.
You cannot back this statement with any facts. You have made a lot of conjecture and submitted the ideas of one "contrarian", so-called by his own peers. OTOH, Exxon has been caught paying millions for spreading disinfo about Global Warming. And there is a LOGICAL reason for them to do so. I suggest you take your own rude advice.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The reports you posted were the disinformation campaign. You swallowed it hook line and sinker.
You still don't get it do you. Exxon was not caught doing anything! It's like the magician drawing your attention to one thing will doing another. Exxon spent money on a dissinformation campaign, yes but that was to draw attention from where the real money is going and the real agenda! Did you learn nothing from the 9/11 stuff?
Here is a graphic for you. I have already stated that I understand the Bush Regime's intent to takeover the Global Warming fanfare. But it is also obvious that Exxon was found to be guilty of paying for the dissemination of false information on Global Warming. And now APEC is embracing Global Warming so it is going to be politicized even more. But that does not mean that Global Warming is fake or not man made. However, it may not be man made, as volcanoes throw out all kinds of CO2. Whatever the case, our climate is changing, and that is probably not a good thing. You have decided that this is not their real intent. But that's just your opinion. You have no facts to make your case. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Exxon has LOGICAL reasons to spread disinfo about Global Warming. The wiki link lists a long list of well referenced science organizations who believe that Global Warming is real and that it is man made. Here is another wiki link, that shows both sides. And unlike you, it does so politely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy And here's another: But they also have this link, which you disparaged because it is wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Yes I do but you won't read them anyway. You have bought the propaganda hook line and sinker.
That's a lie. I read the paper you insisted quite rudely that I read. It's by an obscure scientist from Warsaw whom his own colleagues call a "contrarian". I have posted a great many facts that refute his report, which you rely on so much. I also posted the most damning evidence, by a group of scientists about Exxon's millions used to spread disinfo about Global Warming. I have read all your posts on this thread, and I have responded to all. I find you a rude and unpleasant person to discuss opposing views with. I will avoid you on this 4um in future. Furthermore, I repeat, it is you who have bought the Big Oil lie. I am still open as to whether or not Global Warming is man made or not. Whatever the case, from all the data of the recent deep ice core data (not the shallow older data the "contrarian" used in his 2004 report and from all I could tell in his more recent 2007 report), it is clear that we are facing some sort of climatic changes. From all that I could find, there is not total agreement in the scientific community whether or not Global Warming is man made, but there is little to no argument that our climate is changing.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
a shrinking that could be enough to reduce the bear population by two-thirds.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#2. To: farmfriend (#1)
#3. To: robin (#2)
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#4. To: farmfriend (#3)
#5. To: robin (#4)
The Bush Regime, who long held out against Global Warming, thanks to Big Oil interests, has now changed its mind; attempting no doubt to subvert the process.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#6. To: farmfriend (#5)
#7. To: robin (#6)
I've already said too much.
#8. To: robin, *Agriculture-Environment* (#6)
Well I see you as agreeing with Big Oil, that makes me very suspicious.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#9. To: farmfriend (#8)
#10. To: robin (#9)
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#11. To: farmfriend (#8)
The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was too high. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis.
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen5/JawoCO2-Eng.html
Monday, 4 September 2006
Deep ice tells long climate story The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented.
Earlier results from the Epica core were published in 2004 and 2005, detailing the events back to 440,000 years and 650,000 years respectively. Scientists have now gone the full way through the column, back another 150,000 years.
Jaworowski is a global warming skeptic.
#12. To: robin, *Agriculture-Environment* (#9)
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. This obviously is not the case with the IPCC, which isstuffed with money, and in agreement with the UN politics, which are dominated by greens and misanthropic fanaticism. During the past six years, the President of the United States devoted nearly $29 billion to climate research, leading the world with its unparalleled financial commitment (The White House 2007). This was about $5 billion per year, more than twice the amount spent on the Apollo Program ($2.3 billion per year), which in 1969 put man on the Moon. A side- effect of this situation, and of politicizing the climate issue, was described by meteorologist Piers Corbyn in the Weather Ac-tion Bulletin, December 2000: “The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity.”
If the President is leading the world in funding AGW studies, why do you believe he has been on the side of big oil?
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#13. To: robin (#11)
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#14. To: farmfriend (#13)
#15. To: robin (#14)
Yes I read the paper and posted my opinion as well as the opinions of other scientists on his paper. They think he's a kook, and they are scientists.
I wonder if this one scientist you found in some obscure school in Warsaw benefits too.
Michael Asher Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
First, NASA's James Hansen and his group had to fix a Y2K bug that a Canadian statistician found in their processing of the thermometer data. As a result, 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record in the United States - 1934 is. The temperature adjustment is admittedly small, yet there seemed to be no rush to retract the oft-repeated alarmist statements that have seared "1998!" into our brains as the rallying cry for the fight against global warming.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#16. To: farmfriend (#15)
I doubt you read the paper because the stuff you posted shows you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. You claim his report was in error because he used 2004 data. That right there tells me you didn't read it.
#17. To: farmfriend (#15)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
#18. To: robin (#17)
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#19. To: robin (#16)
I also notice that you have refused to respond to the report by the Scientists I posted earlier (twice since you ignored it), that Exxon has spent millions to spread disinfo about Global Warming. So now I find your comments here three times as suspicious.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#20. To: robin (#16)
(Edited)
If you have to ask me my position about 9/11 then that tells me you don't read many thread on this 4um. I post a great deal about that subject and I have stated my views many, many, many times. 9/11 was clearly an inside job, probably out of Cheney's office in cahoots with or directed by the likes of Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and all the other dual-citizen ZioNazis and Traitors who have taken over our govt in a silent coup. What's more important is that the official govt line is a lie, and as I've posted many times, exactly how it was done is less important.
These people are energy investors who use federal money and their own tax- exempt "charitable" donations to fund lawsuits that manipulate access to resources, control processing of energy feedstocks, and set attainment targets in a manner preferential to their own investments. ALL of the resulting capital gains in their trusts are tax-exempt. You may be surprised to find the Hewlett and Packard fortunes listed as energy investors, >but they just gave over 130 million to Stanford to research extraction of methane hydrates and are directly tied in with Exxon/Mobil in that effort. Keeping it in the family they've put Lynn Orr, who is married to Susan Packard, in charge of the global energy project. The idea is that they can use the energy revenues and the carbon credits for removing a principal source of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. They need Kyoto or this will be a big loser of an investment. Curiously, if they disturb those nodules foolishly, they may end up releasing a great deal of methane to the surface which would release the gases into the atmosphere.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#21. To: farmfriend (#1)
#22. To: YertleTurtle (#21)
I don't believe a thing these "scientists" say? Who made them God anyway?
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#23. To: farmfriend (#18)
#24. To: farmfriend (#19)
I've read that shit before.
#25. To: farmfriend (#20)
#26. To: robin (#24)
This is your response to the Exxon disinfo campaign? Wow! Well, given that you have bought into their disinfo campaign, it is to be expected.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#27. To: farmfriend (#26)
#28. To: robin (#25)
It's you have bought into Big Oil, not me.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#29. To: farmfriend (#28)
#30. To: robin (#24)
This is your response to the Exxon disinfo campaign? Wow! Well, given that you have bought into their disinfo campaign, it is to be expected.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#31. To: robin (#29)
OTOH, Exxon has been caught paying millions for spreading disinfo about Global Warming. And there is a LOGICAL reason for them to do so.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#32. To: farmfriend, Robin, all (#30)
CAT FIGHT!!!!!!
;)
Enemies of the Republic
#33. To: Critter (#32)
CAT FIGHT!!!!!!
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#34. To: farmfriend (#31)
A group of scientists is accusing ExxonMobil of spending millions to "manufacture confusion" over global warming. ... UCS report found that between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil has funnelled about $16 million to 43 advocacy groups and 16 individuals in an effort to "manufacture uncertainty" and ultimately stall government action that would require a mandatory cut in greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. The group said the figures in the report were compiled from ExxonMobil corporate reports.
#35. To: robin (#34)
You have no facts to make your case.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#36. To: farmfriend (#35)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest