31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
"More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
Cap and Trade and other taxation schemes based upon the farce of Anthropogenic global warming will add hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of tax burden on American energy consumers. We must reject these schemes and focus on energy independence, not squeezing even more dimes out of the already overburdened members of productive society.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
Cap and Trade and other taxation schemes based upon the farce of Anthropogenic global warming will add hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of tax burden on American energy consumers. We must reject these schemes and focus on energy independence, not squeezing even more dimes out of the already overburdened members of productive society.
Views: 164
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by P.G. on
-
Anyone have any figures on just how much Cap and Trade taxation would be needed to change the climate? And just what temperature change would be the goal and how it would drive various weather patterns to be beneficial to us?
Seems like kind of a longshot to just do it, then "Hope" for the best, huh?
-
Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on
-
When you put it like that it really is ridiculous, it is nothing but a scheme to fleece the average American taxpayer, corporations DO NOT! pay taxes, the endline consumer does. This is an undisputeable fact.
-
Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on -
Cap-and-Trade: Al Gore's Cash Cow.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=475461
Rep. Blackburn Questions Al Gore on charitable giving
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py6yay2c0Oo&feature=related
-
Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on
-
Speaking of junk science, would you care to admit that your earlier statements about global warming and Hurricanes is blatantly false junk science and fear mongering at its worst?
If you continue to spout off blantant lies you pull out of thin air you will lose all credibility.
"Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980 and we hear nothing in the news, yet Arctic ice is down less than 7% and they’re all over it! We’ve been waiting for the main stream media to pick up on the increase of Antarctic ice but so far they’re been totally absent. Guess its doesn’t fit the plan."
So does the fact that antarctic ice is 43% larger since 1980 compute with your ridiculous mantra? This is why global warming advocates only talk about the north pole and never the south pole, it doesn't fit into their narrow ridiculous propaganda. But please keep telling ridiculous lies. It is actually quite fun refuting such ignorance. All you can do is repeat the lies and innuendo of "An Inconvenient Truth"
"Still no sign of the national media on the extraordinary growth of sea ice at the antarctic. They sure haven’t missed a chance to point out the relatively small loss of ice at the arctic. Did did it ever occur to them that perhaps there is a natural process at work that has shifted ice growth from one pole to the other? Do they not want to admit that there are things man doesn’t yet understand about how this planet works?"http://climatechange-globalwarming.com/polar-cap-sea-ice-why-is-the-truth-not-being-told.html
If you want to see the numbers for yourself please go to the National Snow and Ice Data Centerhttp://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=100&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=03&hemis0=S&img0=extn&mo1=03&hemis1=S&img1=conc&year0=2009&year1=1980&.cgifields=no_panel&referal=globalwarminghoax.com
-
Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on
-
So your saying there hasn't been a net increase of polar cap ice of 34% since 1980, is that somthing you just disregard? Your right there is no point in debating you, every time I give you documented facts all you can do is blah blah blah big oil etc. But keep trying, I can go all day.
-
Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on
-
From 2004? Well if it's gonna melt rapidly it better start soon, you haven't refuted my point that cap ice has increased 36% since 1980, nor does National Geographic refute this. Nice try. Or does Global warming apply only to the North Pole? I wouldn't say a 7% decline in arctic ice since 1980-rapidly melting.
-
Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on
-
Gosh Darn: won't go into most of what you post as I don't think we have that much time! As for the "harming your big-oil agenda", I must ask: Who is "Big-Oil"? Is it ExxonMobil, Chrevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, etc? Because I think if you do a bit of digging you will find that these "Big Oil" companies are actually "Big Oil and GAS" companies, with nearly half of their production revenue in the Upstream side of things coming from natural gas. Up until a year or so ago, BP and ConocoPhillips were #1/#2 in U.S. natural gas production. They are still in the top 5 or 6. Around the world, the biggest movers and shakers in LNG are Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips. COP just spent over $5 billion in Australia on a LNG/coalbed methane gas project. Exxon, Shell, COP are spending billions and billions of dollars in Qatar developing natural gas and the associated LNG projects. BP and COP has huge developments in the San Juan basin in New Mexico and Colorado. Exxon has large developments in the Piceance basin in Colorado.
So, Big Oil is not really descriptive; its Big Oil and Gas!
And yes, T Boone gets it...he's strapped his money wagon to natural gas and wind. So, of course, he's pushing anything to get those industries moving forward because he will make money! No other reason. And I'll start believing Al Gore's heart is in it when he a) starts flying commercial economy class, and b) starts cramming his butt in one of those toy cars/SmartCars and not in a limo!
Otherwise, yes 90% + of the scientists are on one side of the debate. Do we discard the other 10% as "Louisiana bayou double-wide dwellers" as I think you called them? I grew up on the bayou but not in a double wide, but I still think that was a pitiful attack! Couldn't you mix in something about incest and the Stars and Bars?? Give it your all!
Beer Thirty! Time to go!
-
Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on
-
As for Al Gore his net worth has gone from 2 million to 100 million , coincidence? Laughable, he lives in a huge mansion and flies around the world on a private jet, his dad made all his money in zinc and coal mining.
-
Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on
-
My whole point was that XOM and the like that are usually called Big Oil get about half their bread buttered by natural gas. Why would "Big Oil" have an issue with natural gas?
I'm just glad my dad and his family were able to get the jobs they did early, helped me avoid the outhouse route!! I still remember going to my grandmother's old house in Grand Caillou and seeing the outhouse and wondering what the heck would somebody do with that. Well, about an hour later, I found out as nature called!! My grandfather's home on Grand Isle had an outhouse that was the only thing standing after one of the storms! Guess they spent all the money on the outhouse and built the house out of cheap material!!
I miss that part of the world as the people and the food are wonderful. Looking for some really deep gas exploration plays down that way! I'd love to sit a well for a few months down that way!
-
Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on
-
You may want to pull up their financials and look at the amount of net income and cashflow they get from nat gas/LNG vs oil. Its pretty surprising, actually. Many years ago they weren't very fired up about NG as it was only yielding $1.00 or less per mmBTU. Now that it is over $3 and getting higher at times, plus the LNG trade has made NG much more valuable to the shareholders and exec's at XOM and others.
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Cass County, TX
118 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
-
Titus County
10 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
