Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Climategate      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 26
view profile
History
ClimategatePage 2 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

In the 1970's the wacked out liberals were screaming of the coming "ICE AGE"...did it happen? Nope...
Today the wacked out environmentalists liberals are screaming"GLOBAL WARMING"...is it happening? .....NOPE...

The earth warms and cools in cycles...common sense folks. All the global warming screamers are doing is making money off our backs..follow the money...it leads to algore and his lying cronies!


That's your opinion which your certainly entitled too.Imho global warming is a fact and mankind pumping all that pollution into the atmosphere has an effect.And if it is true why is it a political issue we all live on the same planet.
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/3/2009 2:33:00 PM
And if there are thing's mankind has done would it not be a good idea to try to rectify the situation?
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/3/2009 3:05:02 PM
This reminds me of the early 70s when the waters were so polluted outside of factories that all the fish were dieing,and lots of people mocked the whacked out long haired hippies that were fighting it,and those protestors won,the government had to crack down and make them ,force them to stop dumping there sludge in our waterways.This is just 40 years later and all different types of pollution happens, and their are still these types that scream its just a bunch of whacked out environmentalists,and as another said ,I think this global warming mess is just another way for some people/politicians to make money and/or get votes.

It boils down to the fact that it doesn't matter if all the corral dies and all the plankton dies and there are no more salmon runs no more potable water and acid rain ruins all the trees as it has done in other forests.its those type people that when its all gone,they look to blame the first person there in charge,so what ever the presidents name is at that point,all of a sudden these types are screaming that the moron should have known better.Then you have to listen to them daily on these forums what a moron that president is,and all the while its them.

Its one thing to not actually participate in your fair share of being environmentally conscience and doing you part , yet are aware that you should be,and them on the opposite side of the scale ,the bottom rung,are those that have such disdain for the whole concept all they do is call names to those that actively work on the problems and others just accuse them of probably lining their pockets .

This is why we have a medical system going bankrupt and an environment being ruined and an economy that was allowed to continue this far,because for some reason someone actually listens more to the bottom rung of logic than those that are scholars in the field,apparently highly charged emotional town hall rants are more effective than scholarly boring text being read.Is this what they mean by the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/3/2009 3:54:35 PM
The big question is ‘Does man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming?’
I would have to say Mother Nature has us beat hands down.

http://patterico.com/2007/10/23/california-wildfires-from-space/
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/socal_wildfires_oct07.html

For more startling images, just google California wildfires from space

And then there are these nasty polluters...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/gallery_volcanoes/3/

I wonder if the AGW “scientist’s” computer models factor in these events?


if all people were to start using electric cars (we're not even close in technology for this to happen)

I don't see electric jetliners happening anytime soon, either. In fact, I've never even seen a prototype.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/5/2009 7:40:17 AM

The big question is ‘Does man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming?’
I would have to say Mother Nature has us beat hands down.
Absolutely its a proven fact,and yes Mother nature contributes a lot also !


Man made global warming is a well-funded money making hoax supported by what is the largest academic fraud in the history of mankind.
Its true 17,000 of us meet at Steve's house twice a week to plan how we continue to pull the wool over your eyes week to week.How did you find out,we swore to secrecy ! It was Timmy wasn't it,he has such a big mouth !


Liberals are the most hypocrytical people in history. They are the most freedon taking, idealess people ever. They believe in pipe dreams, and want to FORCE everyone else to believe in the same fairy tales they believe , such as "global warming" even though it gets into the 30's in late MAY in the SOUTH!
OH YEAH , everytime I get up on a late may morning FREEZING MY ASS off in a SOUTHERN state, I say, DAMN THAT GLOBAL WARMING!
( from what I hear, that was all just a HOAX) SHHHH dont tell those liberals who just want to RAISE OUR TAXES because of that HOAX! They'll believe anything! As ,long as it gets then control! Freezing in early June? That doesnt matter top them! The dont believe what they see, or feel, they juts believe what they are TOLD to believe!
I really am scared, to think a bucnh of people that cannot feel the air outside, and tell what freaking MONTH it is when they feel it, who actuaLLY BELIEVE, some dimwit saying GLOBAL WARMING, when EVERY DAMN MAY, it is COLD. IN GEORGIA. HEY LIBS, GUESS WHAT! GAm is a SOUTHERN state, where it us supposed to be WARM in MAY. But I guess it being COLD in MAY in a SOTHERN state doesnt fit a LIBERALS agenda of "GLOBAL WARMING" so, that LIBERAL will DENY DENY DENY the TRUTH, no matter how COLD he or she feels!
Tell ya what. I have to envy a liberals FAITH! As FAITH is the evidence of things unseen!
This is off a Obama supports cousin Odinga killing of Black christians thread,but in the last 100 posts they have not talked on topic,but this is on topic for here,let me share,the thread hates liberals,this is typical of a post !
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/5/2009 8:38:43 AM
You know it snowed in Houston yesterday.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Houston_Snow.html
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/5/2009 9:16:48 AM
Yes I know it snowed, that's one the main problem of Global warming,it makes one place rain more causing flooding ,one place hotter drying up the water,one place has double the amounts of hurricanes and tornadoes causing widespread devastation.There are ones here that think all it means is everywhere gets hotter ! The only debate is what is an exact percentage of its thats natural and the exact percentage of man made.There is no question to whether its happening.
 Wookie50
Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/5/2009 12:43:36 PM
Actually its mostly distorted by the right for obvious reasons. "Adding in the real temps" is hardly cheating as it corrects errors in the estimates. Before 1960 they didn't have actual readings so they had to reconstruct them. Of course an actual reading will even out errors in estimates. Anyone who has ever gotten a gas bill understands that. I notice there was no "climategate" when the Bush administation was doctoring EPA reports to remove references to global warming. Again for obvious reasons.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/5/2009 5:12:04 PM

Adding in the real temps" is hardly cheating as it corrects errors in the estimates. Before 1960 they didn't have actual readings so they had to reconstruct them.

From the same article as flyguy quoted, here's one of the hacked e-mails that are part of the controversy and then RealClimate's (whoever they are?) answer.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.............

Here's RealClimate's explanation:

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the "trick" is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the "decline," it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem" -- see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while "hiding" is probably a poor choice of words (since it is "hidden" in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Now it's possible that this might be a logical explanation... but with all the scientific babble who can really tell?

One thing I'm left wondering... if a "trick" is needed to make the tree rings match up with actual temperatures since 1961, why should we believe that there wasn't a "divergence problem" before 1961? I would think that the last 50 yrs (that we've actually been taking real temperature readings) should match up with tree ring density very closely.... the most recent rings should be the benchmark that tells us what density should be expected for what temperature... not the other way around.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/6/2009 6:20:07 AM
What a difference 11 days make. First is was that the hacked e-mails “in no way undermined evidence that humans are to blame for global warming.” Now from the same official...
AP December 6, 2009
COPENHAGEN – The U.N.'s top climate official on Sunday conceded that hacked e-mails from climate scientists had damaged the image of global warming research but said evidence of a warming Earth is solid.
--------
I guess the spin isn’t working. Notice how he now leaves out the "humans are to blame" part. The evidence is solid? They can’t even show the evidence. It’s been deleted. The report goes on to say...
-------
Negotiators in Copenhagen are trying to set targets for controlling emissions of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases, including by the leading contributors, China and the United States. They will also seek agreement on how much rich countries should pay to help poor nations to deal with climate change.

"Those are the two key issues," de Boer said. "And if those can be unlocked I think the rest will come together as well."

De Boer said he didn't think the conference would fail because key nations have already made pledges on emissions and financial assistance — even though they are still short of what experts say is needed.
"It's going to be two weeks of thorough negotiation to try and get the ambition level up and to get the financial specifics on the table," de Boer said.
-------
The last part is telling of what the true agenda is. It’s all about negotiating wealth redistribution predicated on a junk science hoax.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091206/ap_on_re_eu/climate
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/6/2009 6:45:52 AM
There are good points on both sides,science is never something that is mutually agreed amongst all the scientists,and they all have amazing personal credentials.They can to polar opposites and not trying to scam anyone !

I have to wonder what percentage of this change is because of pollution and widespread logging of our rain forests,and how much is natural.

It has been argued that climate change is something that happens over tens of thousands of years,slowly ,predictably crawling along.But common sense and history also shows moments of sudden impact on our planet,like earth quakes,where the plates move ever so slowly until something has to give,then bam,there is rapid movement,I believe anything weather related is the same.One day the humidity level hits the correct pattern of so many days in a row of severe humidity and bam,you have sudden change.

There is a great study on the drastic effects of soot on the ice caps,soot soaks in the sun that would have been reflected and instead ice melts,quite simple and a modern discovery that shocked scientists that had not thought of something being that simple to have such a profound effect and problem is eliminated at the next snow fall.

Some things like in a science magazine showing space photographs of the thousands of mile long dust cloud floating over to the Americas from Africa,so every soil borne thing they had in there soil floats to us,How does that happen ,the earth finally had enough days and years of drought that there soil dried so long all it took was high winds to carry the dusts high into the atmosphere and carry it over here,piece of cake.Moments of sudden impact in our environment.

I feel our change is because of man made and natural circumstances,so maybe if we continue to follow sane environmental practices we can tip the delicate scales back into our favor ! Its no mystery the effects of insecticides in our waterways flowing from off hundreds of thousands of acres of farmers fields every time there is heavy rains.Much of our humanly damage is very easy to spot and a no brainer.If we did out part maybe the natural changes wouldn't be so drastic.
 Wookie50
Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/6/2009 8:45:10 AM

COPENHAGEN – The U.N.'s top climate official on Sunday conceded that hacked e-mails from climate scientists had damaged the image of global warming research but said evidence of a warming Earth is solid.


Being accused of anything would hurt your image, even if you are innocent.


The last part is telling of what the true agenda is. It’s all about negotiating wealth redistribution predicated on a junk science hoax.


Junk science is a meaningless term used by non scientists. Where is the evidence that it is all a hoax?
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/6/2009 8:52:50 AM

Being accused of anything would hurt your image, even if you are innocent.

You would think... however refer back to msg 27 for his previous statements.

Where is the evidence that it is all a hoax?

The hacked e-mails? Where is the evidence that it's not all a hoax?
 Wookie50
Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/6/2009 3:16:16 PM
It's absurd to say it is all a hoax. Even if the East Anglia scientists were actually guilty of what is being claimed that would say nothing about independent readings worldwide for decades. It wasn't David Copperfield that made the glaciers disappear. The basic concepts that greenhouse gases trap heat and that we are producing more of it have been well known for over 100 years. I suppose you could argue the extent of the problem. Sort of like how you could argue over whether or not someone is drunk. The deniers argument however is like saying that alcohol simply doesn't cause drunkeness.
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 40
Climategate
Posted: 12/9/2009 6:23:39 AM
Send some of this global warming our way. We've just been hit with a huge blizzard.
 Wookie50
Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/9/2009 6:59:47 AM

Have you noticed how quickly the EPA has jumped on a new "danger" since GW is going up in the flames of academic fraud? Now it's CO2. Dangerous, got to regulate it.


CO2 has always been the basis of global warming.


How dangerous can it be seeing as how plants need CO2 just like you need O2?


You need water too so obviously drowning doesn't exist...


Man made GW is nothing more than a fabricated "danger" being used as an excuse to regulate and control economic activity.


Yep, just like how they fabricated smog and acid rain...
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 42
Climategate
Posted: 12/9/2009 10:00:12 AM

Have you noticed how quickly the EPA has jumped on a new "danger" since GW is going up in the flames of academic fraud? Now it's CO2. Dangerous, got to regulate it. How dangerous can it be seeing as how plants need CO2 just like you need O2?


Uh, yeah...the EPA 'jumped' on CO2 when they realized that the build-up of it was causing global warming.
And, yes, producers need the CO2 and consumers need the O2, but what we don't need it an over-abundance of the the CO2, which is what we currently have.

Know what trees are mostly made of? Carbon.
Know what gets released when trees are burned?
CO2.
Know how much CO2 is released just by the slash/burn happening in Brazil?
Daily?


1 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere per year; about 75 percent of this is from deforestation, the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology reports. Recent estimates suggest that the Amazon Basin has a total biomass of 86 petagrams of carbon, equivalent to the last 11 years of CO2 emissions. Deforestation is estimated to have reduced the Amazon forest by 15 percent in the past three decades, driven by infrastructure expansion in the forest frontier and increasing global demand for soya, beef, timber, etc. Climate change also is predicted to increase the probability of droughts in this region. The University of Oxford, in collaboration with NASA (U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and Brazilian scientists, demonstrated the close link between droughts and the increase in forest fires, potentially doubling the total amount of carbon emitted to the atmosphere. (Saatchi, Houghton, Dos Santos Alvala, Soares, and Yu, 2007.)
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/energy-english/2009/September/20090917163748mlenuhret0.5190393.html#ixzz0ZDQm0YMH


Know what happens when the forests are depleted?
They can't make O2 as a by-product of photosynthesis.
But, hey--it's okay, cuz O2 is highly overrated...right?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 43
Climategate
Posted: 12/9/2009 11:26:13 AM


No the main problem is none of that is happening. In fact, hurricane activity is down not up. Living on the gulf coast I pay attention to those things.


Last night I was watching an interview with a geologist talking about glaciers. The AGW hystericists claim that global warming is increasing the melting of the underneath of the glaciers which then lubricates the glaciers allowing them to flow faster. However they are incorrect. The formation of the water has to do with the temperature of the earth underneath the glacier (which cannot be effected by global warming) and the mass of the ice.

Global warming predicts higher precipitation which means more snowfall which means thicker glaciers. Instead we see the thinning of glaciers. Glaciers are a problem of the AGW hypothesis because they demonstrate that the Earth is heating up (rather than the Earth being heated up by higher CO2 levels).
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/9/2009 11:57:01 AM

No the main problem is none of that is happening. In fact, hurricane activity is down not up. Living on the gulf coast I pay attention to those things.
Oh I see you judge the entire hurricane region on your area,ok then your sleeping if you have not noticed the strenghting of the storms you get.You cannot take my one sentence and expect that to fit for each area ,its clearly explained by Climatologists that your weather could double,or strenghtin or change,say wetter from drier,some regions could stay neutraldon't expect each city to be the same.

Increase in Major Hurricanes Linked to Warmer Seas

By Bjorn Carey, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 15 September 2005 02:01 pm ET

The number of severe hurricanes has doubled worldwide even though the total number of hurricanes has dropped over the last 35 years, a new study finds.

The increase in major storms like Katrina coincides with a global increase of sea surface temperatures, which scientists say is an effect of global warming.

The possible relationship between global warming and hurricane strength has been a topic of controversy for years.

The new study supports another one released in July, in which climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology showed for the first time that major storms in both the Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent.

The Names & Numbers
Deadliest, costliest, busiest months, worst states, plus this year's storm names and more.

How & Where Hurricanes Form
The science of monster storms.


Katrina Gallery


Hurricane Gallery

The new reearch finds that total number of hurricanes worldwide – except for in the North Atlantic – decreased during during the period from 1970 to 2004 compared to years prior.

Yet in the same period, the global number of intense Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has nearly doubled in number, jumping from 50 per five years during the 1970's to 90 per five years in the last decade.
Last night I was watching an interview with a geologist talking about glaciers. The AGW hystericists claim that global warming is increasing the melting of the underneath of the glaciers which then lubricates the glaciers allowing them to flow faster. However they are incorrect.
Good to hear from a well recognized trained climatologist like you,yes I'm certain your correct and the experts is wrong.When will they learn !
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/9/2009 7:35:47 PM

Dog Gone It She's smart enough.....


It's a secret code what else could it be?
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/10/2009 5:52:40 AM

I pay attention to hurricane activity. The "Coming Ice Age" was the on the cover of Time Magazine back in 1980 I think. Big article about how we were all gonna freeze to death and such. Based on the same junk science and conclusions from comprimised data as GW is today. Could have been a year or two one way or the other.
Now to the point made in a previous post about the glaciers moving faster. Question I have is says who? If that is indeed correct, then why aren't there more icebergs in the North Atlantic shipping lanes than normal. But, in point of fact, the opposite is true. Must be because the icebergs are melting so fast with all this GW they can't be tracked.


Let's just say for arguements sake that GW or the new Ice Age are nothing more then baloney. Now go up into any tall building in just about any city and look out on the horizon that dark dark cloud you see is man made it is as a result of the pollutants we are releasing into the air, eventually they have to go some where so they are picked up and redeposited into our water and our crops, our cows, sheep, pigs, chickens , turkey, fish, lobsters and every thing we eat contains these pollutants.

What do you think we should do? Continue to pollute until we grow third eyes or arms or destroy ourselves and every other living organism on this planet?

GW or not we have to move away from fossil fuels and other pollutants or we won't have to worry about the economy
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 47
Climategate
Posted: 12/11/2009 3:35:09 AM
Al Gore told us how great NAFTA would be for America. In fact he said "This is a good deal for our country". We all know how great of a deal NAFTA has been for America. So of course we should believe a man like Al Gore when he tells us how many new jobs will be created under new climate change laws......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhwhMXOxHTg
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/11/2009 6:10:55 PM

Al Gore told us how great NAFTA would be for America. In fact he said "This is a good deal for our country".
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S.[bold] President George H.W. Bush[/bold], Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it.

In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the House of Representatives, Clinton introduced clauses intended to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.

House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. [bold]Remarkably, the agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans[/bold] and only 102 Democrats.


I have now seen Nafta come up 3 times on Obama threads as an exclusive deal with democrats,and it is not.It always seems to be trying to show, look what an awful thing the Democrats did,that typical liberal actions ! People have such short memories,had it not been for Clinton we would not have had the safeguards in place and it would be worse than it is,and worse than Bush originally had it.

Clinton stated many times he thought Bushes plan could be a wonderful thing but all sides learned later of ramifications and inabilities to enforce tainted the entire NAFTA plan.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 49
Climategate
Posted: 12/11/2009 9:29:43 PM


I have now seen Nafta come up 3 times on Obama threads as an exclusive deal with democrats,and it is not.It always seems to be trying to show, look what an awful thing the Democrats did,that typical liberal actions ! People have such short memories,had it not been for Clinton we would not have had the safeguards in place and it would be worse than it is,and worse than Bush originally had it.


Without Clinton it wouldn't have passed at all. Demoncrats were generally against NAFTA. Clinton made it more palatable and used every means at his disposal to get the Demoncrats on board. Repuglicans certainly have their share of the blame too.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 12/11/2009 10:25:01 PM
NAFTA did not get the votes needed to pass as a Treaty in the U.S. Senate. That unusual combination reflected the challenges President Clinton faced in convincing Congress that the controversial piece of legislation would truly benefit all Americans.

NAFTA's effects, both positive and negative, have been quantified by several economists, whose findings have been reported in publications such as the World Bank's Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the Caribbean, NAFTA's Impact on North America, and NAFTA Revisited by the Institute for International Economics. Some argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise (in the form of lower prices, especially food), even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis. Others argue that NAFTA has been beneficial to business owners and elites in all three countries, but has had negative impacts on farmers in Mexico who saw food prices fall based on cheap imports from U.S. agribusiness, and negative impacts on U.S. workers in manufacturing and assembly industries who lost jobs. Critics also argue that NAFTA has contributed to the rising levels of inequality in both the U.S. and Mexico. Some economists believe that NAFTA has not been enough (or worked fast enough) to produce an economic convergence, nor to substantially reduce poverty rates. Some have suggested that in order to fully benefit from the agreement, Mexico must invest more in education and promote innovation in infrastructure and agriculture.

Enough said for me off topic,Back to Climategate,I watched the hour long Valdez oil spill on educational tv,although Exxon was told to pay 5 billion they held off and ignored for 18 years,after it went to the supreme court the award was lowered to 500 million ,thats how corporations play with people in environmental destruction they do.They pointed out that since the oil spill they have had 550 more spills which totaled 40 times that had spilled in Valdez.Geez I wonder why the fish are not doing well,considering a drop of dishwasher soap would kill all the fish in my fish tank,thats how sensitive there eco systems are.

Erin Brokavich was on next,she said after her movie now Chromium in water is widespread coming from the same type mega corporations,she pointed out 60 % of Californias water source had Chromium in it .

Another mega corporation doing natural gas in an area like the size of 4 states get drilling rights,then the farmers closest to the drilling get sick from their water wells and the corporation states it has nothing to do with it,yet offers to buy bottled water for them to be neighborly ,its widespread and they don't take the blame,and its a city counsel budget buster to sue them.This is why its so important not to ignore the damage of corporate pollution just because some of you can't get the needed proof of GW,all you do is end the fight and Corporations continue on,Exxon,Monsanto,Tyson,to name a few are some of the worlds biggest polluters,thats why it seems its so stupid that some fight all this environmental work we are trying to start,its the largest corporations that are spending hundreds of millions to tell you there is no problem.Exxon still claims GW can never be proved,and doubts that it even is ,why,because everything they are involved in would suffer from cracking down.That 500 million they paid the entire town of Valdez that still 18 years later has their cannery closed, amounts to 4 days of profit for Exxon.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Climategate