Do you think Exxon Mobil used front groups?
Cons will find an excuse to hide it. I mean it's so obvious....who gains most by denial of climate change? Corporations. Who are the biggest proponents of calling it a hoax? Those with money. how can anyone not see there may be a pattern emerging here?
The pattern is set.
Yes, I think Exxon Mobil did.
"The people said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences — and uncertainties — to company executives."
Hmmm interesting. Now the CC proponents, failing in their core argument, have turned instead to attacking their opponents.
Where have I seen this before .
What's CC proponents?
That would be Climate Change proponents
Interesting you taught me a new word for how you would call someone who supports climate change.
"Proponents of climate change tend to use more conservative, tentative language to report on the science behind it, while skeptics use more emotional and assertive language when reinterpreting scientific studies, says research from the University of Waterloo."
Btw, only about 12% of Americans flat our reject climate change. I would call that an overall success for the proponents.
"At the same time, the number of Americans who say global warming is not happening has declined nearly by half, from 20 percent in January 2010 to only 12 percent today."
Interesting statistics - that have nothing to do with actual changes in climate, only in the perception of the public. Almost sounds like the goal is to sway public opinion.
Affirmative, the goal is to sway public opinion now since we live in a Democracy. The science on climate change is settled. Climate change is now entirely a political issue.
Pardon me Vegan - the science is far from settled. There are reports less than a week old charging that 'scientists' cooked the books again to ensure results supporting the climate agenda.
Vegan, you're probably a nice person - but you are caught up in a cause riddled with crooks, liars and hidden agendas. It's going to take a generation or more to win the faith of the public again. But, you guys need to start being honest - NOW!
The scientists are being honest and the science is settled.
Fact: The IPCC is twenty times more like to underestimate than overestimate.
Myth: -- The IPCC is alarmist --
Fallacy: Cherry picking, the few times scientists overestimated.
These latest claims are easily defeated.
Fact: The adjustments were honest and part of a routine to ensure accuracy.
Myth -- Climate scientists cooked the book--
Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions, misrepresentation, and conspiracy theory. First, the amount of adjustment is exaggerated, a form of misrepresentation. Second, deniers jump to conclusions about the reasons behind the adjustments. Third, the myth relies upon a conspiracy theory that would require too many people and organizations to silence.
Fact: There is 195 countries involved in the IPCC. There are nearly 200 scientific organizations that support climate change.
// "As an intergovernmental body, membership of the IPCC is open to all member countries of the United Nations and WMO. Currently 195 countries are Members of the IPCC."//
Myth: Global warming is a hoax.
Fallacy: Conspiracy theory. There is too many people, organizations, and groups involved to pull off a conspiracy of this scale. Scientists are not organized enough.
Maybe that's why their efforts to cheat, cover up, deceive are occasionally tripped up and exposed.
Tell me Vegan - if it was all on the up and up, why would they have to threaten meteorologists with rescinding their credentials if they don't publicly support climate change?
Over and over again the scientists have been proven correct and innocent. Budwick, you second paragraph begs the question, were meteorologists threatened?
Furthermore, the top specialist in the field are climate scientists, meteorologists are not climate scientists. As expertise increases so does consensus on climate change.
I brought up meteorologists and their threatened credentials because they are the weather people the general public sees on a day to day basis. These TV weather people need AMS Certification in order to be allowed to perform on TV.
The AMS has decertifies global warming skeptics.
Do you think that this might influence the TV weatherman opinion? I know it does mine.
If you're an idiot, I suppose you could gloss over that fact.
Weather is not the same as climate. A weatherwoman or weatherman has no business denying climate change. This is an example of a fake expert.
"The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time."
I'm so sorry that you didn't read my previous response.
"I brought up meteorologists and their threatened credentials because they are the weather people the general public sees on a day to day basis. "
The fact that you want to shut them up is telling.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion on Climate change.
I'm not sure I agree with your last sentence. Do we have a right to voice our opinion in public that such an event does not exist?
"Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually."
"Climate change flaunted its deadly side during the 2003 European heat wave, which killed over 70,000 people across the continent. In London and Paris alone, global warming led to 570 more heat-related deaths than would be expected without human-caused warming, researchers estimate in the July Environmental Research Letters."
To deny that such events happened, that those people did not die, is immoral in my opinion. Freedom of speech can only be taken so far.
"Freedom of speech can only be taken so far. " - Spoken as a true progressive liberal.
There is already limits on free speech. For example both fraud and threats are against the law.
// "Thousands of people each year fall victim to fraudulent acts -- often unknowingly. While many instances of fraud go undetected, learning how to spot the warning signs early on may help save you time and money in the long run.//
Fraud is a broad term that refers to a variety of offenses involving dishonesty or "fraudulent acts". In essence, fraud is the intentional deception of a person or entity by another made for monetary or personal gain." 
//"Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”9" // 
I question the moral integrity of anyone who believes in absolute freedom of speech. Furthermore, the weathermen and/or weatherwomen in question may have been committing fraud by denying climate change. Fraud is a criminal offense and a legitimate reason to remove someone's credentials.
And expressing an opinion against climate change is fraudulent or a threat?
Get a life Vegan.
I don't know the specific instances, but yes I could see a scenario where spreading misinformation about climate change would be considered fraud.
Besides, you claim your a Christian, truth is a value of Christians.
You expressed a concern about freedom of speech being taken too far. Those are the words of tyranny Vegan - not cool.
Yes, I am Christian. And this Christian believes that man made global warming is a hoax, a scam, a fraud!! And, you can take that truth to the bank!
I don't believe in absolute freedom of speech. I've given two great examples of existing limits on freedom of speech.
You can believe whatever you want. There is 2.08 billion Muslims according to this site. I keep getting different numbers from different sites, so don't take my word for it.
The point is that there is lots of non-Christians in the world. What does belief about global warming have to do with anything?
Fact: The IPCC is more likely to underestimate than to overestimate.
Myth: -- The IPCC is alarmist. --
Fallacy: Cherry picking the times when the IPCC overestimated without looking at the times the IPCC underestimated.
Scientists are not organized enough to pull off such a conspiracy theory. There is too many people and organizations.
What exactly do you think is the flaw anyways? Do you dispute the fact that Co2 can absorb infrared?
// "and while Muslims are 2.08 billion." //
The flaw is that 'the science' has been repeatedly shown to be flawed, tampered with, fraudulent, bogus.
I agree that the climate is changing. It has always been changing, and always will. There's is no amount of global taxation that will influence climate change.
The science has not been tampered with.
// "A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming." //
It seems we're making as much progress as those making the laws that will bankrupt industry if it passes. I'll leave you to your fantasy.
Again, you provide no evidence that these laws will bankrupt the industry. Your fallacy is appeal to emotion.
There is no evidence that climate change is real.
The carbon tax crap is bogus whether it bankrupts industry or not. It's a power / money grab hoax.
Easy to make the claim of a conspiracy, extremely difficult to prove. I ask you what evidence would convince you that global warming is legitimate, and the conspiracy theory dis-proven?
Actually, the conspiracy has been busted a number of times.
The hard part seems to be getting the climate change promoters to accept the fact that their credibility is gone.
I think your cause is going to have to wait a generation or two. Once bitten - twice shy.
A person can easily claim conspiracy and that the conspiracy has been busted, proving such claims is very difficult. There are too many people involved.
A group of power hungry globalists can easily claim nonsense as science and struggle to regain lost credibility when their scam is found out and use patsies like ..., well, like you to continue beating the climate change drum.
Anyone can easily claim nonsense as science, this is where evidence is key, and due to your unsubstantiated claims and me providing evidence a reasonable person can only conclude that the I am more likely to be telling the truth than you.
Fact: There is a 198 scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change is caused by humans.
Myth: --Climate change is a hoax. --
Fallacy: Conspiracy theory, there is too many people and organizations involved, scientists are not organized enough to pull off a conspiracy of this scale. Just one or two whistle-blowers with concrete evidence would destroy such a conspiracy. Since this has not happened, it is safe to say the scientists are honest.
Vegan - Your 'scientists' have been busted every time. Give it up. Your unwillingness to face the fact that your revered scientists succumbed to the lures of fame and fortune ain't my fault. You should be warned however, that you look a fool.
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
Took me some time to find the response to your article. There is a lot of pitfalls with raw data. These below articles were written in 2011, yet deniers keep doing the old wine new bottle technique and posting fresh articles in 2017.
Fact: Weather stations are moved and can give a false impression. For example higher altitudes are cooler, if a weather station is moved upwards it will give a false impression of cooling. This is why there is the adjustments.
There is also adjustments in instrument and repairs made in the field. You would not want a malfunctioning station to throw off the results. This is why there is the adjustments.
Myth: Raw data is superior to non-raw.
Fallacy: Misrepresentation and conspiracy theory, deniers claim malice when this is routine science including unrelated fields.
You're still yammering on this? Vegan, like I said earlier, you guys ruined your credibility. It's going to take generations to forget the betrayal.
You and climate change are dead to me.
The science is settled on climate change. There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change. Arguing about climate change is a political debate made to look like a scientific debate.
Read Merchants of Doubt for an overview of what is going on. Climate scientists have repeatedly proven to be honest.
OOoo, I just felt a chill! Like a ghost passed by.
Fact: Scientists emails have been hacked, been sent hate emails, excessively asked for information via the freedom of information act, and every time they have been proven innocent.
Myth: "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
“[T]he 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. "
Fallacy: Conspiracy theory and misrepresentation. The emails were taken out of context and suggests a massive conspiracy.
Seriously - did you feel that ice cold breeze?
Fact: Co2 levels are now at the highest in over two million years.
//"By studying chemicals in long-dead, single-celled plankton called foraminifera, though, the team behind the new study was able to extend the climate record back 2.1 million years (prehistoric time line). " //
Myth: The Co2 increase is all part of a natural cycle.
Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions, Co2 is rising much faster than in the past.
At what tax rate do you suppose 'climate change' will stop?
I don't know, I'm much better at science than politics. Since Co2 from burning of fossil fuels is the main driver, any legislation would have to involve fossil fuels and Co2.
One suggestion is to deregulate nuclear power thus encouraging more nuclear power plants in lieu of coal powered plants.
Good for you Vegan! You didn't take the bait.
Deregulation of nuclear power is a great idea. Although, we better come up with a good way to dispose of the nuclear waste.
You state you disagree, why do you disagree?
Your post is long, so I will respond to your post in chunks.
//"Tell me something vegan. What caused the two ice ages the earth experienced? And what caused them to retreat? " // Brianl
Milankovitch cycles seems to be the main determinant for why the Earth enters and exits ice ages. 
//"Further how do you or anyone else know that the earth isn't still in the process of receding from the last ice age?" // Brianl
The rate of change, the ice ages take about 50,000 years each. The recent increases have take place in about 50 years. Meaning the changes now are about 1,000 faster than ice ages. See graph:
//"It human arrogance to think that the temperature the earth has generally been at for the last quarter million years is its operative best. " // Brianl
The background rate of extinction is 1000x greater than normal. "Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives." 
//"We humans might well be the next big specie to die off. Much like the dinosaurs did. And like the dinosaurs it is likely out of our hands." // Brianl
Many species are becoming extinct already due to human activity. Due to the complexity of the ecosystem it is difficult to determine which species are vital.
Stating that global climate change is likely out of human control is like stating that a person who has been clearly murdered with fingerprints all over the murder weapon died of natural causes. The evidence clearly indicates humans are responsible.
"And speaking of that particular event in earths history. How did the earth manage to recover so well from such a cataclysmic event as the meteor strike that is believed to be the cause of nearly ending all life on earth?" Brianl
The recovery took over a million years. The damage humans have done to the Earth will likely take at least 200,000 years to repair.
"The biggest give away that the man-made global warming theory is a hoax is that the so called scientist never calculate the earths incredible ability to heal itself. " Brianl
Incredible, but very slow. To state that climate change is a hoax is to think that a massive conspiracy theory exists.
Can you back up your claim with an outside source about the volcano? Natural sinks of Co2 like forests and oceans outweigh natural sources like volcanoes.
Your last paragraphs indicate you believe in a massive conspiracy. Yet, it would not take much to destroy such a conspiracy. Many people would want to take credit for revealing the truth, providing incentive. That being said, a conspiracy is extremely unlikely.
We cannot afford to take the risk to ignore climate change. Already climate change claims 150,000 lives annually according to the World Health Organization.
Here's the graph for the last post didn't load.
Lol, Agenda 21, its too undefined to take seriously. I have no interest in Agenda 21. I don't see how you can feel like Galileo after this discussion.