|
brianri
Jul 19, 2006, 8:25 PM
Post #26 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2003
Posts: 126
|
Does anyone know of any links to other photos showing the rock fall in relation to the whole mountain? I'm trying to figure out where exactly this rockfall occurred and can't from the photos. It looks like it was down low and one photo looks like it was over near the hotel at Kleine Scheidegg which is not the east side. I was on the Eiger last year at the end of July on the Northeast Pillar Austrian Route which is where I believe the rock fall may have occurred. Good (i.e. lucky) timing on my part. I 'd appreciate any info if anyone knows the specific location of the fall.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Jul 19, 2006, 8:49 PM
Post #27 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
News flash on the pointless Global Warming debate:
-The poles change location, naturally, and while some places melt, others get colder... (IOW, not every natural change is a result of Global Warming)
-The earth IS getting warmer. It is part of a cycle as old as the planet itself! Global Warming is PART of the natural cycle of the Earth, and the human race isn't going to be able to stop it... (best to prepare.)
-Mount Pinatubo's eruption in the early 90's did more to heat up the Earths atmosphere AND deplete the ozone than the human race in all recorded history!
-If the human race manages to speed up the NATURAL phase of global warming by a fraction of a percent, so be it! We are HERE, and we are PART of the ecosystem, like it or not! If you don't agree, then LEAVE!
-George Bush has a hell of a lot more important things to worry about, that have immediate consequences for all of us. Who gives a sh** if it isn't a top priority!!!! Leave it to the scientists and experts on the subject to keep us updated on the state of Global Warming... The president doesn't need to be the central force against it... and neither does Al frickin' Gore for that matter!
-Keep climbing, and just be mindful of the erosion factor - on ice AND rock, and you should be able to make a judgement call for your own safety. If someone had been climbing that mass of rock when it finally collapsed, I'm sure someone would have found a way to put the deaths on some political figure. Gimme a break.
:evil: :evil: :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
kricir
Jul 19, 2006, 8:57 PM
Post #28 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2005
Posts: 434
|
What we need is a few good volcanos to go off, block out the sun, and cool things off a bit. They would also help the world’s overpopulation problem. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
powderpond
Jul 19, 2006, 9:13 PM
Post #29 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2006
Posts: 3
|
Big high Gas Prices said -"George Bush has a hell of a lot more important things to worry about, that have immediate consequences for all of us. Who gives a sh** if it isn't a top priority!!!! Leave it to the scientists and experts on the subject to keep us updated on the state of Global Warming... The president doesn't need to be the central force against it... and neither does Al frickin' Gore for that matter! "
HE certainly is worried about homeland security-just ask New Yorker's
Border Patrol agents and every other program he cut to fund his Iraq folly.
Worried about catching bin laden-can't do it.
Worried about Hezbola, he made them what they are today
Worried about my bad air, regulated by the EPA, which he gutted.
Global warming starts with local pollution and Bush certainly has that going strong, doesn't he. What is your ozone level in Tuscon today???
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Jul 21, 2006, 3:38 PM
Post #30 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
Powderkeg, FYI, Tucson is BEAUTIFUL! (Cooler than Phoenix if anyone is wondering). We've been getting a lot of welcome rain, and most of the "record high temps" are still from the 1950's, 60's, & 70's... Don't get me wrong, it's hot in Tucson... but it's a dry heat! (Always has been!) Oh, and don't get me started on gas prices. They're affected more by the oil companies desire to make more money than any thing else, and they will look for ANY excuse to raise 'em up a couple cents at a time. (As hard as it is to accept this, Bush is NOT the one giving the charge to raise gas prices, and every increase isn't related to something he did.)
For the record, European prices are typically $7 per gallon... So I don't think we should be complaining! (ref: http://www.csmonitor.com/...826/p01s03-woeu.html
Oh, I do have to give you props, powderpond, for the "big high gas" parallel. That was funny. :lol:
BTW, Global Warming doesn't start with pollution. It's been going on for EONS. Have a look at http://www.globalwarming.org, specifically here: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65
Anyone up for climbing? I can only afford a road trip if we car pool.
|
|
|
|
|
csgambill
Jul 21, 2006, 5:03 PM
Post #31 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2004
Posts: 607
|
Finally another person who understands facts and history (see quote below). I've been citing these same facts for years. It's great to find someone else who can think.
The earth's climate is in a constant state of flux, and we have far from enough accurate historical data available to state we know what's happening to the climate, let alone why the climate is changing. If we are to look at more recent climate fluctuations, let's look at the period of cooling commonly known as the "Little Ice Age." During the period around 1550-1850 the Northern Hemisphere went through a period of cooling. There was even a period of cooler temperatures in the '60's. For God's sake people, you don't have the data to jump the the insane conclusion that people are causing global warming. I'd prefer to just sit back and let you wackos make utter fools of yourself, but when the results of your hair-brained ideas effect me, like forcing me to have a catalytic converter on my car, I need to say something.
:::Sigh:::
When the next ice age rolls around, I have no doubt you environmentalists will blame that on humans. You guys are just like Chicken Little. If your views weren't so dangerous I'd just laugh and let you keep crying, "The sky is falling!"
In reply to: Hey, it's the nature of the beast :wink: A couple of notes on climate change.... (Just something to keep in mind) Yes, (though I hate to use the catch phrase :? ) 'Global Warming' is happening, and things are changing. Classic Ice lines are fading into climbing history, others are being discovered. Permafrost depths are adjusting, creating increases in rockfall hazard in some areas and in some cases large scale mass wasting. One thing to remember is that IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR MORE THAN 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS (in this last cycle). 20000 to 15000years ago there was a km of ice (or more) over much of central Canada extending to the U.S. boarder. And Glaciers in Europe would dwarf current Alaskan glaciers. By 11000 years ago at least half to 2 thirds of that Ice volume was gone, and that's a heluvalot of ice to melt; I don't think Cro Magnon were burning that many fossil fuels then :lol: Just food for thought, Not saying burning fossil fuels and such is good for anything, just that in some ways warming was slowed for a while and maybe isn't so much anymore. It is an inevitable shame that it is happening on such a historic mountain. But, it's happening... Hey maybe we can get some green peace freaks to "try" and hold up the slide.... Ooooh, that was supposed to be internal monologue :twisted: |
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Jul 21, 2006, 6:18 PM
Post #32 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In reply to: Finally another person who understands facts and history (see quote below). I've been citing these same facts for years. It's great to find someone else who can think. The earth's climate is in a constant state of flux, and we have far from enough accurate historical data available to state we know what's happening to the climate, let alone why the climate is changing. If we are to look at more recent climate fluctuations, let's look at the period of cooling commonly known as the "Little Ice Age." During the period around 1550-1850 the Northern Hemisphere went through a period of cooling. There was even a period of cooler temperatures in the '60's. For God's sake people, you don't have the data to jump the the insane conclusion that people are causing global warming. I'd prefer to just sit back and let you wackos make utter fools of yourself, but when the results of your hair-brained ideas effect me, like forcing me to have a catalytic converter on my car, I need to say something. :::Sigh::: When the next ice age rolls around, I have no doubt you environmentalists will blame that on humans. You guys are just like Chicken Little. If your views weren't so dangerous I'd just laugh and let you keep crying, "The sky is falling!" In reply to: Hey, it's the nature of the beast :wink: A couple of notes on climate change.... (Just something to keep in mind) Yes, (though I hate to use the catch phrase :? ) 'Global Warming' is happening, and things are changing. Classic Ice lines are fading into climbing history, others are being discovered. Permafrost depths are adjusting, creating increases in rockfall hazard in some areas and in some cases large scale mass wasting. One thing to remember is that IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR MORE THAN 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS (in this last cycle). 20000 to 15000years ago there was a km of ice (or more) over much of central Canada extending to the U.S. boarder. And Glaciers in Europe would dwarf current Alaskan glaciers. By 11000 years ago at least half to 2 thirds of that Ice volume was gone, and that's a heluvalot of ice to melt; I don't think Cro Magnon were burning that many fossil fuels then :lol: Just food for thought, Not saying burning fossil fuels and such is good for anything, just that in some ways warming was slowed for a while and maybe isn't so much anymore. It is an inevitable shame that it is happening on such a historic mountain. But, it's happening... Hey maybe we can get some green peace freaks to "try" and hold up the slide.... Ooooh, that was supposed to be internal monologue :twisted:
And FWIW, catalytic converters are minimally effective at combating global warming. They have, however, done plenty to reduce smog.
|
|
|
|
|
brotherbbock
Jul 21, 2006, 6:25 PM
Post #33 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 176
|
Lets all go on a trundle fest!
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Jul 21, 2006, 6:27 PM
Post #34 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
In reply to: but when the results of your hair-brained ideas effect me, like forcing me to have a catalytic converter on my car, I need to say something.
Your a fucking moron. And you call others hair brained. Get a fucking clue.
|
|
|
|
|
double
Jul 21, 2006, 6:48 PM
Post #35 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: Your a f---ing moron. And you call others hair brained. Get a f---ing clue.
That would be "you're..." or "you are...". If you're going to call a guy a moron, maybe you can try to not sound like one yourself?
And come on, do we have to call somebody a f...ing moron for bringing up an opinion? If you're opposed to his views, then refute them with facts of your own. At least some people in this forum show that they think for themselves rather than believing exactly what scientists say.
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Jul 21, 2006, 6:58 PM
Post #36 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
Big deal. It's an online forum. I don't really care about spealling, grammar, punctuation....,,, ect. Was te of ti m e!
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Jul 21, 2006, 7:33 PM
Post #37 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In reply to: And come on, do we have to call somebody a f...ing moron for bringing up an opinion? If you're opposed to his views, then refute them with facts of your own. At least some people in this forum show that they think for themselves rather than believing exactly what scientists say. |
|
|
|
|
double
Jul 21, 2006, 7:58 PM
Post #38 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: He's not a moron because he brought up that opinion; he's a moron for believing it in the first place. The facts refuting his opinion had already been posted... by me.
scrapedape, you did an excellent job of bringing your views in without calling someone a moron...until now.
There is no right answer here. You can have your beliefs, but nobody knows for certain what is going on. Science has theories, you can believe them or not. Science is not always right. It's certainly happened before where the scientific community has held a belief, and had that disproven. The world really wasn't flat after all.
I'm not saying that global warming is not occurring, or that humans play no role in its occurrence. I do give props to those who can take what David Suzuki's propaganda machine feeds them, and consider the issues with a little independant thought of their own.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 21, 2006, 8:28 PM
Post #39 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: There is no right answer here. You can have your beliefs, but nobody knows for certain what is going on. Science has theories, you can believe them or not. Science is not always right. It's certainly happened before where the scientific community has held a belief, and had that disproven. The world really wasn't flat after all.
You are doing what's called "begging the question". That is, basing your argument upon an unproven (and in this case, illogical) assumption. Science is not "right" or "wrong". Science is a method of refining understanding about the physical world. It is a process. It is not a set of "beliefs". Most of the time it is a matter of growing understanding and refinement, but certainly there are occasional paradigm shifts.
Anyway, I'd challenge you to name a substantial period of time, during the age of science, when the concept of the Earth being flat was an accepted theory among scientists.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 21, 2006, 8:35 PM
Post #40 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
By the way, I don't think csgambill is a moron. I wish that were so.
Everyone has an axe to grind. But if you really care, put down your axe and look at the science, or ask the scientists. The fact is that the evidence is overwhelming. And if you don't care enough to do this, and you're just trying to grind your own axe, then shut the fuck up.
This gets to my true concern here. I don't like the disinformation campaign by some of the right wingers. I don't like disinformation campaigns from left wingers, either. Mostly, I don't like people who insist on spinning science as a political tool. It goes directly against the ethic of the science and the scientists themselves. Science is a search for truth. Political spin games have no respect for this search. All they care about is mining expedient arguments for their agenda. It's a rape of science.
End rant.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
double
Jul 21, 2006, 9:03 PM
Post #41 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 136
|
Hello cracklover,
I'll try not to take that as you telling me to shut the fuck up. I'm with you that the political spinning of science is BS, from both sides. But the complete acceptance of science as truth is equally scary. I am in a scientific field. On several occasions I've seen scientists claiming proof of global warming with insignificant data (eg. retreat of a glacier, discussed previously here). Building beliefs on their "science" would then be ridiculous.
What science does indicate without a doubt is that the earth is warming. Who/what is to blame is not so clear. I think that keeping an open mind and evaluating the credibility of the scientific proof that we are presented is great. Having an opinion, based on science, that contradicts the claim that humans are responsible for all climate change does not mean that there is an axe to grind. It does indicate that independent thought is being used, and that the politics is being ignored. And that was your original concern, was it not?
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Jul 21, 2006, 9:15 PM
Post #42 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In reply to: In reply to: He's not a moron because he brought up that opinion; he's a moron for believing it in the first place. The facts refuting his opinion had already been posted... by me. scrapedape, you did an excellent job of bringing your views in without calling someone a moron...until now. There is no right answer here. You can have your beliefs, but nobody knows for certain what is going on. Science has theories, you can believe them or not. Science is not always right. It's certainly happened before where the scientific community has held a belief, and had that disproven. The world really wasn't flat after all. I'm not saying that global warming is not occurring, or that humans play no role in its occurrence. I do give props to those who can take what David Suzuki's propaganda machine feeds them, and consider the issues with a little independant thought of their own.
I'm not talking about any "left-wing environmental spin machine." I'm talking about the consensus of the mainstream scientific community. You are right that there are rarely absolutes in science, but the evidence is pretty compelling in this case.
You can refer to this source for more info on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. This graph is especially interesting with respect to the natural variation in atmospheric CO2 concentrations:
http://www.ucsusa.org/...ng/graph-for-web.gif
Note that there are indeed variations in the concentration over time, but we have over the past 150 years exploded far beyond anything seen in the past 400,000+ years.
|
|
|
|
|
powderpond
Jul 21, 2006, 9:16 PM
Post #43 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2006
Posts: 3
|
Bighigaz
Sure global warming has been going on for ages but most evidence suggests anthropogenic global warming is a relatively new phenom that certainly begins locally. If you need the Journal of Science issue from a few months back that seemed relatively fair in it's presentation of mostly pro's and a few con's, I'll sent it to you (early march). I rather don't like the whole idea of the endpoint analysis anyway, it makes the battle seem futile. Certainly humans do effect the environment negatively (ie the ozone holes over the poles) and these begin as very local events, like spraying on your deoderant. I am willing to admit there is a 30% chance I am wrong but the benefits of cleaning up our acts encompass global warming and your local crag, forest and mountain as well. ...and if you think you are only paying 3 bucks a gllon for gas, check out your federal tax bill (thanks to Bush mine goes down every year and I can donate more to Al Gore) and look at the deficit (new record today and everyday). And look at where it is not being spent, ie here in our parks, on developing clean green technologies etc. The strongest ecomomies of Europe (Holland, for one) are based on stratagies that go way beyond the kyoto protocol. We americans, under bush, are the new dinasaours. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
sausalito
Jul 21, 2006, 9:26 PM
Post #44 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: I voted for Bush, but I agree that he hasn't done enough (or anything) on this matter. I voted for him because I knew he wouldn't forget 9/11 and I see terrorism to be a greater immediate threat (we can agree to disagree on that one), but I also agree global warming is a tremendous threat as well.
he forgot..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060704/ts_nm/security_cia_dc_2
if you are serious you are nuts. Bush has done less to protect us from terrorism than my 10 month old puppy. A passage in the art of war states that if your enemy is more powerful and you must resort to assymetric warfare ("terrorism") than you make the enemy fight you everywhere so they can have sucess nowhere. That is precisely what is happening.
Also if you think Muslim terrorists that killed around 3,000 people is more dangerous than the earth being too hot for human existance thats crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 21, 2006, 9:27 PM
Post #45 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Double, if you deny that you have an axe to grind, please forgive me if I'm skeptical. I think we all do, but it is impossible to truly see into the heart of another, so I'll let that one go.
But when you say: "the complete acceptance of science as truth is equally scary" it makes me think of those for whom religious and other belief systems override provable argument and experiment. You do not win any points there. No, the retreat of one glacier doesn't mean that people are causing climate change. That's a straw man. That's like saying the results of one ballistics test proves a man guilty of murder.
My reading of the scientific evidence is that while it's new enough that there are still a lot of unknowns, there's pretty overwhelming evidence from all areas that points in the same direction. It walks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. It swims like a duck. Dude, you're welcome to say that it could be a mutant swan, or some other kind of bird we've never seen before. But if you ask me, it's a duck.
Hey, hope you get some good climbing in this weekend.
GO signing off.
|
|
|
|
|
sausalito
Jul 21, 2006, 9:33 PM
Post #46 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: Finally another person who understands facts and history (see quote below). I've been citing these same facts for years. It's great to find someone else who can think. The earth's climate is in a constant state of flux, and we have far from enough accurate historical data available to state we know what's happening to the climate, let alone why the climate is changing. If we are to look at more recent climate fluctuations, let's look at the period of cooling commonly known as the "Little Ice Age." During the period around 1550-1850 the Northern Hemisphere went through a period of cooling. There was even a period of cooler temperatures in the '60's. For God's sake people, you don't have the data to jump the the insane conclusion that people are causing global warming. I'd prefer to just sit back and let you wackos make utter fools of yourself, but when the results of your hair-brained ideas effect me, like forcing me to have a catalytic converter on my car, I need to say something. :::Sigh::: When the next ice age rolls around, I have no doubt you environmentalists will blame that on humans. You guys are just like Chicken Little. If your views weren't so dangerous I'd just laugh and let you keep crying, "The sky is falling!" In reply to: Hey, it's the nature of the beast :wink: A couple of notes on climate change.... (Just something to keep in mind) Yes, (though I hate to use the catch phrase :? ) 'Global Warming' is happening, and things are changing. Classic Ice lines are fading into climbing history, others are being discovered. Permafrost depths are adjusting, creating increases in rockfall hazard in some areas and in some cases large scale mass wasting. One thing to remember is that IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR MORE THAN 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS (in this last cycle). 20000 to 15000years ago there was a km of ice (or more) over much of central Canada extending to the U.S. boarder. And Glaciers in Europe would dwarf current Alaskan glaciers. By 11000 years ago at least half to 2 thirds of that Ice volume was gone, and that's a heluvalot of ice to melt; I don't think Cro Magnon were burning that many fossil fuels then :lol: Just food for thought, Not saying burning fossil fuels and such is good for anything, just that in some ways warming was slowed for a while and maybe isn't so much anymore. It is an inevitable shame that it is happening on such a historic mountain. But, it's happening... Hey maybe we can get some green peace freaks to "try" and hold up the slide.... Ooooh, that was supposed to be internal monologue :twisted:
damn you must be really old. I cant attest to all that jazz but some pretty simple chemistry classes and a little common sense paint a different story. Back in the early 60's science most scientists agreed the earth was actually getting colder. Dont take it from me... republicans use it as a talking point.
The real thing to remember is this-- use of carbon= heating of atmosphere. This is basic. When you expend energy you get heat. Another thing to remember? China is currently at a per person carbon ration of a 1912 United States. Within a decade they are expected to have caught up with us and very likely surpass our carbon emission.
the great thing about this debate is that its going to happen so fast that science and level headed people will finally have masses of quotes from idiotic people that somehow think using massives of carbon stores that have been in the earth for millions of years which creates a surplus of heat unlike anything in history is somehow a natural process. Unless you are claiming there was a civilization burning carbon sources that long ago please dont tell me about warming and cooling trends from 25 thousand years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
double
Jul 21, 2006, 9:36 PM
Post #47 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 136
|
Well, in the same manner that you are against the political bend on science, I am against blind faith in science. For those who aren't scientific, any research can be taken as truth (the new bible?). I got drawn to this forum when someone indicated that retreated glaciers indicate global warming. That is an untrue conclusion. So, I guess that is the axe I'm grinding.
Enough keyboard crimping...it's 30°C here and there's a climb calling.
Global warming seems ok on the prairies ;)
|
|
|
|
|
sausalito
Jul 21, 2006, 10:15 PM
Post #48 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: Well, in the same manner that you are against the political bend on science, I am against blind faith in science. For those who aren't scientific, any research can be taken as truth (the new bible?).
I hear this a lot in the global warming debate. All I can say is that multiple studies by vastly different organizations, independent of each other and being repeated several times.... is not blind faith.
As an RN I find it funny how many people talk shit about science but I have yet to have someone question the science of the antihypertensive I am giving them or question the science of the aseptic technique for hospitals which dictates that hand washing stops the spread of microorganisms. Its the same scientific process that dictates the study. This isnt to say science should be looked at with a skeptical eye. To put it mildly global warming has been.
So if you are really skeptical of science I would avoid hospitals. Much of what is accepted as procedure there is high dynamic and changes frequently. If you have diabetes think twice about that insulin. Can we really know if all that insulin helping glucose out of our blood and into our cells is for real or is it just these damn environmentalits?
give me a break.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jul 24, 2006, 8:30 PM
Post #49 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
don't you find it at all funny that the director of the organization which manages the website you've quoted above has such credits to his name as:
In reply to: Competitive Enterprise Institute"]Among numerous recognitions, Greenpeace featured Mr. Ebell and three of his CEI colleagues in “A Field Guide to Climate Criminals” distributed at the UN climate meeting in Montreal in December 2005. Rolling Stone magazine in its November 17, 2005 issue named Mr. Ebell one of six “Misleaders” on global warming in a special feature, along with President Bush, Senator James Inhofe, and Michael Crichton. In November 2004 as a result of a BBC Radio interview, seven members of the British House of Commons from all three major parties introduced a motion to censure Mr. Ebell “in the strongest possible terms.” In its May 22, 2004 special Issues and Answers issue, National Journal profiled Mr. Ebell as one of ten people who would lead the global warming debate during the next presidential administration. The Clean Air Trust in March 2001 named Mr. Ebell its "Villain of the Month" for his role in convincing the Bush Administration not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
and ^THAT^ was the organization he represents!
Yeah. Sounds like a pretty impartial guy, doesn't he?
The most prominent mention of "scientific" input on the page you referred to was a Dr. Robert C. Balling.
In reply to: Source Watch"]Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. [1]
So really, since the school takes half, thats only in the neighborhood of $20,000 per year that he actually puts into his bank account (from the oil companies). Sounds like this guy is a real impartial Scientist. ...NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Jul 24, 2006, 9:14 PM
Post #50 of 51
(8064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Gawd you people are Fckn stooopid :roll: just look out the effing window, it don't take no rocket scientest to figuer out that we paved half the dam planet and that pavement is hotter than a half fcked fox in a forrest fire, Burning all that fossil fuel heats shit up, ice melts weather patterns change and we are screwed :shock: We had 12in of rain here in vt thiss june. it's like freaking liveing in a rain forrest. it rained 3.5in on sat. There is some crazy shit going on and burrying your head in the sand don't make it go away :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
|
