What is obvious to me is that you asked a question - one question, three times - and I provided you with an answer, one more comprehensive than strictly necessary (one name would have done, but from so many possibilities it was easy to type in a few).adoucette said:I asked 3 questions, to which you gave those names in reply, but NOTHING besides the names to support your assertion.
Seems pretty friggin obvious to me.
And yet, there are stories in Science and in newspapers about record levels of methane, and large bubbles (completely undigested by bacteria) reaching the surface of the Arctic. But CLEARLY this is not unusual--it's just the first time anyone noticed (??)
Humans have cut back on "their" methane levels? I'd like to see the evidence, but I think there isn't any.
And yet, again, there are stories in the media about record levels of methane being released, presumably teams on the ground can collect samples that have MORE methane in them than samples collected a decade ago from the same place.
So on the one hand "you don't" see increases of methane in surface samples, but scientists are reporting increases of methane in surface samples.
It just seems a little contradictory--maybe it's me.
If you could be clear about what you think remains unanswered, or what my supposed claims are you find in need of support, or whatever it is you are talking about, I will do my best.adoucette said:No Ice, you provided no answer at all.
If you could be clear about what you think remains unanswered, or what my supposed claims are you find in need of support, or whatever it is you are talking about, I will do my best.
.Rupert Murdoch. Tom Donahue. Rex Tillerson. The Koch brothers
It's a perfectly clear, more than sufficient (Murdoch alone would have been enough, or Donahue), and admirably specific answer to your question. You asked "Who?". I provided names - famous ones, easily researched by newbies.adoucette said:But just listing the names is not a sufficient answer
Again, what influence are you talking about that is preventing us from evaluating the possible impact of Methane?
Who has a vested interest in AGW Methane production besides rice farmers and cattle/sheep ranchers?
Who is denying evidence of Methane release? Source please?
”
Rupert Murdoch. Tom Donahue. Rex Tillerson. The Koch brothers.
You claim to require explanation. . And because I am familiar with the way you people operate here, I am going to make you state, in public, exactly what you claim to find puzzling about that completely plain and quite easily Googled, etc, answer.
If you are willing to state, in public, that you have no idea what the connection is between any of those names and the question you asked, that you are not in fact answered by those names because you yourself don't understand how they answer your question, that you are so completely clueless and ignorant in the matter of the AGW corporate and media battle that you really don't know what the connections are between those names and your question,
if you are willing to admit in public, clearly and without dissembling, that you don't know who those people are and what they do, you haven't bothered to Google them, and your brain is confused by their appearance here in this thread,
then I will go to the trouble of posting an explanation, links and competent analysis and the whole shootin' match.
But I'm not going to be driven around the rosy by another one of these corporate media shills who spends their entire time here attacking others and demanding "proof" from others and so forth, to cover up the fact that their own positions are ridiculous, clown box, brick headed slapstick idiocy.
To remind you, since you show signs of forgetting, here's your question and my answer at issue:
ABC.net.au reports that media mogul Rupert Murdoch has changed his mind on global warming and now believes it is a threat and that something needs to be done.
Mr Murdoch also says he has had a change of heart on climate change and now believes global action is needed - although not in the form of the US-opposed Kyoto Protocol.
Mr Murdoch has called for a new treaty that is acceptable to all countries and brings in emerging economies.
"I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue," he said.
"Some of the presumptions about extreme weather, whether it be hurricanes or drought, may seem far-fetched. What is certain is that temperatures have been rising and that we are not entirely sure of the consequences."
"The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt."
Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, issued the following statement today in response to questions regarding the U.S. Chamber's position on climate change:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues to support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change.
We believe that in order to succeed, any climate change response must include all major CO2 emitting economies, promote new technologies, emphasize efficiency, ensure affordable energy for families and businesses, and help create American jobs and return our economy to prosperity. The Congress should carefully deliberate on and enact legislation that meets these goals.
We also have called upon the United States to join with other nations to negotiate a new international agreement that sets binding CO2 reduction commitments for each nation, while allowing each to devise its own best path to meeting its target.
These are mainstream, commonsense views that are shared by a broad majority of the American people, the business community, and a growing number of Democrat and Republican legislators.
....
Some in the environmental movement claim that, because of our opposition to a specific bill or approach, we must be opposed to all efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, or that we deny the existence of any problem. They are dead wrong. The Chamber has in its public documents, Hill letters and testimony, as well as dozens of concrete policy recommendations, supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere while keeping our economy healthy.
We have vigorously supported the production and use of renewable and alternative energy. We have repeatedly supported tax incentives and credits, appropriations, and stimulus funding to promote the accelerated development of new technologies. We are leading the fight to clear the regulatory, legal and Not-In-My-Backyard roadblocks that are currently delaying promising wind, solar, nuclear, and other renewable or emissions-free energy projects across the nation.
Of course it does. It's classic Murdoch.adoucette said:"Some of the presumptions about extreme weather, whether it be hurricanes or drought, may seem far-fetched. What is certain is that temperatures have been rising and that we are not entirely sure of the consequences."
"The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt."
- - -
Doesn't sound like someone who is denying the effects now does it?
Just a reminder: here's the question and answer at issue:adoucette said:and the fact that they are all pretty friggin famous makes it MORE difficult to search on them and find some connection to them denying evidence of Methane release, where as YOU made the claim
Again, what influence are you talking about that is preventing us from evaluating the possible impact of Methane?
Who has a vested interest in AGW Methane production besides rice farmers and cattle/sheep ranchers?
Who is denying evidence of Methane release? Source please?
”
Rupert Murdoch. Tom Donahue. Rex Tillerson. The Koch brothers.
Of course it does. It's classic Murdoch.
It not only sounds like such a statement, it is one - a direct quote.adoucette said:Doesn't sound like a statement someone would make who you claimed earlier was "denying evidence of Methane release" or "using their "influence to prevent us from evaluating the possible impact of Methane".
In Melbourne, 2006 was the 10th consecutive year with below average rainfall. And 2005 was the hottest year on record throughout Australia.
Australia is suffering its worst drought in 100 years.
Now, I realize we can't take just one year in one city or even one continent as proof that something unusual is happening. And I am no scientist.
But I do know how to assess a risk-- and this one is clear.
Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.
We must transform the way we use energy, and of course not only because of climate change...
When I look around the world today, I see continued dependence on oil from vulnerable regions... and oil money going to leaders of countries hostile to us. Then there's accelerating development in China, India and other developing economies that are reliant on fossil fuels.
But there are promising new technologies-- bio-fuels, solar and wind power, cleaner coal.
And we all hear a demand from the public-- our audiences-- for governments and businesses to involve them in solving our energy challenge.
Today, I am announcing our intention to be carbon neutral, across all our businesses, by 2010.
Climate change and energy use are global problems-- News Corp is a global company. Our operations affect the environment all over the world.
He's not admitting AGW either (just GW, a key distinction his pet "news" deliverers pump incessantly) and most particularly he's carefully and explicitly avoiding the matter of cause, responsibility, etc.adoucette said:Someone who says "that it is certain that the temperatures are rising" and that even if we aren't sure of the consequences we should "give the planet the benefit of the doubt" is clearly not denying AGW and your BS response doesn't change that one bit.
We must transform the way we use energy, and of course not only because of climate change...
We're not a manufacturer, or an airline, but we do use energy. Printing and publishing newspapers, producing films and television programs, operating 24-hour newsrooms. It all adds carbon to the atmosphere.
Our first step was to measure our emissions of greenhouse gases-- our carbon footprint.
Our carbon footprint last year was 641,150 tons. It includes the electricity used in all our operations globally, and any fuels we burn.
Our analysis was independently verified and, today, we are reporting these figures to the public.
We could make a difference just by holding our emissions steady as our businesses continue to grow. But that doesn't seem to be enough: we want to go all the way to zero.
BSkyB has already done this. When all of News Corporation becomes carbon neutral it will have the same impact as turning off the electricity in the city of London for five full days.
Some of our businesses use more energy than others, but our strategy everywhere is the same... first, reduce our use of energy as much as possible.
Then, switch to renewable sources of power where it makes economic sense...
And, over time, as a last resort, offset the emissions we can't avoid.
While never quite saying so, for some reason? - could be. I'm not that interested in his personal beliefs, and asserting nothing about them.adoucette said:So when he is talking about adding GH gasses to the atmosphere and the companies Carbon Footprint and use of renewables and offsets, he is most assuredly accepting the A in AGW.
Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, and controls its news delivery and pundit presentations. He is Roger Ailes's boss.adoucette said:Again, total BS, I don't have to prove ANYTHING about Murdock and either GW or Methane, that's for YOU to do.
Which of course you have yet to post a SINGLE thing in support of your assertions.
NOT ONE SINGLE THING.
wiki said:After the announcement of Microsoft and NBC's partnership to create an online and cable news outlet, MSNBC, taking the place of America's Talking, Ailes left the network in February 1996 in a fit of pique and was hired by Rupert Murdoch to create Fox News Channel for News Corporation. In addition, eighty-nine additional employees of the NBC networks left with Ailes to help with the new channel's creation for launch, on October 7, 1996
What assertion of mine does that "contrast"? I named him as an obstacle whose influence and vested interests interfere with discussion of the methane threat, not as a numbskull who actually believes the crap his TV stations are putting out.adoucette said:Instead, and in contrast to your assertions I did show is that he PUBLICLY accepts that the climate is warming, that Climate Change poses a clear and catastrophic danger to the planet.
He is in charge of who gets that prime media real estate, and what they do with it.adoucette said:Rupert Murdoch is supposed to CONTROL and CENSOR the people on Fox news?
I think you need to consider what a "vested interest" is.adoucette said:I think you misunderstand what his role as CEO is.
I think you miss the fact that FOX is in the ENTERTAINMENT business.
Once again, position papers and other propaganda tools - even if genuinely praiseworthy and not misread by you - are not much of an interest of mine. I have never claimed the USCC is unable to issue fine sounding position papers. The US Chamber of Commerce has been a major obstacle to all manner of sound dealings with the CO2 problem, and in turn the methane threat it has created. That is so regardless of whatever position papers they hand out to the gullible. And Tom Donahue is leader of that cabal.adoucette said:And yes, I know that Tom Donahue is in charge of the US Chamber of Commerce and I posted their postion paper on Global Climate change and that does not support your case either.
iceaura said:position papers -... are not much of an interest of mine