Comments on: Exxon Gives $12,213 to IPCC, Corrupts Study! http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/ Tired of useless Top 10 Lists for ranking in Google? Looking for effective and insightful info? SEO Black Hat Blog offers articles on Blackhat SEO, Linkbait & Link Spamming. And if you need to escape White Hat SEO Whiners, check out he Private Black Hat Search Engine Optimization Forum. Fri, 04 Feb 2011 05:07:23 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: QuantumFist http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/comment-page-1/#comment-8786 QuantumFist Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:05:39 +0000 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/#comment-8786 According to Monoa, Freeman Dyson, and 99 of is friends are science-free loons. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22621. Probably Monoa has no scientific background, or he/she would know that the IPCC isn't subject to the same strict peer-review as the rest of the scientific community. And who should trust the IPCC, when the UN can not even be trusted with simple charity programs. According to Monoa, Freeman Dyson, and 99 of is friends are science-free loons. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22621.

Probably Monoa has no scientific background, or he/she would know that the IPCC isn’t subject to the same strict peer-review as the rest of the scientific community. And who should trust the IPCC, when the UN can not even be trusted with simple charity programs.

]]> By: monoa http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/comment-page-1/#comment-8605 monoa Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:05:16 +0000 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/#comment-8605 What a clueless post. What else can we find on this site - 9/11 was an inside job, moon landings were a hoax, evolution is wrong? There's certainly been lies and propaganda and all of it coming from the denial camp. ExxonMobil has spent tens of millions on funding 'independent think tanks' to spread disinformation about the scientific reality and massive global consensus of anthropogenic climate change. Every national science academy of every industrialized country on the planet confirms the reality of AGW. It's only on sideshow wingnut blogs, amongst science-free loons that there's any 'debate' about it. What a clueless post. What else can we find on this site – 9/11 was an inside job, moon landings were a hoax, evolution is wrong?

There’s certainly been lies and propaganda and all of it coming from the denial camp. ExxonMobil has spent tens of millions on funding ‘independent think tanks’ to spread disinformation about the scientific reality and massive global consensus of anthropogenic climate change.

Every national science academy of every industrialized country on the planet confirms the reality of AGW. It’s only on sideshow wingnut blogs, amongst science-free loons that there’s any ‘debate’ about it.

]]> By: TobiFromBavaria http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/comment-page-1/#comment-5987 TobiFromBavaria Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:56:46 +0000 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/#comment-5987 For the people interested, the report is only the summary of <i>Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis'</i>, which is one of 3 of 2007's IPPC volumes. And not the most important one, according to this article: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2819/ (A man-made morality tale. How the IPCC’s fairly sober summary of climate science has been spun to tell a story of Fate, Doom and human folly). For the people interested, the report is only the summary of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis’, which is one of 3 of 2007’s IPPC volumes. And not the most important one, according to this article: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2819/ (A man-made morality tale. How the IPCC’s fairly sober summary of climate science has been spun to tell a story of Fate, Doom and human folly).

]]> By: matt sandy http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/comment-page-1/#comment-5902 matt sandy Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:15:12 +0000 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/#comment-5902 OK, I will set everyone straight. On the way to work this morning I noticed it was warmer than yesterday... which doesn't mean that where I live is warming up due to a seasonal change, but if fact it confirms global warming. I would like my $12k now. OK, I will set everyone straight. On the way to work this morning I noticed it was warmer than yesterday… which doesn’t mean that where I live is warming up due to a seasonal change, but if fact it confirms global warming. I would like my $12k now.

]]> By: Dudibob http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/comment-page-1/#comment-5896 Dudibob Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:41:06 +0000 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/#comment-5896 "Scientific translation = WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE! (curiously missing from the report)" LMAO! I haven't laughed so hard in a while :) “Scientific translation = WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE! (curiously missing from the report)”

LMAO! I haven’t laughed so hard in a while :)

]]> By: ChrisWebPub http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/comment-page-1/#comment-5888 ChrisWebPub Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:19:02 +0000 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/#comment-5888 I'm sure there are some socialists in a corner somewhere lamenting the fact that their carefully orchestrated publicity stunt happend to coincide to a time when most of the US is experiencing extremely cold weather. You really can't trust any scientific research because everyone gets paid by someone and there is an unconcious bias in reporting information. They should do double blind studies like they do in medicine where the people who collect the data are different from the people who analyze the data and no one knows who is funding the research. I've seen charts, from NASA, that show an increase in ice caps, no rise in sea levels, and temperature increases from slight, to negative, to nothing. So I don't buy the whole "day after tommorow" scenario. As for Quad's point with this thread. It just shows a double standard. Everyone gets in a tiff about Exxon funding such a small amount, but no one questions the motives of the multi-billion dollar evironment movement & the beauracrats, scientists, and lawyers it supports? Even the founder of Greenpeace says the modern environmental movement has been commandeered by political associations that use it as a disguise to push a socialist and anti-globalization agenda. Not my words, the words of the founder of Greenpeace. I'll still recycle and I'll still conserve energy as best I can, but not because I buy the propoganda. It just makes fiscal sense to lessen oil consumption. I’m sure there are some socialists in a corner somewhere lamenting the fact that their carefully orchestrated publicity stunt happend to coincide to a time when most of the US is experiencing extremely cold weather.

You really can’t trust any scientific research because everyone gets paid by someone and there is an unconcious bias in reporting information. They should do double blind studies like they do in medicine where the people who collect the data are different from the people who analyze the data and no one knows who is funding the research.

I’ve seen charts, from NASA, that show an increase in ice caps, no rise in sea levels, and temperature increases from slight, to negative, to nothing. So I don’t buy the whole “day after tommorow” scenario.

As for Quad’s point with this thread. It just shows a double standard. Everyone gets in a tiff about Exxon funding such a small amount, but no one questions the motives of the multi-billion dollar evironment movement & the beauracrats, scientists, and lawyers it supports? Even the founder of Greenpeace says the modern environmental movement has been commandeered by political associations that use it as a disguise to push a socialist and anti-globalization agenda. Not my words, the words of the founder of Greenpeace.

I’ll still recycle and I’ll still conserve energy as best I can, but not because I buy the propoganda. It just makes fiscal sense to lessen oil consumption.

]]> By: QuadsZilla http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/comment-page-1/#comment-5880 QuadsZilla Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:59:09 +0000 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/#comment-5880 The Federal Funds Rate rate goes from 5.25% to 5.75%. How will 99% of people describe the increase? a) The rate increased by 0.5% b) The rate increased by 9.52% The Federal Funds Rate rate goes from 5.25% to 5.75%. How will 99% of people describe the increase?

a) The rate increased by 0.5%

b) The rate increased by 9.52%

]]> By: john83 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/comment-page-1/#comment-5879 john83 Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:40:05 +0000 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/#comment-5879 wow that comment made you look pretty stupid wow that comment made you look pretty stupid

]]> By: QuadsZilla http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/comment-page-1/#comment-5876 QuadsZilla Sun, 04 Feb 2007 04:55:36 +0000 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/#comment-5876 antionomy: I understand what you are saying. But if you say we changed CO2 Levels by 29%, won't most laymen think that CO2 went from something like 5% to 34%? antionomy: I understand what you are saying. But if you say we changed CO2 Levels by 29%, won’t most laymen think that CO2 went from something like 5% to 34%?

]]> By: antinomy http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/comment-page-1/#comment-5873 antinomy Sun, 04 Feb 2007 03:21:06 +0000 http://seoblackhat.com/2007/02/03/exxon-gives-12213-to-ipcc-corrupts-study/#comment-5873 I have an issue with your math. Co2 levels increasing from 0.028% to 0.036% actually represents an increase of just under 29% in the last 100 years. The total percentage of Co2 in atmosphere is a tiny amount, but an increase of 29% is statistically significant. No comment on the rest of your article. I have an issue with your math. Co2 levels increasing from 0.028% to 0.036% actually represents an increase of just under 29% in the last 100 years. The total percentage of Co2 in atmosphere is a tiny amount, but an increase of 29% is statistically significant. No comment on the rest of your article.

]]>