Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- AI Climate Math
- AI Math
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
Recent Comments
- czechlist on AI Math
- D. Boss on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Michael L Dee on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Bob G on Mann Says He Was Correct
- conrad ziefle on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Disillusioned on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Disillusioned on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Gamecock on Mann Says He Was Correct
Huh, well funded? Where’s my money?
AAM, I hear you! Steve, did you get your check today? I’m waiting on my Christmas bonus, I keep checking my mailbox, but nothing. What gives?
It must really suck to live in such a state of denial. I don’t have a PhD in climatology, ergo, I can’t possibly know GISS arbitrarily adjusts historic data. Or that the deserts of SW U.S. are supposed to be arid. Or that the Himalayan glacier melt was entirely fabricated, that the polar bears aren’t in peril, or that polar bears don’t eat penguins! and the heat absorption of CO2 is almost entirely covered by H2O and nitrous oxide, the albedo effect of the Arctic ice is entirely overstated, that clouds cool the earth, that there is evidence of a global MWP, that the Arctic has melted in the past, trees can’t be read like a thermometer, an air-conditioner isn’t cool when a thermometer is placed next to it, we can’t create energy, sea ice isn’t really declining, cyclone activity isn’t increasing, jungles are good a preserving moisture, no, no way can I know this stuff, I don’t have a PhD in climatology. The logical conclusion? I’m funded by big oil. Never mind the fact that big oil is part of the climate change fraud.
One of the last big lies being debunked.
No suyts, you are not paid by the fossil fuel industry. But many of the ‘think tanks’ and PR companies that promote ideas similar to yours, are.
Hitler was a vegitarian but that doesn’t automatically make meat avoiders into murdering despots. It doesn’t make vegitarianism wrong. In other words, just because you share a common aim with someone bad, it doesn’t make you bad or even your shared goal wrong.
And that assumes that oil company executives believe in CAGW but campaign against it anyway. It’s far more likely they don’t trust cliamte science and see no reason not to thow a few spanners in the global warming machine.
A fundamental mistake that AGW believers make, is to think their truth is obvious and that you must be stupid or corrupt to disagree with it.
“And that assumes that oil company executives believe in CAGW but campaign against it anyway.”
Exactly. Just like the tobacco companies knew for decades that smoking kills, while denying that in public and organising a campaign to discredit the science that shows smoking is an lethal addiction.
Does that strike you as far-fetched? People (and corporations) do a lot for money.
Well what if they are?
If what these think tanks are saying is wrong then they will soon be proved wrong. If what they say is right, then it does not matter who funds them.
The bottom line is that ordinary people are not idiots. When given the facts they make their own conclusions. Increasingly people are beginning see these facts for themselves instead of just getting the official version.
One final point – As the warmist lobby spends vastly greater amounts on propaganda and tends to get most of the media to support it, surely the small amounts spent on the sceptical side would have very little effect?
Sense, that premise is baseless and wrong, in fact, I’ve shown you twice to where up until Feb 2010, Conoco, Shell, and BP were part of the same consortium advocating immediate, sweeping actions in reduction of CO2 emissions. The fact that Conoco and BP left the consortium doesn’t mean they’ve changed their advocacy, only tactics.
It turns out, you are shilling for big oil.
From Conoco’s website,
We also provide financial support and active participation in many external CCS research, development and policy programs that are funded by industry and government.>/b> We provide major support to:
* The CO2 Capture Project, which aims to lower the cost of carbon capture and storage.
* CO2ReMoVe, a European Union project that studies CO2 storage and monitoring, and verifies the security of storage.
* Cachet, a European Union project, which seeks to reduce the cost of CO2 capture.
* CO2CRC, a significant Australian effort that studies capture and storage in all aspects.
* U. S. Carbon Sequestration Council, a multi-stakeholder discussion forum supporting development of U.S. regulations for CCS.
* CCSA, a forum for industry input into development of a U.K. framework for CCS.
* U.S. DOE Regional Partnerships which fund CCS analysis and test programs.
* The Western Kentucky Carbon Storage research program, which is evaluating the feasibility of deep carbon storage in Western Kentucky.
ConocoPhillips co-led the development of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) publication Adaptation: An Issue Brief for Business (.pdf document), published in August 2008. We also supported the WBCSD panel on adaptation to climate change at the Conference of the Parties 14 at Poznan, Poland, in December 2008.
And what of BP?
http://energybiosciencesinstitute.org/
Go to the bottom of their page. Berkely………
Sense, you are a shill for big oil.
Sense Seeker, you can’t know what individuals feel or think, regardless of their actions. As Suyts points out, many oil companies are funding one CO2 campaign or another, it doesn’t mean they beleieve that CO2 is a problem. They’re taking the line of least resistance. They know that the human race isn’t going to give up oil anytime soon. but bad PR might make you favour the another oil company.
Why is it so hard to grasp the idea that a lot of people just aren’t convinced by the CAGW message? That those people include employees of fuel producers is more likely than not.
I am sure you got that information from your imagination.
Which part of it is unlikely?
S S gets information from the “MUCH Respected” Sceptical Pathological science web site.
here in california big oil outspent big oil 3-1 to keep the carbon market alive.
it’s all about the money, sense
..and many alarmist groups are funded into the billions by government. Whoopee.
Billions of dollars cannot buy an ounce of whether or not something is true.
The bogey man fossil fuel industry provide the majority energy that the human race needs to survive and fuels prosperity to the extent that it exists in the world.
Algore the would be 1st global warming billionaire was given 300 million dollars by Soros for his services to cause of promoting the CAGW industry.
So, given a chance to further AGW and what does this guy do? Repeat all the tired old messages that didn’t work before. And he casts aspersions on our intelligence?
I prefer AGW denial
>People (and corporations) do a lot for money.
yes they do. and in regards to promoting climate change, they have legions of useful idiots!
We tend to forget that today’s science is a business.
The ones that scream loudest, get the most money.
Keep in mind, we’re still talking about a group of people that could not even get doppler radar a few years ago, and when they did, they were so corrupt their funding was cut off.
Now they have created a science that’s paying their bills, for the first time ever.
Just to show the reality of how little people really believe in their science, no one is holding them accountable for all the people that are suffering and dying this winter.
They predicted mild winters, because of global warming.
Governments went with what they said and did not stock up on sand, salt, etc.
Went with green energy, that does not work, that drove up the price of heating,
created energy shortages, etc.
Now people are freezing and dying because of that.
If anyone believed that their science was real, they would be in jail right now for their predictions.
At least they have shut up about the coral reefs dying………………
The AGW crowd tries to make this into a Democrat vs. Republican issue or smart vs. dumb issue when it’s a truth vs. lies issue.
Climate Scientists who still believe in AGW have now graduated from ignorant and been promoted to stupid. They are apparently unaware of the relevant science that demonstrates that any human contribution to Global Warming is between small and insignificant and they apparently are unable or unwilling to learn.
From 2001 through October, 2010 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 21.8% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased significantly and the trend of the average of the five reporting agencies from 2001 through 2009 is actually down. The 21.8% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.
THE FACTORS THAT RESULTED IN THE 20th CENTURY GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RUN-UP HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED.
The contribution of added atmospheric carbon dioxide is between small and insignificant. The time-integral of sunspot numbers (which correlates with the average altitude and thus average temperature of clouds) and effective sea surface temperature are the main contributors.
A simple equation, with inputs of accepted measurements from government agencies, calculates the average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy (87.6% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). See the equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10 and 6/27/10).
The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.
Just as the Medieval warming (warmer than current times) was due to an upward fluctuation in solar output (magnetic being the most important part) the current deep solar quiet is about to give us lots of cooling. Anticipated to last only 16 months the deep solar quiet is up around 28 months. Orbital epicycles that affect the process (neutron repulsion) in the core of the sun, cause output fluctuation. “Renowned Croatian Physicist” and ice age expert, Professor Vladimir Paar predicts that the glaciation cycle long expected is imminent. Even IPCC Scientist “If my name wasn’t Mojib Latif, it would be global warming”, says a “mini ice age” began last winter. He says for 20 to 30 years. Since Professor Paar indicates we have maybe 5 years before the glaciation begins, a 70,000 year event. We had our nice warm Holocene, it was great. If Professor Paar is wrong then we might only have a 100 to 200 year little ice age as the proof has now been done (by Japanese climate science researchers) that deep solar quiet leads to such things. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/new-paper-correlating-solar-cycles-with-climate/
Why AGW (aka ACC) science is NOT conclusive and SHOULD NOT be used for making far-reaching public policy decisions:
1. Climategate scientists silenced other scientists with ad hominem attacks or by preventing publication of their contrarian papers.
2. Climategate scientists plotted to silence editors of scientific journals who dared publish contrarian papers.
3. Scientists asserted “consensus” to bolster the efficacy of climate science.
4. A chief Climategate scientist said: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
5. The East Anglia CRU “lost” the database from which the historical temperature record was created and, from which, it could be verified.
6. Environmental groups continuously publish propaganda (faux science) supporting the AGW/ACC hypothesis.
7. The IPCC discards reports and comments from its contributing scientists whose research contradicts the AGW/ACC hypothesis.
8. AGW/ACC scientists have co-opted the phrase “climate change” to imply (wherever it is used) that it actually means “manmade” instead of “naturally occurring” climate change.
9. Mainstream media reporters gratuitously attribute bad weather events to AGW/ACC.
10. Government spent $100 million for research on manmade causes of AGW/ACC, yet spent nothing in the search for natural causes.
11. Government tells us that carbon fuels are a threat to humanity, yet only proposes “solutions” in the form of massive subsidies for PART TIME energy sources (wind, solar, Cap and Trade, etc.) to replace the FULL TIME carbon fuel devil.
12. Government never tells us the amount of global temperature reductions their “solutions” could be expected to yield.
13. Government has yet to offer a huge “X-Prize” or massively funded the R&D to find a new energy source that could replace carbon fuels.
14. Government has yet to create a Plan, including a timeline, for achieving a carbon free economy.
15. Scientists silently accept government’s “solutions” as sufficient to save us from the threat of carbon fuels.
16. Government uses the threat to humanity as grounds to create a New World Order… a one world government.