Climate Skeptic Funded By Oil and Coal Companies 504
Honken writes with a report from The Guardian that "'One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.' This somewhat contradicts that [Harvard researcher Willie] Soon in a 2003 US senate hearing said that he had 'not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.'"
and in other news (Score:2, Insightful)
many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another.
So, you found one you don't like, I am quite sure we can find more, there are probably even websites dedicated to this.
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Informative)
There are indeed such websites:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon#Funding [sourcewatch.org]
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Most climatologists who support global warming are employed by public sector or non-profit universities and rely on research grants from the federal government. How is this in any way equivalent to taking money from Big Oil and Coal?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But it isn't a lie. It's a fact.
Well, no, it just isn't. Perhaps you are wishing really hard for it to be a fact, but that will not make it so. It just plain isn't true.
But it really doesn't need to be my word against yours. There's a rule to these situations. That rule says that you are supposed to provide evidence, since you're the one making the claim.
That should be easy, since it's a "fact", yes?
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reminded of when all the government and educational-funded scientists were doing studies that showed smoking tobacco is bad for you and leads to cancer... and the tobacco companies all had their "scientists" [wikipedia.org], many of whom later testified to Congress about the fact that they'd falsified their "studies" to suit those who were paying them.
Eerily familiar isn't it?
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Interesting)
You'll find the same basic tactics in all branches of pseudo-science. I spent years debating IDers and Creationists and it strikes me that pretty much every tactic used by the pseudo-skeptics in that debate have been used against science in this one.
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Research does not equal support for global warming.
Research finds support but it also finds things such as weather satilites. Climate trends. Water tables. Pollution and air quality surveys. Storm prediction. I could go on.
There are many reasons to pour money into researching the climate and weather other than just to "support" global warming. The research just happens to be supporting it.
Re: (Score:3)
[citation needed]
Then again, I understand your skepticism: It's the same feeling I get whenever someone yells about those "Islamic terrorists" and then it turns out the yeller is a Christian - not exactly a neutral party in the inter-religious struggles.
If you want to see the effect of the "billions of dollars in climate research", turn on the Weather Channel. Also, it does not help that CO2 makes plants grow more if we keep cutting them down and burning them, and learn something about system equilibrium -
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Interesting)
Oil companies have been getting billions in corporate welfare for a long time. Why is this necessary? BP, despite spending over $20 billion on the DeepWater Horizon spill, have already returned to profitability. Gore's supposed "millions" pale in comparison to the clout and resources of just the oil and coal industries.
While most plants grow more quickly as CO2 increases, it's not a slam dunk. Researchers have discovered that soybean crops grown in higher levels of CO2 are more susceptible to attack by insects. Bigger and faster doesn't necessarily mean better and healthier.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no need to spend a lot on the skeptical viewpoint since there is no research to be done on that front. Billions will buy research, millions will buy people.
As for government interference, it's pretty obvious that conservatives (at least republicans and Canadian conservatives) are trying to push the skeptical point of view. I'm not sure how a government conspiracy to shove climate alarmism down our throats could survive eight years of Bush presidency and the staunch opposition of roughly half of the
Re: (Score:3)
OK, let's break it down:
1. The climate is changing (always has, always will)
2. Human activities have some amount of impact on the rate of change.
3. People who do actual research on climate have a range of theories about how much effect human activities have on the rate of change.
4. If the climate continues to change at the current rate, there is a chance of subjectively unpleasant disruptions to the human population of the planet.
5. People who are afraid of the possible disruptions have been trying for deca
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
As a previous poster said, the ones making the claim need to provide the proof. All we have it conjecture and computer models...basically guesses. Fancy guesses, but still nothing that approaches the level of "proof".
Any idiot knows, you can't prove a negative, which what you just claimed they have to do.
And heaven knows that researchers who advocate more government control to reduce AGW would never do anything like accept money from the government, which who also advocated more government control.
If anything, government funded reserarchers have more of a conflict of interest than do privately funded researchers.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think the computer models are "basically guesses" then you are grossly misunderstanding the way they work, or are wilfully ignorant. The reason we tend to agree (scientists that is) in the computer models is because we test them as best as we can.
The ocean temperature model, for example. We programmed it, gave it historical data, did small scale tests etc, and then asked it to model the next decade. Then we went an measured that decade (and did not tell the computer about these future measurements so
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other than the fact that that is a lie promulgated by conservative talk radio hosts, it would be a good point.
Either you don't work at a Univeristy or you are dishonest. The amount of grant money one can bring is a significant part of your evaluations and status within the University and the science community as a whole. When a University looks at hiring someone for the faculty, one of the things they look at is grant history and existing grant money that the new hire will bring with him. (Not the only thing, but one of them.) If you want to move up the ladder you need to have grants.
Research faculty write their
Re: (Score:3)
The kids are OK. We've got a 2^19 UID actually making sense while typing long paragraphs replete with capital letters and many other symbols reserved for passwords but rarely employed.
The problem with the granting process is that the scientists become so inured to the process, they begin to think their wild-ass call-to-action save-the-planet promotional paragraph is part of the scientific process itself, rather than an ass-pluck social nicety / funding necessity. Scientists sometimes have a lot of trouble
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Informative)
You're quite wrong, and all the people around me who are paid by grants agree.
A research scientist can make ten times as much money if s/he can make a potentially valid claim that pollution isn't hurting the environment. That's been true ever since Reagan took office, OK?
Politicians pay for what they want to hear, polluters pay (even more!) for what they want to hear, but nobody else wants to pay squat for research that makes no new claims or discoveries.
And yes, I have spent years working in an academic research institution funded by both private and public grants. My spouse and many of my friends still do; half our family income is based on grants.
What you are saying is simply not true. There is far, far more money available to scientists willing to deny so-called "global warming" (which is merely one symptom of excessive pollution, really) than to scientists who are not.
As my friend the historian once told me, "I can't make name for myself by saying Tacitus's histories are just fine, but I can get grants and book deals by claiming he dressed in women's underwear". In real life, you simply don't get grants by knuckling under to some other person's ideas. You get grants by challenging conventional wisdom, and proposing a means of validating your challenge.
Re: (Score:3)
Either you don't work at a Univeristy or you are dishonest. The amount of grant money one can bring is a significant part of your evaluations and status within the University and the science community as a whole.
Either you don't work at a University or you are dishonest. The amount of grant money one can bring in is related to the quality of the science you have done in the past, the likelihood that your current work will advance the state of knowledge in the field, and the significance that your findings may have. If you are a young faculty member want to get a grant in study of the Earth's climate, the last thing you would want to do is to submit a grant to broadly study global warming. It will get you nowher
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Catastrophic is actually looked down upon in the scientific community.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Catastrophic is actually looked down upon in the scientific community.
Excellent. Then there's no need to alter our way of life to the tune of trillions more dollars that we don't have.
Exactly. The majority of the economic pressure is always going to be on the side of doing nothing; after all, for most large corporations/governments money would much rather be using their money to line their own pockets, not spend it on green tech and protecting the human habitability of the planet. Nobody wants to find out that trillions need to be spent over the next several decades to prevent a geopolitical and economic disaster; the first person who finds definitive proof that global climate change is
Big Ego Problem (Score:5, Funny)
I have heard this idea before. It assumes that all the climate researchers are somehow in collusion on a vast conspiracy. The problem with your idea is that the top tier universities are full of egotistical bastards who would gladly screw their peers in order to demonstrate that they are smarter than everyone else. These professors tend to do pretty well with grant money and anything that enhances their fame just ensures that the money keeps coming, even though this may be at the expense of others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no idea how egocentric and individualistic scientists are. There is no causal link here strong enough to override the "I'm smarter than my fellow scientists and I can humiliate them by showing how wrong and stupid they are" opportunity that all climatologists scientists have. Without an iron clad conspiracy, the situation in which all climatologists lie out of interest would be completely unstable: the first ones to tell the others climatologists are wrong would get multiple awards plus funding.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if it's not immediately obvious. Since when did we trust government organizations to not politically interfere with research?
Did you really need to ask that question? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change. The oil companies who employ all of the prominent ACC skeptics stand to lose billions of dollars if the findings are not a certain way.
Let's put it another way. Acme Pharmaceuticals wants to start selling a new drug. Scientists from universities find that the drug is not safe. Scientists employed by Acme Pharmaceuticals find that the drug is perfectly safe. Given these two pieces of information, would you give this new drug to your children?
This constant "the other side is exactly as bad" argument from conservatives and libertarians is laughable in almost every instance it is used.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
30 years ago the Republicunts insisting smoking wasn't bad for you (on the pay of Big Tobacco) were playing the same game there. They still are screaming about the "free choice to smoke" in my area as we try to eliminate smoking from public places.
Remember the "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" idea the Republicunts keep screaming about when they want "freedom"? Well, your right to smoke ends when you blow it in my face, asswad.
Re:Did you really need to ask that question? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be stupid. I think I'm with the vast majority of the lefties on these issues, and my position is nothing like the hypocritical straw man you've constructed.
Both tobacco and marijuana should be perfectly legal to purchase, and to use in the privacy of your own home. Both should be illegal to smoke in a public building. You have the right to decide for yourself what to put in your body; you don't have the right to put it in mine.
Since I don't think that is too complicated for you to have understood, I can only conclude that you were being deliberately obtuse.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have the right to decide what to put in your body, why don't business owners have the right to let their customers decide what they put in their bodies?
That would be fine with me, as long as they have no employees. It's paying employees to work in unsafe conditions that is objectionable.
Re: (Score:3)
So then provide an example of marijuana lobbyist(s) trying to make smoking marijuana in public places legal while at the same time working to prohibit tobacco smoking in public. I
Oh, you need look no further than our delightful leftist stronghold of Cambridge, Massachusetts—where smoking that evil tobacco has been banned [rwinters.com], but toke up if it's marijuana, dude [wickedlocal.com]!!
Or maybe we should look at the weed capital of the world. What say you Amsterdam [dutchamsterdam.nl]?
Oh right it's not otherwise you would have actually post some evidence to back up your claim. That's apparently not something you tend to do.
I think I just did.
Re: (Score:3)
Two minor notes:
* Climatologists don't generally research things like wave-generated energy. They don't really have the background for it and their interests are in, well, climatology. At nearly all research universities, researchers are required to obtain their own funding by proposing projects to funding agencies. So a scheme where a climatologist "helps out" another researcher by claiming that there's global warming so that the other researcher can get funding for wave-generated energy has a lot of probl
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up. Arguing funding sources (on either side) is simply ad hom by another name. Let's play "scientific method", state a falsifiable hypothesis, and act like grown ups instead.
Re:Did you really need to ask that question? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How about you state your falsifiable hypothesis of AGW, so we can tell when it has been falsified?
I think the problem is that most proponents of AGW can't even state their position as a falsifiable hypothesis, and without that, we're essentially left with arguing religion.
Re: (Score:3)
Your hypothesis fails the falsifiability test - how can you tell the difference between natural changes in the earth's climate, and "non-natural" ones? What *observation* would falsify your hypothesis? Assume massive deforestation, overfishing and CO2 emissions - how would you "note" that impact? Rising temperatures? Falling temperatures?
Put another way, would you assert that if humans still numbered in the low hundred thousands, had no technology or industry, that somehow there would be no change in th
Re: (Score:3)
Um no, you can't prove a negative. To prove there is AGW, you need to put the data on the table and allow it to be peer-reviews. Niether the raw data or the source code of the computer models used have been revealed. This is suspect at best. There are also 7 different computer models relied upon to feed data into each other. Guesses based on guesses, without revealing the actual assumptions (in both cod and inputs) of the data used. What we do know is that there are natural variations in temperatures matche
Paid For Any Results v. Paid For Specific Results (Score:4, Insightful)
Researchers who are subsidized by public concerns are paid to provide results that may be useful to the public. The grant process is transparent.
Researchers who are subsidized by private concerns are paid to provide results that are useful to the owners. The grant process is opaque.
The perceived interests of active shareholders and executives often do not coincide with the perceived interests of the public at large, ergo private concerns often attempt to hide their role in certain kinds of "research", because the degree of self interest in controlling the results is all too apparent.
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Informative)
High-quality science [is] struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo, of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A UCS survey found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years in a total of at least 435 incidents. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.
Source [newscientist.com], 2007.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that those billions collected from the oil companies are more than spent on hiring and equipping troops to enforce their contracts to extract oil from various places around the world, and making sure that their tankers (flagged in an off shore tax haven like the Cayman Islands that has essentially no Navy.) are not taken buy pirates.
Exxon probably gets more than 5x what it pays in taxes in the form of military assistance alone, not to mention R&D and other small perks.
Strictly domestic oil com
Re: (Score:3)
Which government is that? Certainly not the US.
Re: (Score:3)
The SECOND rule is to never question the consensus =p
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Funny)
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep.. on one side are the people who want to keep making $$$ profits. And on the other side are people who'd like to avoid massive coastal flooding and ecological destruction in the next several centuries. We all have our biases, I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because no one on the pro-warming side is in it for the grant money or funding from the left. They're all pure of heart, like angels really.
Re: (Score:3)
And of course he would never use some alarmist issue to garner public support in order to advance his own selfish political ambitions. Nope, not him.
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't news.
You won't hear about it in the media.
If he was a supporter of Global Warming we'd hear about it for a couple of weeks as one of the top stories.
sunshine is the best disinfectant (Score:2, Insightful)
many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another
Your attempt to muddy the waters aside, one thing is clear: this guy accepted a million dollars to deny reality.
Money sources [Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another.
What do you mean by "both sides"? Really? What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?
That's the party line of the climate-change deniers: "Oh, it doesn't matter that the so-called skeptics are all funded by fossil-fuel companies, because both sides are funded by dirty money."
But, oddly, when there is even a rumor that a climate scientist has received as much as a lunch paid for by a source that is not absolutely spotlessly apolitical, isn't it amazing how the blogosphere lights up with accusations of how climate change is "bought and paid for." (Even when the rumor turns out to be unrelated to actual fact.)
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean by "both sides"? Really? What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?
I believe you'll find the oil companies have put hundreds of millions of dollars of funding into 'global warming' and 'green energy' research. They'd probably be foolish if they didn't, because if they can use 'global warming' to reduce the usage of coal, then they're likely to make more money selling oil.
Didn't the 'Climategate' emails include a bunch where they were discussing how to get funding from oil companies?
Re:Money sources [Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe you'll find the oil companies have put hundreds of millions of dollars of funding into 'global warming'
Oil companies have put basically all of their money into funding global warming.
Or is that not what you meant?
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok. Who are the big bidders for pro-climate change? And by big I mean those that can put down millions.
Clean energy, who spends most of their money on R&D?
Politicos? Who could get leverage a lot cheaper elsewhere with that same money?
Who?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
About time someone remembered that about Gore (Score:2, Flamebait)
Maybe you can help tell Gore to STFU.
I stopped listening to this totalitarian political hack back when he wanted to force us to let the government have the keys to all of our encryption. Al Gore was the administration's point man in the crypto wars of the 90s, and he wasn't on our side.
Probably the one positive thing about George W. Bush is that he prevented Al Gore from becoming President.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well I haven't see any scientist defeating ManBearPig.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever actually talked to a researcher? It strikes me that you're concocted a fantasy that allows you to maintain an irrational precedent while shooting the messengers of an unwanted message.
The fact is that other than some window dressing most governments aren't doing anything. You're conspiracy theory is absurd, not to mention false.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever actually met a scientist? A real, actual scientist, not just one you saw in Resident Evil working for the Umbrella Corporation.
I think your tin foil hat needs polishing some more. The Man might hear your thoughts!
Hardvard (Score:2)
Should result in a prison sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Lying in these kinds of hearings is utterly amoral and can have drastic negative consequences for society.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Please people RTF(biased)A carefully.
He didn't lie. They are taking a (true) statement he made in 2003 and then pointing at grants and stuff he received in 2005 and later then going "A HA! LIAR!"
Unless they have a quote of him saying he "would never ever take money from those groups ever" or time has suddently started working backwards I fail to see why people are up in arms or how this discredits him or his work.
He started out doing a bunch of research using a variety of funding sources. Took a certain pos
Re:Should result in a prison sentence (Score:5, Informative)
But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.
Take "Greenpeace" with a grain of salt but that clearly says 2001 and 2002 which is before 2003 testimony, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patriotism without values or honour is just selfishness and greed. As a Canadian I reject the extreme dishonesty of the majority of climate change 'skeptics', and I would ashamed if our country tried to interfere with meaningful action on climate change out of self-interest.
Of course, with the current anti-science* government your point of view may win the day. No wonder the UN doesn't want us on the security council.
Posted by a proud Canadian from Ottawa, Ontario
* Two quick references for the conservativ
Re: (Score:3)
Awww, that's cute, ya big Canuck puddin'. Here in America we have a museum with dinosaurs in it AND THEY ARE FUCKING WEARING SADDLES. And it is not only NOT laughed out of existence, it is doubtlessly attended by a huge swath of members of one of our major parties.
Checkmate.
Lying to Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be really freaking old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lying to Congress (Score:5, Informative)
Funded by Exxon (Score:5, Informative)
Not surprising; the main source of critiques that attempt to discredit climate science is the "Heartland Institute," which doesn't state its funding sources, except to say it's funded by "foundations and corporations"... but reading the budget information from Exxon Mobil shows those "foundations and corporations" tend to be fossil fuel companies, and fossil-fuel funded institutes like the American Petroleum Institute.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, Heartland Institute, the organization that most clearly shows that "libertarianism" is mostly just "you consumers and politicians should stop being mean to the wonderful mega-corporations".
Misinformation, corruption (Score:2)
Was there really any doubt? (Score:5, Informative)
Was there really any doubt that Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon were full of it?
Here's a thorough debunk of their most infamous paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo#t=2m00s [youtube.com]
i.e. The one skeptics go crazy about how in emails, how other climate scientists said it shouldn't have even been published in the first place.
Not climate 'skeptics' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, sounds like denialism to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, sounds like denialism to me.
So sorry to bring data to a religious debate, I'll not bother you any further.
Re:Not climate 'skeptics' (Score:4, Insightful)
So, because I don't reject the crushing scientific consensus because you have linked to one paper (that doesn't contradict the consensus that much if you read it), I'm some kind of zealot? Simply because I require a bit more evidence from you, you throw a strop?
Here is a more appropriate paper for someone like you to read: https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/view/363/204 [le.ac.uk]
Re:Not climate 'skeptics' (Score:5, Interesting)
So, because I don't reject the crushing scientific consensus because you have linked to one paper (that doesn't contradict the consensus that much if you read it), I'm some kind of zealot? Simply because I require a bit more evidence from you, you throw a strop?
Here is a more appropriate paper for someone like you to read: https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/view/363/204 [le.ac.uk]
Close, but you missed the point. Sadly, it doesn't appear that science is well understood on Slashdot anymore.
I provided direct scientific evidence that warming since 1850 is NOT anomalous within the last 2,000 years of history, and that similar warming to it has occurred multiple times previously. You dismissed the evidence by appealing to SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!
You see, the scientific method and process doesn't care if 99 people in 100 believe the earth is flat, what matters is the one person with a space shuttle that flies around the earth taking pictures of the fact it is a sphere.
I am NOT misquoting Mann's paper what so ever. He reanalyzed his data with a different and by his own words more accurate statistical method, and his graphs of the results clearly show that the warming since 1850 has been exceeded multiple times before. My CORRECT reading of this very simple graph is further, and irrefutably evidenced by the fact Mann's own conclusion at the end of this paper is to observe that only the last decade is an anomaly, a far step down from his conclusion in his prior paper observing that the last century was the anomaly.
Please, demonstrate that I am wrong in my interpretation or that my source is biased and wrong. Just don't pretend like declaring CONSENSUS in any way trumps hard scientific evidence to the contrary, that's the work of zealots and ludites.
Please Read "Merchants of Doubt" (Score:4, Interesting)
The Real "Climategate" (Score:3, Insightful)
THIS is worthy of the title Climategate, the real scandal is in the millions spent or trying to seed doubt and stall planet-saving policy. (After initial expenditure, hords of useful idiots and wackjobs take over - they are desperate for something to fight since the cold war, there are no longer commies under their beds).
Once again the data doesn't support what the deniers claim. Once again, caught red handed, lying for money.
Deniers: Please please present examples of scientists caught out doing false science for money from whoever has a vested interest in saving the world rather than wrecking it for short term profit, I dunno... EV battery company?
*(In actual fact the volume of emails showed nothing untoward, just genuine scientists doing their usual thing).
Not applied uniformly (Score:3)
This criticism isn't applied uniformly. Somehow getting funding from these guys taints everything they do regardless of whether they publish verifiable data. Yet we don't apply the same standard to say, "news" outlets that contribute 85% to one political party. Where else might these standards be conveniently brushed under the rug?
I suspect if you dig deep enough, you'll find some evidence of this in one form or another and to varying degrees for every single scientist in existence. Good science can be verified.
Re: (Score:2)
You really are extraordinarily stupid if you can't understand the problem with this, aren't you? Have you never even heard of the commonplace saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune?"
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you're one of those people who believe that everything is composed of black and white, with no neutral in between, and composed of discreet values.
Similarly, the opposite of rich is poor, so if you're not swimming in your private swimming pool on board your private jet, you're in the streets begging for money.
Re:Climate Catastrophists are funded by everyone e (Score:4, Insightful)
What *is it* with fuckwits like you?
Greenpeace global revenues in 2010: about 56m euros. Exxon just about pipped Greenpeace there, with an income of 311bn dollars in the same year. So clearly it is Greenpeace who is able to throw money around like billy-o and has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of this debate. Yes, that's absolutely clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Exxon just about pipped Greenpeace there, with an income of 311bn dollars in the same year.
Sorry, income != profits. Not even close.
And it still doesn't change the fact that Greenpeace (and many other pro-climate-change groups) is financed by ExxonMobil and BP and "Big Oil". Shall we discount their conclusions and papers as well, since they are obviously financed by groups you suspect of ulterior motives?
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the obvious gains those who have vested interest in alternative energy have what do those scientists who feel global warming is man made have to gain? What are the motives? The flip side is obvious, the fossil fuel industry stands to lose trillions of dollars if anthropogenic climate change is the real deal. I have always been a pragmatist. The logic goes something like this:
1. Everyone knows that fossil fuels are a finite resource whose peak availability may have just passed, is happening now or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You couldn't guess?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/the-log-in-the-eye-of-greenpeace/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course people are interested in how both sides are funded. But as soon as you jump into conspiracy theories you run the risk of losing ears.
Contrast two conspiracy theories:
Exxon funds climate change skeptic. We are talking about a very well known company that is even better known for the damage they have caused to the environment. Regulations around climate change are against their best interests. Plausible conspiracy.
Some agency that noone has even heard of funds an actvist group that noone even kn
Re: (Score:3)
2011-2001 = 10 years
2001 < 2003
In context: (Score:5, Informative)
Ah the out-of-context quote, an outdated weapon from the age when it took effort to find the context, like throwing a spear at a tank.
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
He was saying that environmental policy affects economic policy, and that economic policy has become the sticking point to environmental policy change:
http://www.environmentaltrends.org/single/article/un-climate-talks-and-power-politics-its-not-about-the-temperature.html [environmentaltrends.org]
Ah, the "out-of-context quote" outdated weapon (Score:3)
It is quite a scary statement completely with context, in fact even more damning, which is why I thanked the other poster for posting the whole context, not the partial context you posted, quoted from someone else.
Thank you for the full context (Score:2)
The full context is much scarier, but I only wanted to post a quote that got the point across, not the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
What an absolute pile of twattery. If funding and other biases didn't matter in science, there'd have been no need for the double-blind RCT.
Re:Lets balance this out... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ [factcheck.org]
As for carbon-taxes, you can still believe Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening and disagree with the carbon-tax solution. In fact, I've seen experiment that show that, if you present people with arguments that global warming is real and carbon-tax is the solution, and then show a second group of people an argument that global warming is real and nuclear power is the solution, people are more likely to accept the idea of global warming+nuclear power solution. What this says to me is that people aren't making up their minds from the facts of global warming, but they're making decisions about the reality of global warming based on their fears of what happens if they accept it.
Re: (Score:3)