How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?
That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.
Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.
The entire editorial article is nothing but attempting to say "don't trust people that get funding".IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily - The Soros Threat To Democracy
Fascinating isn't it, how anyone that doesn't "believe" in AGW is a "Denier" funded by a conglomerate enemy of "Big Oil" and those brave souls informing the world are lone and courages voices...
Apparently they are not.
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | The Guardian | Guardian UnlimitedScientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
Mwahaha
George Soros has an agenda.
That agenda is furthered by the politics of Global Warming.. oh look, he dropped 700k on Hansen to help promote his goals.
Don't the two of you get bothered by this... at all?
Hansen conducts research and publishes his research in peer reviewed journals. The deniers conduct no research and publishing nothing to challenge Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory in any peer reviewed journals. That is what bothers me.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htmA new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.
In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.
Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "(The world's climate) warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004) [4] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview) [5] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006) [6] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007) [7]
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaScientists in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.
* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [11]) (See also [12], [13], [14])
* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002)[15] Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." (Marshall Institute, March 25, 2003) [16]
* David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."[17] Bellamy later admitted that he had cited faulty data and announced on 29 May 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming", [18] but in 2006 he joined a climate skeptic organization [19] and in 2007 published a paper arguing that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and] such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century." [20]
* Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [21].
* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [22])
Man you are so full of lies and hate.
There are PLENTY of scientists with backed research peer reviewed that counter global warming as an anthropomorphic cause. You're just too blinded by your own arrogance to take the 10 seconds it would take to find.
Keep lying to yourself, keep spouting those same, bs lines. You merely show how desperate your side is to deny reality of the situation.
According to some nut-job at "infowars.com", that is the case. However, if it is indeed the case, then please cite a peer reviewed article or study that challenges basic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
OMG My point was that you LIED/were wrong about no scientifically reviewed research with counter claims on AGW.
That's all. I'm not gonna try to disprove your beliefs.
Now do you accept that ONE claim of yours, was wrong, yes.. or no?
No, I stated that the deniers conduct no peer reviewed research. I stand by that statement, you have yet to produce one peer reviewed article or study that counters basic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The only one you have produced that even comes close is one that challenges previous research on carbon sensitivities, and its still in the review process.
All we have on the part of the deniers out there are some OP/Eds (that which AIE gives them 10 grand to write) and some propaganda blogs (usually written by paid lobbyists for the fossil fuels industries).
You stand by a statement that is false, and you perpetuate a lie.
Cool. I don't think "debating" with you is getting either of us anywhere. You are certain of easily disproved facts, and ignore them even when tossed in your face.
Carry on, I won't feed you anymore.
Prove that he's lying, then you'll have an argument. Just because he gets money for his work does not mean squat.Mwahaha
George Soros has an agenda.
That agenda is furthered by the politics of Global Warming.. oh look, he dropped 700k on Hansen to help promote his goals.
Don't the two of you get bothered by this... at all?
He wasn't wrong nor has he lied. Then OMG :shock: you haven't supported your own position with a single scientific literary publication.OMG My point was that you LIED/were wrong about no scientifically reviewed research with counter claims on AGW.
That's all. I'm not gonna try to disprove your beliefs.
Now do you accept that ONE claim of yours, was wrong, yes.. or no?
For the record, I believe McKitrick ( along with McIntyre) managed to get a few publications in respectable journals before their ideas were put to rest
I think Gill would know the relevant links.
..................Do you even know what a peer reviewed journal is?
I don't think you do as you have only produced one peer reviewed article thus far. Let me give you a hint "Climate Audit" is a blog, it is not a peer reviewed journal like say Nature, or The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.....
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences.
http://books.nap.edu/nap-cgi/execsumm.cgi?record_id=11676
For the record, I believe McKitrick ( along with McIntyre) managed to get a few publications in respectable journals before their ideas were put to rest
I think Gill would know the relevant links.
:lamo, it didn't even make a dent in the trend itself what makes you think it would change the hockey stick?Not sure of your meaning of "put to rest". McIntyre's doubts were confirmed. The doubts as to Mann's methods. I dont know where NY times got these McIntyre claims as to Mann's intent. Ive never read of them any where else.
And speaking of the Hockey stick, I wonder if McIntyres recent discovery of errors in Hansens data, would also further discredit the hockey stick graph?
:lamo, it didn't even make a dent in the trend itself what makes you think it would change the hockey stick?
then you go on in rhetoric of how AGW is thus bs made up fabrication so that scientists can get funding and you blame it all on the media, liberals, and various other mediums.
now that you can't argue the conclusion with anything concrete you are now arguing that the data is flawed. Same kind of rational as the creationists and IDer's use to counter evolution.They probably used the same, corrupted data sets.
I'm sorry then, you must be an imaginary figure. If you're not going to debate each time you get crushed then why bother being on this site?dixon76710 said:More of your typical pretend debate with that voice in your head that you some how mistake for me.
I'm sorry then, you must be an imaginary figure. If you're not going to debate each time you get crushed then why bother being on this site?
.
The entire editorial article is nothing but attempting to say "don't trust people that get funding".
Show me where even in your source that SORO's had Hansen miscue the facts or data?
You can't because there's no such thing.
If your argument had been that Soro's edited or forced Hansen to edit his research in accordance with an agenda that Soro's was trying to push than you'd have an argument.
Instead what you have uncovered is that Soro's has an Agenda and Hansen is a credible person to speak for this agenda with research and facts to support thus funding him.
In other words you're still not arguing against the science all you are doing is attacking the person with again ad homenin.
Wow, I can't wait to copy and paste this the next time you scream that a study was funded by big oil, auto industry, utility companies, ad infinitum.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?