- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,541
- Reaction score
- 22,184
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
If you were actually honest, you'd know the amount spent proving AGW is far more than against it. But that requires honesty.
Global warming activists claim vast amounts of untraceable special interest money fund global warming skeptics and give skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate. The undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money – including far more untraceable special interest “dark money” – than global warming skeptics.
Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle published a paper last week in the journal Climatic Change identifying 91 conservative and libertarian think tanks that Brulle claims play an influential role opposing global warming programs. Brulle claims the 91 groups receive approximately $900 million in cumulative funding each year, with approximately $64 million coming from foundations that distribute “dark money” that cannot be traced to a particular donor. Brulle claims the $900 million in funding – and especially the $64 million in dark money – tilts the playing field and gives global warming skeptics undue political and public relations influence.
-=-=-==-
Forbes Welcome
Yes.
Is someone actually follow the money, they would see the alarmists get 99%+ of the money, but still only have a 97% consensus.
Who's going to bite the hand that feeds them?
How about "Climate Truther"?One thing we skeptics know is that a warmist can explain away everything .
Oh wait, did I say skeptics? I forgot-the order went out to call us deniers.
The Associated Press wants reporters to stop calling people ?climate deniers? : TreeHugger
LAFFRIOT
:roll:And I maintain, as I always have that Climate Change/GW pushers, all have an agenda. Follow the money!
Or, not.Algore is making a fortune off of his BS....
The Earth will do what it wants to do and man has no real control over her.
The sad part is, you can't see how this proves my point. This article even goes goes beyond the pale of the usual liberal garbage . You people just don't see yourselves,and THAT is the problem.:roll:
When we follow the money, we see huge fossil fuel corporations like Koch and Exxon funding climate change deniers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
Of course, they certainly don't make it easy to follow the money:
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American
.
Almost every study STARTS with the conclusion that support the AGW narrative.
Actually the bad science and cherry picking is on the deniers side of the equation. Sea levels do fluctuate but the trend is and will continue to be a slow rise. Right now Australia is experiencing a rainy period and lakes that are normally dry salt beds are 75% full. A convergence in the South Pacific is concentrating some rainfall.
But nice try...eace
Follow the money! Financial interests only exist on one side of this argument!
Ahhh yes, no doubt more intel you gleaned while working for that agency that 'doesn't exist'...
Yes it's all to make Al gore rich... :lamo
never mind there are truly informed experts who can explain the sea level fluctuations- it's all a big hoax to control us all....eace
Actually the bad science and cherry picking is on the deniers side of the equation. Sea levels do fluctuate but the trend is and will continue to be a slow rise. Right now Australia is experiencing a rainy period and lakes that are normally dry salt beds are 75% full. A convergence in the South Pacific is concentrating some rainfall.
But nice try...eace
:roll:
When we follow the money, we see huge fossil fuel corporations like Koch and Exxon funding climate change deniers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
Of course, they certainly don't make it easy to follow the money:
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American
Or, not.
Gore has made most of his money off of work in finance, from media investments, stocks, serving on corporate boards like Apple and Google. Compared to his other sources of income and assets, he doesn't appear to make much off of his climate change advocacy.
The making of a businessman: How Al Gore got rich - CBS News
The evidence is overwhelming that human beings are having a massive impact on the entire planet. This includes increasing global temperatures, creating a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas, and yes increasing sea levels around the world.
Do tell! what is the "one thing" that science is saying?
Be concise, we do not want that "one thing" to be subject to misinterpretation!
Oh go blow it out your...
I'm sick and tired of your blind following of the dogma.
Yes.
Is someone actually follow the money, they would see the alarmists get 99%+ of the money, but still only have a 97% consensus.
Who's going to bite the hand that feeds them?
I tend to stay out of these debates because I don't have the time or patience to sift through all the science and pseudo-science both sides spew back and forth. But "follow the money"? Come on, man. Which side, by FAR, has the most money riding on this issue?
Who are all these scientists funded by?
Hopefully everybody remember Sallenger’s “hot spots” of sea level acceleration along the East Coast of the US.
Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597
This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window.
As 6 more years of data have been collected, let see if the hotspots are now the “hottest on record” or if they have cooled down.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05...s-of-acceleration-of-washington-and-new-york/
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?