Study Finds That Corporate Funding Has Affected The Perception Of Climate Change
- Thread starter twizz
- Start date
So 50 million per year? I'm pretty sure companies spend more just to air Superbowl Commercials for one year.
That's how little it is.
If its ever implemented.
If you are arguing that there is some kind of fraud being attempted by climatologists, you'd have to also claim that they are really, really stupid.
To work for 35 years towards a scheme that has yet to happen would have been just really stupid.
Half a billion is peanuts in the oil industry.
And I should add-when all they got is personal attacks and attempts to end the debate, it's a scam. When they buy beach front properties while screaming about rise of the oceans, it's a scam. When the adverse weather becomes climate change and the lack of it becomes weather, it's a scam. I can go for hours. I'm too old, too experienced and too honest to call a duck a pig.
That's the only point there that I can agree with.
But go and read the IPCC reports, nothing but good science there.
No insults, just good research.
In fact it answers all of your questions and has none of the issues you raise as criticism.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Seems to me it was a number of Scientists who learned how to tweek the nicotine levels and flavourings to make them more addictive.
Like I said. If there is money to be made, and there is a lot to be made off of climate change, then no one is immune to saying things and fudging facts.
Sure, but that would be like the tiny percentages of scientists backing denial, they are the ones with low morals willing to do the will of corporate interests, just like pseudo scientists like Judith Curry do.
They are in the minority.
The vast majority of science came out against tobacco, just like the vast majority support climate change research findings.
Because there is a lot of gov't money to be had in grants.
I'm reminded of the British Zooologist who had presented a proposal to study Squirrels in High Park and was turned down. As an experiment 20 years later when all this global warming talk "heated up" and saw he saw his colleagues getting grants he dusted it off, amended the title to include the words "as relates to Global Warning" and added a zero onto the end of the money request.
He got it.
Whole Lotta gov't money out there.
No, there's not that much money in research.
What there is, is there is a good deal of social currency, the 'I'm doing this for the good of the planet', type attitude that makes up for lack of cash or steady income.
There is much more money in fossil fuels, though the probable causes of ignoring climate change will eventually dwarf that.
Exxon is the start of fossil fuel industries being held to task for paying for disinformation.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...es-after-exxon-mobil-on-climate-change-stance
It took decades, but the tobacco industry is now paying damages to governments and people.
It'll take a long time for it to come around to Exxon and the Koch brothers et al.
LOL. My intelligence is being questioned by the guy who thinks the "pre-industrial age" was 25 years ago:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404184&viewfull=1#post5404184
Are you saying the Hadcrut numbers don't show a warming and don't fit the IPCC projections? Trying to cherry pick quotes to make people look bad is a pretty futile tactic when even the sources you provide disagree with you.
Actually, the IPCC concluded that the HadCRUT data didn't align with the predictions.
But my point was an entirely different one.
The numbers you posted were a total crock. For example, the HadCRUT temperature anomaly for 2014 was about 0.5 degrees C, yet you said it was 0.68.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5301206&viewfull=1#post5301206
It's not just that you were completely wrong (although that was certainly the case). The real issue is that you thought it was OK to mix and match numbers from two entirely different data sets that were using completely different baselines (HadCRUT and NASA). Even worse, you posted the same comment on three different threads.
That proves that you don't have the slightest clue how to read graphs.
There are plenty of people on TERB who would have accused you of lying, but I didn't make that accusation. I'm convinced that you genuinely believed that what you were doing was legitimate. And that's the problem.
Whether you understand it or not, your post confirmed that you had no idea what you were talking about -- and, judging from your response today, you still don't.
Here's the graph you are still unable to read.
The one that shows how accurate the IPCC's projections are.
Your intelligence is being questioned because you were already embarrassed over this claim once before.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404282&viewfull=1#post5404282
Lets just skim to the finding on your 'pre-industrial' claim.
Somebody should definitely feel embarrassed, but it's not me.
The worst part is that you repeated the claim that the "pre-industrial age" refers to 1990, even after you had been embarrassed: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404184&viewfull=1#post5404184
Why don't you try looking at that graph that you keep posting? As your own graph shows, the 1ºC temperature increase was over a period of 135 years, not 25 years.
Idiot.
