AGW has basically fallen into disrepute. The following explains why this has happened.
The basic science of AGW has always been questionable. Far from “settled” science, what we had was “bought” science. If you follow the money, it doesn’t lead to the oil companies, but to the US government who has been funding the AGW scientists.
The basic science of AGW has always been questionable. Far from “settled” science, what we had was “bought” science. If you follow the money, it doesn’t lead to the oil companies, but to the US government who has been funding the AGW scientists.
“The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 - to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it's 3,500 times as much as anything offered to skeptics.”
In the meantime, Greenpeace has searched for funding for skeptics and “found $23 million paid by Exxon over 10 years (which has stopped).” Perhaps Greenpeace missed funding from other fossil fuel companies, but you can be sure that they looked.
www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031...
Former Vice President Al Gore’s unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails. Gore launched a $100 million a year multimedia global warming Alarmist campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7
James Lovelock, the grandfather of green was recently interviewed by Guardian. He had a lot to say and in the area of the science itself and the effect of all this money on scientist he said:
“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware HOW WEAK THEIR SCIENCE IS. If you talk to them privately THEY'RE SCARED STIFF of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet.
In the meantime, Greenpeace has searched for funding for skeptics and “found $23 million paid by Exxon over 10 years (which has stopped).” Perhaps Greenpeace missed funding from other fossil fuel companies, but you can be sure that they looked.
www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031...
Former Vice President Al Gore’s unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails. Gore launched a $100 million a year multimedia global warming Alarmist campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7
James Lovelock, the grandfather of green was recently interviewed by Guardian. He had a lot to say and in the area of the science itself and the effect of all this money on scientist he said:
“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware HOW WEAK THEIR SCIENCE IS. If you talk to them privately THEY'RE SCARED STIFF of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet.
So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? THEY'VE EMPLOYED SCIENTISTS TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I'm puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
So this data disproves the claims by AGW supporters that their opposition is well funded compared to them. In fact, the opposite is true.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
So this data disproves the claims by AGW supporters that their opposition is well funded compared to them. In fact, the opposite is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment