Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

Let us face it - the denialism industry has be VERY lucrative for some. Far far more lucrative than the supposed and unproven money the climate scientists are supposedly getting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

 

LOL getting a bit desperate Bower ? Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory forum.

 

And the public taxpayer funding for climate alarmism is much more blatant and open.
Do you really think there is not biased discrimination when it comes to the grant funding processes at universities?

 

Leave it out Anders. Don't know how it is where you are but where Bower and I are funding is transparent.

The point is that propaganda about climate science has been funded and promulgated in an attempt to protect the short term interests of certain businesses and industries. The immediate beneficiaries are the shareholders of businesses that may see their profits reduced if policies to mitigate climate change are introduced. There is no thought about the future or what sort of planet we leave to our descendants, this is purely a bunch of atheist and agnostic businesspeople making short term decisions as to their own financial interests who know that there is no afterlife in which they will be punished for their destructive greed so they're spending up big to make sure they keep earning big.

 

seems to me the climatologists were much better funded and the wheels still fell of the wagon

Billions for computers and models which could have been done with a simple calculator

then billions for peer research such as these

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/san-franciscos-characteri_n_465579.html

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Get-ready-for-even-foggier-summers-3226235.php

which is it guys, oh I see whatever you can get tax payer funding for obviously

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

 

Really?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

 

And where is your proof that either were funded by taxpayer dollars and not the mysterious money bank in my article?

Some poor schmuck is paid a couple of thousand dollars grant to review the fog data and some journalist gets a backhand payment from the forces that be to skew a paper to make it look like it is a different outcome

DON'T CONFUSE BAD JOURNALISM WITH GOOD SCIENCE

When you read the SF Gate article the research actually did not come to the conclusion they are intimating it did.

In fact NONE of his papers state it will get foggier

http://www.met.sjsu.edu/faculty/bornstein/Coastal_Cooling.html
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2111.1

 

I don't have to prove anything Bower, I am not playing the go find me info game. You do it if you want, but it is getting obvious to everyone that the last 20 years of the AGW scam has not accomplished a damn thing except waste resources and hurt the GDP of the western countries so it really does not matter now. You need to find a new cult..you might have a winner in that POP thing. See if you can get the west to funnel some money to China with that

 

Nah jack, the science is in and it's not in serious dispute.

 

I don't play childish word games with people who make nonsensical posts , welcome to my ignore list

 

Another crock of (*)(*)(*)(*) 6 degrees of separation argument. Busnuisses fund free market think tanks. Free market think tanks do something on AGW hence conspiracy theorist liberal (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bags argue that all 100% of the money that went to free market think tanks went to climate denial. Its the same insane argument made by lunatic 911 truthers to connect anyone they want with Osama Bin Laden.

 

oh come on 911 truthers have a lot more credibility than climatologists and the AGW cultists

 

Given that any AGW scientist could instantly double his salary by choosing the path of the big lie and becoming a denialist, all of financial incentive is on the denialist side. Nobody goes into AGW science for profit. If they wanted profit, they'd sign on with the denialists and start collecting their bribe money.

That gives AGW science cred, the fact that scientists voluntarily take a pay cut to be part of it. Not that it needed cred, given how all of the evidence supports it. Denialism, on the other hand, is now merely one chapter of the holy dogma of the kook right fringe political cult in the USA, and the rest of the world rightfully laughs at it.

 

rofl..yeah sure. I didn't think that a climatologist could even get their degree at most institutions without toeing the party line judging from the attack dog tactics you use like you did with Dr Judith Curry

 

You don't read much outside of your comfort zone do you??

The science is not in dispute?? Really??

The alarmists have long since lost the scientific battle - hence, the need for fraud, smear, "concensus", rigging the review process, doctoring data, rewriting history, outright criminal activity (Gleick) - and even book burning ala the charming folks at Cal-Berkley.

Sounds more Orwellian, with a taste of Hitleresque propaganda, and heavy doses of Lysenkoism - than it does science.

 

For those who are able to read my posts - the science is in and it's not in serious dispute. Policy is being made on the basis of the accepted science.

 

Please show me where there is evidence of these actions.

Ironic that you should mention Lysenko. As you are no doubt aware he was a fraud who attempted to make science bend to the ideology of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. The rest of the scientific world was agog at the garbage he perpetrated. There was no consensus, there was nothing other than Lysenko telling the master ideologue of the CPSU, Stalin, that science could be twisted to reflect the tenets of dialectical materialism. If you are using Lysenko to smear the "alarmists" as you call them then you are exposing yourself as an ideologue.

But back to the evidence. A consensus doesn't mean 100% acceptance. There are plenty of objectors, not enough though to have any real effect on the scientific consensus. Some are paid spruikers, some are ideologues, some are plain batty. Many are not expert in the various disciplines that impact on the topic.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Those who, for whatever reasons, are in denial about climate change and human influence can continue to protest. The point is that the science is in, it's accepted and it's being used to inform policy.

 

Climategate, Fakegate, Gleick (should be in jail), Mann's laughable hockey stick - which somehow erased the MWP, LIA, the 30's got cooler, the 70's got warmer... made for a pretty graph though, huh?? Too bad it was nothing but a bunch of tricked up nonsense - it even flew in direct contradiction of previous IPCC AR's.

But, just like Orwell... down the memory hole. The MWP never happened, LIA never happened, the Hockey Stick became the new gospel - and it's been a bare knuckle brawl ever since. You alarmists have no interest science... you ignore facts, you ignore empirical evidence, you fabricate your own evidence, you smear anyone who stands up for the facts as a "denier" as if they're akin to holocaust deniers (that's just disgusting)... and yet, you would yourself deny that any of this is true - for 1 of 2 reasons,

1) you're intellectually dishonest, and refuse to look at anything that might challenge the things you believe
or
2) you're outright dishonest, know the whole thing is fraud, yet for ideological reasons you're perfectly comfortable peddling lies to achieve your ideological and political goals

It's one of the two.

Because I can tell you this with all assurity, that CO2 is not a "pollutant"; that there is no evidence of positive feedbacks; that the temperature record and climate since the beginning of the industrial revolution is nothing out of the ordinary; severe/extreme weather events are not happening more frequently, they are happening less frequently; etc, etc...

If this were a prize fight?? You would have been counted out cold (pun intended) a long time ago. The only things keeping the scam afloat are the enormous sums of cash being stolen from taxpayers, a completely ignorant citizenry, and the cover provided by the media.

2013 is shaping up to be the coldest since the 70's... remember the 70's?? I loved the decade, but hated the cold!!!

 

Hey, Diuretic... here's some good news for ya,

http://www.thegwpf.org/climate-ngo-quits-australia-green-politics-turn-sour/

"The Climate Group, one of the world’s biggest NGOs working in the climate space, is withdrawing from Australia, citing the “unfavourable” policy environment."

If you get a change in government leadership, and they follow thru with dismantling all the boondoggles - that is a very positive step forward in reducing, what I'm sure is, overregulation.

Can't help but help your economy.

Over here, Obama and the Democrats are working overtime trying to destroy Amerika's economy - so it's at least nice to see someone else make some progress in stopping the crazies.

 

Crazies? Those who do good science and those who accept that good science and urge policy that deals with the issues as identified through good science? Crazies? I think not. As for Obama and the Democratic Party working to destroy the US economy, the slackers better get onto the job and quick, it's recovering whereas the various European economies are going backwards through their austerity measures. Remind me again, who are the crazies?

 

Really???
And you have the audacity of accusing us of fudging the data???
[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable"]
[TR]
[TD]

[FONT=&amp]January–April[/FONT]​

[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"]

[FONT=&amp]Anomaly[/FONT]​

[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"]

[FONT=&amp]Rank
(out of 134 years)[/FONT]​

[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[FONT=&amp]Records[/FONT]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

[FONT=&amp]°C[/FONT]​

[/TD]
[TD]

[FONT=&amp]°F[/FONT]​

[/TD]
[TD]

[FONT=&amp]Year(s)[/FONT]​

[/TD]
[TD]

[FONT=&amp]°C[/FONT]​

[/TD]
[TD]

[FONT=&amp]°F[/FONT]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 8"] [FONT=&amp]Global[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]Land[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+0.95 ± 0.21[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+1.71 ± 0.38[/FONT][/TD]
[TD="width: 75"] [FONT=&amp]Warmest[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Coolest[/FONT][/TD]
[TD="width: 43"] [FONT=&amp]10[SUP]th[/SUP][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]125[SUP]th[/SUP][/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]2007[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]1893[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+1.42[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]-1.03[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+2.56[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]-1.85[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]Ocean[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+0.42 ± 0.05[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+0.76 ± 0.09[/FONT][/TD]
[TD="width: 75"] [FONT=&amp]Warmest[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Coolest[/FONT][/TD]
[TD="width: 43"] [FONT=&amp]8[SUP]th[/SUP][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]127[SUP]th[/SUP][/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]1998, 2010[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]1911[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+0.56[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]-0.51[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+1.01[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]-0.92[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]Land and Ocean[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+0.56 ± 0.10[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+1.01 ± 0.18[/FONT][/TD]
[TD="width: 75"] [FONT=&amp]Warmest[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Coolest[/FONT][/TD]
[TD="width: 43"] [FONT=&amp]8[SUP]th[/SUP][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]127[SUP]th[/SUP][/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]2010[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]1911[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+0.72[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]-0.54[/FONT][/TD]
[TD] [FONT=&amp]+1.30[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]-0.97[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

And from Spencer:

 

"Skeptics" necessarily have to look at all the evidence - we are trying to find the truth; whereas alarmists are trying to spread alarm for financial gain, career advancement, and to advance a political agenda.

Skepticism IS science. It is only the alarmists who doctor data, ignore inconvenient facts, smear heretics, etc...

We haven't had any warming in 16 years now - inconvenient, huh? Here in the states, tornados are down, hurricanes are down, and halfway thru 2013 almost all of the continent is running considerably colder than the static temperature record of the past 16 years.

When you guys couldn't explain the stoppage in warming, you began to try to change gears, i.e. "extreme weather events" - but that is proven untrue by the fact that we are - in fact - having fewer extreme weather events. Alarmists won't admit that - with a straight face, they go on the boob tube and proclaim that hurrincanes and tornados will be the ruin of us all - complete poppycock.

You do realize that many of your prominent priests have come out and said that the upper limits of their projections are wrong - you do realize that right?? You do realize that most of the climate models are not even within acceptable confidence levels - you do realize that right??

If you're determined to continue believing a lie, then you will continue to live in ignorance - and will have so much egg on your face when the truth finally dawns on you, that you will have absolutely no credibility.

 

I accept Spencer's data... he's an honest scientist. So, as we continue to run cooler and cooler - I will adjust my misstatement from 70's to 90's, how's that??

Of course, you don't believe Spencer's data, b/c if you accept Spencer's data, you have to reject Mann and Jones's data, yes??

You do "believe" in the Hockey Stick don't you?? That is akin to Jesus's resurrection for you guys, isn't it?? So if the Hockey Stick isn't true, then we don't have run away warming, and our current climate patterns are nothing out of the ordinary, right??

We're in the 2nd week of June for Christ's sake, and I've gotten precious little golf in so far this year b/c it's simply too damn cold!!! Now that is a tragedy!!!

 

it's ok over on another thread the cultists are accusing the Copenhagen Climate Council of perjuring itself before the US congress just because they did not like their findings

 

Still wrong. running average was lower for most of the 90's than this year. Only spike was for 1998. If we get another major El Nino, temps will easily top 1998.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. I showed their data did not match the IEA data. I said it was inaccurate. I said nothing about lying.