Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Diderot said:
LoonyTunes said:
Who is Big Green? NASA? The (Tory) UK Govt? Can you let me have a list of "Big Green" and their funding outlay.
This is a reasonable place to start your research: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/...
Link said:
Behemoth Big Green outstrips Big Oil in expendable revenue by orders of magnitude — if you know how to follow the money.
The mainstream media don't know how. Like most liberals, their staffs are afflicted with what 20th century futurist Herman Kahn called “Educated Incapacity” — the learned inability to understand or even perceive a problem, much less a solution.
Money can be followed via IRS forms and various types of corporate filings which reveal relevant data.The mainstream media don't know how. Like most liberals, their staffs are afflicted with what 20th century futurist Herman Kahn called “Educated Incapacity” — the learned inability to understand or even perceive a problem, much less a solution.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-medi...
https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/31/big-green-envir...
Summary
Big Green Deep Pockets
American Petroleum Institute’s IRS Form 990 for the most recent year showed $237.9 million in assets while the Natural Resources Defense Council reported $241.8 million. Nature Conservancy alone holds $6 billion in assets. The liberal foundations that give targeted grants to Big Green have well over $100 billion at their disposal.
Big Green Big Gifts
In the USA alone U.S. environmental activist groups are a $13billion / year industry. The Giving USA Institute’s annual reports show $80,427,810,000 (more than $80 billion) was given to environmental recipients including pressure groups from 2000 to 2012. Under President Obama, government agencies have poured tens of $millions into nonprofit groups for anti-hydrocarbon campaigns and Obama sent $1billion to the IPCC welath redistribution fund.
Big Green Big Spender
Environmental interests pumped more than $43.8 million in “outside spending” so far this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a government watchdog that compiles campaign finance data. That total is nearly two-and-a-half times as much as oil and gas interests have put towards “outside spending” this election cycle. CRP data shows fossil fuel interests spent more than $18.3 million this cycle. In the recent past Big Green spent more than $140.8 million during the 2016 presidential election, compared to the oil and gas industry at $39.1 million. San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer, who founded the activist group NextGen Climate Action, has supported it with more than $29 million in this election cycle.
EU
Closer to home, in total 25 activist groups have each been given more than €1 million (£850,000) from the EU environmental fund Life+. The European Union is thus paying Big Green campaign groups hundreds of millions of euros in taxpayers' money to effectively lobby itself on what it already wants to do while seeking to give the impression it's acting under external pressure from 'worthies'.
durbster said:
But that doesn't make sense.
If it's sound science, what difference does it make how the funding came about? The results and data won't be different. Polar ice doesn't suddenly start melting because you mention AGW in your funding request.
So, the inference is the science is fraudulent, and deliberately portraying an inaccurate picture of our climate; and that thousands of scientists have been doing this for decades with no apparent motive (other than funding). And none of them have spoken up.
I'm sure there are lots of games played to get funding, and biases are always present, but the same is true of all science so you can't just accept it all except the one field that tells you things you're uncomfortable with.
if you can point out the words i used that implied the bit in bold it would be appreciated,i will avoid using them in the future. that is not what i mean. what i mean is the science has been politicised to such a high degree that avoiding making a political statement in a technical paper has a likelihood of limiting funding opportunities. i have read more than a few papers that when reading the abstract or conclusions there is a line or two dedicated to agw/cagw/potential for worse than we thought in the future that appears to be out of place with the rest of the paper.If it's sound science, what difference does it make how the funding came about? The results and data won't be different. Polar ice doesn't suddenly start melting because you mention AGW in your funding request.
So, the inference is the science is fraudulent, and deliberately portraying an inaccurate picture of our climate; and that thousands of scientists have been doing this for decades with no apparent motive (other than funding). And none of them have spoken up.
I'm sure there are lots of games played to get funding, and biases are always present, but the same is true of all science so you can't just accept it all except the one field that tells you things you're uncomfortable with.
could well be my bias when reading the paper as interpretation is subjective (see the bold above;) ,but it certainly looks that way to me.
LoonyTunes said:
That's £6m annually and not for scientific research. Keep up.
How about you post up your list of 'big green'?
I'd love to see who is on it and how much they are contributing. It's a 2:1 ratio I'm told although the denier-in-chief seems a little shy to post up the facts behind that.
a good place to start with finding out who big green are is look at the list of attendees at the meeting the bbc held where they made the decision there would be no deviation from cagw line when reporting on climate change. the next place to start would be with those that lobbied to government to ensure any research into climate related topics that didn't support agw would not be funded with public money. off you go and look How about you post up your list of 'big green'?
I'd love to see who is on it and how much they are contributing. It's a 2:1 ratio I'm told although the denier-in-chief seems a little shy to post up the facts behind that.
durbster said:
Diderot said:
LoonyTunes said:
Who is Big Green? NASA? The (Tory) UK Govt? Can you let me have a list of "Big Green" and their funding outlay.
This is a reasonable place to start your research: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/...
By the way are you still denying the existence of the 18 year pause? And how are those models doing? Still wrong?
Diderot said:
Are you on drugs? Who said anything about controlling the infrastructure of the entire world? This is evidence of the EU funding environmental activists to lobby the EU and help shape environment EU policy. These policies impact upon many aspects of our lives.
By the way are you still denying the existence of the 18 year pause? And how are those models doing? Still wrong?
You believe you’re right and the scientific community are wrong and there’s a global conspiracy run by the EU and lefties and the mainstream media to create a false scientific consensus on AGW and you ask if he’s on drugs.By the way are you still denying the existence of the 18 year pause? And how are those models doing? Still wrong?
El stovey said:
Classic, the tb axis of evil are ALL in on it, no wonder this stuff enrages you lot so much. 
you can post all the rofl smilies you like. i don't know about liberals, i would like to think i am fairly liberal myself but when publically funded broadcasters like the bbc and public servants i.e the government make statements that there is only one type of research that will be reported upon and funded, i think he may have a point.look at the hysterical reporting regarding the current tropical storm in carolina. i think there were only a few locations where the wind actually hit cat 1 hurricane speeds upon landfall yet the bbc would have us all believe this is some terrible catastrophe. it's hurricane season in an area known for them,hence the naming of the season.there are more people shot in the states in a year than have died in hurricanes in the last 30 years yet hurricanes in the states warrant more air time according to the bbc. i got the impression they were actually hoping it would be cat 4 when it hit land.
LoonyTunes said:
gadgetmac said:
They are always stopped at about 500 pages, you know that right? See the football forum for people asking for a new thread almost everytime 500 is reached.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... (12th post down)
Why do you think its been requested?
It'll be a conspiracy of some kind, involving all of the believers on this thread out to stifle debate by opening new threads without telling him. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... (12th post down)
Why do you think its been requested?
turbobloke said:
More voodoo exorcised.
You quote Daniel Sarewitz, so will I.Daniel Sarewitz said:
Prof Roger Pielke Jr summarizes those facts to answer the question, “Have disasters become more costly because of human-caused climate change?” Many people do worry that climate change is causing disasters to get worse, but Pielke presents a wealth of data, including the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to show why such concerns are not supported by the available science.
That's what the data and the science say, no opinion will trump that. Credible data and science will reliably gore any alarmist bull. “Finally, efforts to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions need not be abandoned. The Framework Convention and its offshoots also offer a promising mechanism for promoting the diffusion of energy-efficient technologies that would reduce emissions.
Both the convention and the Kyoto Protocol call on industrialized nations to share new energy technologies with the developing world. But because these provisions are coupled to carbon-dioxide-reduction mandates, they are trapped in the political gridlock.
They should be liberated, promoted independently on the basis of their intrinsic environmental and economic benefits, and advanced through innovative funding mechanisms. For example, as the United Nations Development Programme has suggested, research into renewable-energy technologies for poor countries could be supported in part by a modest levy on patents registered under the World Intellectual Property Organization. “
So thats more spending on renewables, not abandoning CO2 reductions and more wealth redistribution through taxes (a levy) and the sharing of technology with poorer nations.
Everything you love TB.
dickymint said:
LoonyTunes said:
gadgetmac said:
They are always stopped at about 500 pages, you know that right? See the football forum for people asking for a new thread almost everytime 500 is reached.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... (12th post down)
Why do you think its been requested?
It'll be a conspiracy of some kind, involving all of the believers on this thread out to stifle debate by opening new threads without telling him. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... (12th post down)
Why do you think its been requested?
Why do you think I'm asking?
Come on, out with it...
LoonyTunes said:
Why do you think there's a problem?
Why do you think I'm asking?
Come on, out with it...
I love the way they suggest there’s an ulterior motive to your request but won’t state what it is. Why do you think I'm asking?
Come on, out with it...
They think it’s dodgy (like everything else) but can’t quite work out why so they’d hope you’ll just confess.
durbster said:
Diderot said:
By the way are you still denying the existence of the 18 year pause? And how are those models doing? Still wrong?
Why do you keep repeating this lie?
Mods new thread please.El stovey said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
By the way are you still denying the existence of the 18 year pause? And how are those models doing? Still wrong?
Why do you keep repeating this lie?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff