There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism

what he found folks. is it's a big freaking SCAM. and it's being played on YOU and your families, your grandchildren, your great grand children, etc ...... wake up

SNIP:
There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism
Global-warming-money-900.jpg
iStockphoto
1.8K114
By William M Briggs Published on November 27, 2015 • 6 Comments

William M Briggs
A sociologist with no training in the physical sciences is puzzled why most Americans think the world is not doomed by global warming. So flummoxed is Yale’s Justin Farrell that he decided to study the question in the most scientific way possible. And he managed to publish his results, “Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change,” in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

What do you think his conclusions were? Perhaps that thirty years of failed temperature predictions boosted Americans’ skepticism? Or that the obvious eagerness of politicians to leverage exaggerated fears have left many skittish? Or maybe it’s the dearth of severe storms, despite the many promises that floods and droughts would drown and parch us all?

No, none of that. Farrell discovered that private groups spent their own money to say that things were not as bad as alarmists claimed. He told TheWashington Post that these “contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust.” Indeed, I, myself a climate scientist, no longer trust anything non-scientists like Farrell tell me about global warming (which he incorrectly calls “climate change”).

Farrell is right about one thing: Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda.

You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies, spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates — billions of dollars.

And then you also have every major and minor university — with contributions from every department, from Critical Literature Theory to Women’s Studies — all with their hands out and eager to provide the support Greenpeace, the government and others desire. Add to that another two or three dozen think tanks which are also sniffing for grants or which support government intervention to do the impossible and stop the earth’s climate from changing.

Every scientific organization which is dependent on grant money has released a statement saying “something must be done” about global warming. They’re supported, fawned over and feted by just about every news and media agency. And don’t forget the leadership of most major organized religions have their own statements — and their hands out.

We’re not done: we still have to add the dozens of Solyndra-type companies eager to sell the government products, to get “green” subsidies or to support its global-warming agenda. Included in that list are oil companies. Oil companies?

ALL of it here:
There's Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism | The Stream

I understand that they even pay people to post AGWCult talking points on Internet Boards
 
All the money spent on "Climate research" and there's still not one single repeatable lab experiment that shows how a rounding error worth of an atmospheric trace element will change the climate or raise temperature
 
how do they get to work? unicycle? horse? how they heat house? burning old tires in wood stove? Get off it, they live on oil. They run lights. If you drive electric car you charge it from coal or gas or nuke. Do you have any idea how much energy to make those battery packs? to dispose of old ones?
Irrelevant. AGW isn't about going back to the Dark Ages, it's about finding better ways to do things.
 
how do they get to work? unicycle? horse? how they heat house? burning old tires in wood stove? Get off it, they live on oil. They run lights. If you drive electric car you charge it from coal or gas or nuke. Do you have any idea how much energy to make those battery packs? to dispose of old ones?
Irrelevant. AGW isn't about going back to the Dark Ages, it's about finding better ways to do things.
e76368df554204a306a173b24b2ecee0981e369e_t.gif


NO!...

Its about power and control. Obama and Clinton both want the US destabilized and put under communist control. they want capitalism killed dead. and they will kill 47 million people to do it.
 
how do they get to work? unicycle? horse? how they heat house? burning old tires in wood stove? Get off it, they live on oil. They run lights. If you drive electric car you charge it from coal or gas or nuke. Do you have any idea how much energy to make those battery packs? to dispose of old ones?
Irrelevant. AGW isn't about going back to the Dark Ages, it's about finding better ways to do things.


Lmao, if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
 
LOL You fellows certainly sound real buthurt. You lost at Paris, and you are losing everywhere else. Your lies no longer wash with the sane people in the world.

We are going to switch to renewables in the next two generations, and the old silly bastards that are posting here will have absolutely nothing the say about it. Their time is over.
 
how do they get to work? unicycle? horse? how they heat house? burning old tires in wood stove? Get off it, they live on oil. They run lights. If you drive electric car you charge it from coal or gas or nuke. Do you have any idea how much energy to make those battery packs? to dispose of old ones?
Irrelevant. AGW isn't about going back to the Dark Ages, it's about finding better ways to do things.










No, it's not. It is about impovershing the rest of the world so that the elite can be the super elite. It is about enslavement in its purest form.
 
LOL You fellows certainly sound real buthurt. You lost at Paris, and you are losing everywhere else. Your lies no longer wash with the sane people in the world.

We are going to switch to renewables in the next two generations, and the old silly bastards that are posting here will have absolutely nothing the say about it. Their time is over.









What did we "lose" in Paris? Tell us exactly what happened there.
 
There is Big Money backing the denial troops too! The world's biggest polluters (fossil fuel industry), are also the biggest contributors to the denial sector.


Lmao, link?


Oh do you mean all those anti climate change commercials, billboards and them sponsoring NASCAR? That we never see...

OK.
Fossil fuel firms are still bankrolling climate denial lobby groups

I will just bother reading the first one...did you even read it?



From the link

Even ExxonMobil, which spent $16m (£11m) between 1998 and 2005 to fund groups that spread disinformation

--- --- ---- -------



16 million over 6 years is laughable do you know how much it cost to be the primary sponsor of say Dale Earnhart in NASCAR for just one season? Like $10 million dollars.

To say or even hint the money they spend was around the tobacco industry misinformation campaign is a joke.

And I see you fail to mention the millions Exxon spent on green energy since the 70s ...

Btw. Check this out, hilarious, Exxon in 2007 alone spent more on advertising green energy then your link said lobbied against it between 1998~2005

:)


Big Oil Misers


For example, ExxonMobil spent $100 million on advertising in 2007, (its 2008 advertising totals are unavailable). Some of its ads catalogue ExxonMobil’s “efforts” to combat global warming, with messages that include “saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

I meant to add this link, but last night was Christmas Eve and my house was (and still is) full of people.
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

Now only an idiot would assume that it's "just the other side" is getting funded from special interest. I have always maintained that both sides of the issue are getting paid to promote their side of the issue. In keeping up my opinion.
'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research
I happen to think neither side can be trusted on the issue because of all the special interest money is dictating the substance of the debate.











I see you are dancing around the question of the amount of money involved. So, which is bigger.....millions or billions? Simple question. How about you answer it. Then let us know if trillions is bigger than both.

What a one-sided and narrow-minded response.
You argue one point. Where as I provided both sides of the financing global warming issue.
I automatically look at both sides, you want to address just the side that you have been indoctrinated by.
Did you even bother to read the Forbes article that I provided? I doubt it, that would require effort.
Tunnel vision is not an asset.
 
Lmao, link?


Oh do you mean all those anti climate change commercials, billboards and them sponsoring NASCAR? That we never see...

OK.
Fossil fuel firms are still bankrolling climate denial lobby groups

I will just bother reading the first one...did you even read it?



From the link

Even ExxonMobil, which spent $16m (£11m) between 1998 and 2005 to fund groups that spread disinformation

--- --- ---- -------



16 million over 6 years is laughable do you know how much it cost to be the primary sponsor of say Dale Earnhart in NASCAR for just one season? Like $10 million dollars.

To say or even hint the money they spend was around the tobacco industry misinformation campaign is a joke.

And I see you fail to mention the millions Exxon spent on green energy since the 70s ...

Btw. Check this out, hilarious, Exxon in 2007 alone spent more on advertising green energy then your link said lobbied against it between 1998~2005

:)


Big Oil Misers


For example, ExxonMobil spent $100 million on advertising in 2007, (its 2008 advertising totals are unavailable). Some of its ads catalogue ExxonMobil’s “efforts” to combat global warming, with messages that include “saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

I meant to add this link, but last night was Christmas Eve and my house was (and still is) full of people.
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

Now only an idiot would assume that it's "just the other side" is getting funded from special interest. I have always maintained that both sides of the issue are getting paid to promote their side of the issue. In keeping up my opinion.
'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research
I happen to think neither side can be trusted on the issue because of all the special interest money is dictating the substance of the debate.











I see you are dancing around the question of the amount of money involved. So, which is bigger.....millions or billions? Simple question. How about you answer it. Then let us know if trillions is bigger than both.

What a one-sided and narrow-minded response.
You argue one point. Where as I provided both sides of the financing global warming issue.
I automatically look at both sides, you want to address just the side that you have been indoctrinated by.
Did you even bother to read the Forbes article that I provided? I doubt it, that would require effort.
Tunnel vision is not an asset.








Really? You trot out the fact that oil companies have given around 30 million to the anti global warming sceptics and then blissfully ignore the fact that the government, oil companies, and rich industrialists have given over 120 BILLION to the AGW supporters. All in the hope of passing legislation that will rip 76 TRILLION dollars out of the hands of the poor and the middle class.

When you want to talk about a myopic POV look in the mirror dude.
 
One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.
 
Last edited:
One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.

For all of the money spent in, what do you call it today, global climate warming change, can you post the repeatable lab experiment showing how a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element will either raise temperature or alter the climate of planet Earth?

Thank you
 
One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.








We got nuclear power and the atomic bombs for 32 billion dollars. Global Warming research has received well over 120 billion dollars. What do we have to show for all of that money?
 
One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.

For all of the money spent in, what do you call it today, global climate warming change, can you post the repeatable lab experiment showing how a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element will either raise temperature or alter the climate of planet Earth?

Thank you

Evans 2006

The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

Frank, this is a directly measured power spectrum of the backradiation produced by greenhouse gases. All of the energy represented by the area under that curve is striking the Earth. That is NOT sunlight. That is radiation coming from the Earth's atmosphere. That energy GOT there via the greenhouse effect. How many times do you have to be shown this information before you understand what it is?
 
One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.

We got nuclear power and the atomic bombs for 32 billion dollars. Global Warming research has received well over 120 billion dollars. What do we have to show for all of that money?

A very firm understanding of AGW and a lot of technologies and methods that will help us overcome it. What's your point?
 
One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.

We got nuclear power and the atomic bombs for 32 billion dollars. Global Warming research has received well over 120 billion dollars. What do we have to show for all of that money?

A very firm understanding of AGW and a lot of technologies and methods that will help us overcome it. What's your point?







A firm understanding of AGW. Really? You idiots can't even figure out what clouds do. You have opinion out the ass on AGW but no empirical science to support it and you have a plan to spend 76 trillion dollars to lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years.....maybe.

And you think that is an a accomplishment? That is the biggest waste of money ever in the history of mankind.
 
what he found folks. is it's a big freaking SCAM. and it's being played on YOU and your families, your grandchildren, your great grand children, etc ...... wake up

SNIP:
There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism
Global-warming-money-900.jpg
iStockphoto
1.8K114
By William M Briggs Published on November 27, 2015 • 6 Comments

William M Briggs
A sociologist with no training in the physical sciences is puzzled why most Americans think the world is not doomed by global warming. So flummoxed is Yale’s Justin Farrell that he decided to study the question in the most scientific way possible. And he managed to publish his results, “Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change,” in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

What do you think his conclusions were? Perhaps that thirty years of failed temperature predictions boosted Americans’ skepticism? Or that the obvious eagerness of politicians to leverage exaggerated fears have left many skittish? Or maybe it’s the dearth of severe storms, despite the many promises that floods and droughts would drown and parch us all?

No, none of that. Farrell discovered that private groups spent their own money to say that things were not as bad as alarmists claimed. He told TheWashington Post that these “contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust.” Indeed, I, myself a climate scientist, no longer trust anything non-scientists like Farrell tell me about global warming (which he incorrectly calls “climate change”).

Farrell is right about one thing: Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda.

You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies, spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates — billions of dollars.

And then you also have every major and minor university — with contributions from every department, from Critical Literature Theory to Women’s Studies — all with their hands out and eager to provide the support Greenpeace, the government and others desire. Add to that another two or three dozen think tanks which are also sniffing for grants or which support government intervention to do the impossible and stop the earth’s climate from changing.

Every scientific organization which is dependent on grant money has released a statement saying “something must be done” about global warming. They’re supported, fawned over and feted by just about every news and media agency. And don’t forget the leadership of most major organized religions have their own statements — and their hands out.

We’re not done: we still have to add the dozens of Solyndra-type companies eager to sell the government products, to get “green” subsidies or to support its global-warming agenda. Included in that list are oil companies. Oil companies?

ALL of it here:
There's Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism | The Stream



ipcc_ransom_note-cartoons-by-josh.jpg
 
Irrelevant. AGW isn't about going back to the Dark Ages, it's about finding better ways to do things.


If there is money to be made somebody will find a "better way". If it makes little economic sense it will fail. Fuel cells........Targeted Solar, let them succeed from the profit motive on their own.

People are buying Tesla cars for a lot of reasons even though they cost $90K. I think there is $8K tax write off in CA? maybe? But mostly they succeeded making a product people wanted.

LOL....they still have to charge them up using the PGE power plant.
 
LOL You fellows certainly sound real buthurt. You lost at Paris, and you are losing everywhere else. Your lies no longer wash with the sane people in the world.

We are going to switch to renewables in the next two generations, and the old silly bastards that are posting here will have absolutely nothing the say about it. Their time is over.


When it works reliably yes. Some smart persons will find something to sell to replace Oil cars. some day.
 

Forum List

Back
Top