From who? Which companies that are currently rich and powerful are pushing this?
Or are you suggesting that little companies which are not yet rich and powerful are somehow forcing the hand of the entire scientific community and also the goverment and international community against the wishes of the already existing powers that be, with their huge industries and infrastructures and power structure and money and bought politicians?
The idea that global warming is only a plot by big money is just bizarre to me.
Bring the cites. If the kinds of investors/executives you’re thinking of are pumping money into AGW-acceptance the way the oil industry, etc., have been pumping money into AGW-denial for decades, there should be plenty of proof on the public record for the former, as there is for the latter.
Wrong direction…I suspect if there is arm twisting or enticement for producing findings, it from the politician/government/university administration side in order to maintain the grant $$$ train running
I never said it was.
You are taking my statements out of context.
I am saying that the motivation for lying about the facts are motivated by a desire to keep funding, and that funding comes from mainly those with interest in green technology to replace oil. That is a huge ROI if they can even get a small portion of the market… and we’re starting to see it now.
The mass hysteria surrounding the issue is another thing entirely. If you claim that the world is going to end if we don’t take action… that can be very persuasive. More persuasive than any amount money.
The fear mongering is how they combat the differences in finance between them and big oil. It’s been a great political tactic. As was the fear of WMDs to get us to attack Iraq, which might as well have been a ploy by the oil companies. The fear is so great that any argument you present otherwise is taken as an attempt to back the oil companies.
Big oil doesn’t stand a chance really.
You say we shouldn’t paint the other side as evil but then you claim that most (all?) pro-AGW scientists are liars. That’s quite a disconnect.
Bring the cites. If the kinds of investors/executives you’re thinking of are pumping money into AGW-acceptance the way the oil industry, etc., have been pumping money into AGW-denial for decades, there should be plenty of proof on the public record for the former, as there is for the latter.
Could you name some of the villains here? Which politicians? Which universities? Which governmental powers (remembering who was in charge until quite recently)?
Do you have some examples of those evil grants?
I’ll join the chorus asking for cites.
How sad.
Tell us more about getting paid to produce particular results, please.
Another request for cites.
Exxon alone made over $45 billion in profits in one year in 2009. Not gross, profit. In the bank money.
I am having a trouble finding specific amounts Exxon donated but there is this:
So, a few hundred-thousand dollars? Heck, let’s be generous and say Exxon spends $50 million or even $100 million on this (which I think is far over whatever the number really is). Talk about ROI!
Please show anything similar for the other side of the coin (and note that Exxon is only one such company funding these things…there are others).
No it’s not. If you read the sentence again it will all be quite clear.
It shouldn’t, but unfortunately it is.
Again people are taking everything I said out of context. there is a reason I put POTENTIAL in caps.
I don’t see the correlation. Oil companies are hiring the same lobbyist groups that Big Tobacco hired back in the 80’s to try to confuse the question if smoking and second hand smoke were harmful. These lobbyists are hiring scientists to try and confuse the science. You didn’t have to be a fan of tobacco to be confused by these apparently independent scientists.
On the other hand, you have scientists hired by governments who I think would prefer AGW not to be true. Barring conspiracy theories anyways.
In the end, human caused warning is a tertiary question. The first two questions are is the Earth warming, and if so, is it bad. Assuming the answer to the first two questions is yes, then we start looking at ways to fix it, and part of that process is figuring out what the cause is.
For what it’s worth, there is some very strong data that the Earth is warning, and some compelling theories that it is bad.
Meh, strawman. I’ve seen no evidence people think you, or other skeptics are evil.
There is a quick mechanisms for getting excess water vapor out of the atmosphere(rain). CO2 has a much longer half-life, which allows it to build up. Even though there is less of it, it keeps adding a slight, but accelerating, upward force on the average temperature of the planet.
The Sun is obviously where we get practically all of the heat on the planet. There is a lot of science correlating the various cycles of the Sun with global temperature changes. But in recent decades the Sun has been in a period of producing less than normal energy, while it appears temperatures have been going up.
Oh, and the whole consensus thing, the author of the quote disputes the interpretation:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/
Because you can’t provide any of the cites asked for?
Are you claiming that this research is independent and unfunded?
All I have said so far is that the people funding this research OBVIOUSLY have an interest in green technology.
It’s safe to assume that any of the green industries such as carbon credit brokerages, clean energy resources(wind farms, solar, etc), electric car tech, etc… probably contributed.
Not to mention there are political motivations for governments to spend tons of money to combat the threat of global warming to appease the scared masses.
It’s genius really. Make everyone afraid of something. Get them to push their government to give you a lot of money to do something about it. Profit.
But surely those groups are interested in green technology being shown to be needed, or impressive. Just having an “interest” in the area would include those groups who would benefit more from such research showing green industry isn’t needed. Isn’t it just as obvious, given that both “sides” have considerable interest in the area, to conclude that it’s safe to assume there’s money from big oil, standard car companies and so on is in the pot as well?
Most definitely big oil companies are probably investing in green tech. I think Exxon is doing something with deep sea algae… but that’s not the problem.
I’m not supporting the oil industry either, but I think the mass hysteria surrounding this issue is more emotional than it is scientific. Pollution is bad and oil companies are evil, and if we don’t act quick the world is going to end. That’s the mantra of a typical environmentalist.
I’m not saying that there is nothing to fear, and there is no good reason to switch to cleaner fuels because there obviously is. The problem has always been cost and the market has spoken on that issue. Oil wins.
The only other alternative to push your political agenda is through fear.
Honestly, I know I’ve talked a lot about money being a prime culprit (which I believe it is) but I believe another huge motivator is politics and ‘ethics’. I believe people are forcing their agenda onto others by making broad claims about some disaster in the unforeseeable future.
It’s just like back in the thirties when the government pretended there was some disease called polio.
Have you ever considered the other more likely possibility? That the reason there’s a scientific consensus on global warming isn’t some conspiracy? That maybe it’s just unbiased scientists reporting their findings truthfully? Because nobody has been able to show who it is that’s supposedly bribing all these scientists to lie.
Or maybe these scientists find it hard to get support for the same reason alchemists and astrologers find themselves unable to compete with chemists and astronomers. Because they’re not longer doing real science.
:rolleyes: Ah, yes, the claim that environmentalists are “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside). I think if you examine the environmentalist agenda closely you will find it is actually no more than it purports to be.