Most of the fundings for Climate research is directed towards those so called institutions claiming anthropogenic global warming. If you do not claim anthropogenic global warming, you'll probably wont receive any fundings at all.
Regardless, one of the main funders and pushers of carbon emissions trading is non other than Enron:
"While there is an effect of the sun involved, is it not prudent to put some effort in case we are making things worse? "
We arrive at part two of global warming conspiracy: Carbon dioxide tax. this is the new reforming global tax, at countries which will be directed directly to its citizens. everyday activity, from driving, powering up your laptop, and of course- breathing, will be taxed. infact, most countries are already trading their carbon emissions with others. the one who will pay is you.
Dont let them fool ya, it is pushed by corporations and for corporations. people gonna get rich from this, as al gore already have. This is a global scam and a dangerous one, and the environmental movements should probably wake up and start focusing on real green issues:
pollution, malaria, saving the forests and cleaning our environment.
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Dec 2, 2009 03:29
As I said, even if this is true - how much money are you willing to put that the oil companies aren't paying a whole lot more than anyone else to make sure that people think global warming is a myth? That they pay a whole lot more private detectives and hackers to dig up whatever dirt they can on the opposition?
As I said, this is a dirty fight between interest groups. There are problems with carbon offset trading (loopholes allow developing countries to pollute more and therefor are payed off to accept those carbon offsets, US manufacturers moved all their polluting plants to south and central America, etc), but that doesn't tackle the issue that despite it all, research into global warming started well before Al Gore, and well before there was big money involved on that side of the debate, before concepts such as "carbon offsets" and taxes were induced.
I still remember interviews with random people about smoking - people believed that research that it damaged health was absurd. The cigarette companies did use the exact same tactics until it was proven beyond doubt.
And without a doubt, the University of East Anglia is not one of the strongest cases behind the climate change group (research or otherwise). Neither is Enron. The fact is that a bluff was found taints decades of research by very serious people, which should not be ignored. And you haven't answered my question - why not be careful, as higher carbon use is not a natural thing and does effect the ecosystem?
I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough to debate this from a scientific point of view, but as I said, I am sure researches on both sides have been tainted, and this is a dirty fight... and the side with more money is not the side that funds research at the University of East Anglia.
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222
-Abatwa-
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
42
Posts :
1087
Posted : Dec 2, 2009 10:16
well said Kaz, I'm with you on this one.
`Bottomless wonders spring from simple rules, which are repeated without end` Mandelbrot
XwhiteRabbitX
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
25
Posts :
529
Posted : Dec 2, 2009 12:54
Quote:
On 2009-12-02 03:29, Kaz wrote:
As I said, even if this is true - how much money are you willing to put that the oil companies aren't paying a whole lot more than anyone else to make sure that people think global warming is a myth? That they pay a whole lot more private detectives and hackers to dig up whatever dirt they can on the opposition?
As I said, this is a dirty fight between interest groups. There are problems with carbon offset trading (loopholes allow developing countries to pollute more and therefor are payed off to accept those carbon offsets, US manufacturers moved all their polluting plants to south and central America, etc), but that doesn't tackle the issue that despite it all, research into global warming started well before Al Gore, and well before there was big money involved on that side of the debate, before concepts such as "carbon offsets" and taxes were induced.
I still remember interviews with random people about smoking - people believed that research that it damaged health was absurd. The cigarette companies did use the exact same tactics until it was proven beyond doubt.
And without a doubt, the University of East Anglia is not one of the strongest cases behind the climate change group (research or otherwise). Neither is Enron. The fact is that a bluff was found taints decades of research by very serious people, which should not be ignored. And you haven't answered my question - why not be careful, as higher carbon use is not a natural thing and does effect the ecosystem?
I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough to debate this from a scientific point of view, but as I said, I am sure researches on both sides have been tainted, and this is a dirty fight... and the side with more money is not the side that funds research at the University of East Anglia.
ill go point by point:
oil companies investments in refuting AGW (anthropogenic global warming):
exxon invested in 2008 about 150K in anti AGW research. wow, 0.00027% of their 45 billion profits during that year. Yeah, they are dangerous.
On the other hand, how much was invested in AGW research during 2009?
Phil Jones, Dir of CRU as recipient or co-recipient of nearly $19 million worth of research grants from 2000 to 2006.
European Commission appropriation of $3 billion not including the funds from member governments.
United States House of Representatives - $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million for NOAA's, and $300 million for the National Science Foundation
State of California - $600 million to their own climate initiative.
All this in addition to the $94 billion (as estimated by HSBC Bank) that is being spent on "green stimulus" such as ethanol and alternative energy schemes.
The senate voted against it, but that didnt stop gore. More than 10 years after, the cap and trade strikes back with obama.. Since than, gore is estimated to profit more than a couple hundreds of million from his investments in global warming technology and carbon trade.
"And you haven't answered my question - why not be careful, as higher carbon use is not a natural thing and does effect the ecosystem? "
Where there's money to be gain, be very certain at what you do and which side you choose. I am not in favor of any oil company nor do i have any stocks regarding this. I am concerned that the environmental movements have been hijacked by outside profit interests. Many scientists, more 31,000 of them in the US alone have petitioned against this hijacking and the validity of data.
This makes me think twice about AGW. If you claim that all of them are on exxon paylist, than prove it. The fact is that the consensus is refuting AGW. The fact is that corporate interests have managed until the CRU hacked e-mails to eliminate any debate concerning AGW. In fact, those who were refuting were hunted and mocked by the general media stream and others (as shown by the hijacked e-mails).
and ill return what iv already said:
Dont let them fool ya, it is pushed by corporations and for corporations. people gonna get rich from this, as al gore already have. This is a global scam and a dangerous one, and the environmental movements should probably wake up and start focusing on real green issues:
pollution, malaria, saving the forests and cleaning our environment.
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Dec 2, 2009 21:17
Quote:
On 2009-12-02 12:54, XwhiteRabbitX wrote:
ill go point by point:
oil companies investments in refuting AGW (anthropogenic global warming):
exxon invested in 2008 about 150K in anti AGW research. wow, 0.00027% of their 45 billion profits during that year. Yeah, they are dangerous.
On the other hand, how much was invested in AGW research during 2009?
Phil Jones, Dir of CRU as recipient or co-recipient of nearly $19 million worth of research grants from 2000 to 2006.
European Commission appropriation of $3 billion not including the funds from member governments.
United States House of Representatives - $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million for NOAA's, and $300 million for the National Science Foundation
State of California - $600 million to their own climate initiative.
All this in addition to the $94 billion (as estimated by HSBC Bank) that is being spent on "green stimulus" such as ethanol and alternative energy schemes.
Including the fact that a recipient is NOT someone who donates money, are you assuming all government funding, by nature, is pro "green" or pro "people who funded their rise to political power"? Do you think those initiatives are publicity payments or research or rather attempts to resolve environmental concerns?
The senate voted against it, but that didnt stop gore. More than 10 years after, the cap and trade strikes back with obama.. Since than, gore is estimated to profit more than a couple hundreds of million from his investments in global warming technology and carbon trade.
Let's assume Al Gore never cared about the environment at all for a second. Let's assume that Enron, after more than 15 years where things like greenhouse gasses and their effects were taught in US elementary schools, were the start of the green movement. Let's assume an even more extreme assumption, that all of the green movement cares are monetary. That nullifies 30 years of research because...?
Quote:
"And you haven't answered my question - why not be careful, as higher carbon use is not a natural thing and does effect the ecosystem? "
Where there's money to be gain, be very certain at what you do and which side you choose. I am not in favor of any oil company nor do i have any stocks regarding this. I am concerned that the environmental movements have been hijacked by outside profit interests. Many scientists, more 31,000 of them in the US alone have petitioned against this hijacking and the validity of data.
I agree with what you say. But you did not answer my question about whether we should or should not care about the increase in carbon in our atmosphere. Even if the solutions are misguided, is it better to do nothing at all? I find it surprising that you think only one side is making money here, and that these facts are not relevant for both sides, specifically when big companies have a "clean" record in these things.
Quote:
Dont let them fool ya, it is pushed by corporations and for corporations. people gonna get rich from this, as al gore already have. This is a global scam and a dangerous one, and the environmental movements should probably wake up and start focusing on real green issues:
pollution, malaria, saving the forests and cleaning our environment.
They don't fool me, I think both sides are underhanded and amoral. Yes, there are things which can be done on other fronts. I am not sure if it's a scam or not, I do know we are changing by small and steady paces the composition of our atmosphere, and that in the long term that is probably not healthy. The fact is that both sides here have their own best interests at heart, but I'm sure that behind that - both sides have merits to some of their arguments, and after you weed out the distortions, I think that this is another front in which we can do something to improve the health of the environment.
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222
Vermeee
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
108
Posts :
1069
Posted : Dec 2, 2009 21:23
Xolvexs
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
241
Posts :
2848
Posted : Dec 11, 2009 15:27
climate change...is just another way to extend the industrial revolution which is coming to its tail end....you get rid of your perfectly well functioning car and go buy a brand new electric car...get rid of the old make way for the new, even if that means disposing all the well functioning devices, power plants...duh...climate change is nothing but a new wave of consumerism, instead of waiting till your warranty on petrol/ diesel vehicle to expire , just dispose it and buy a new one....scare the world and then pretend to protect it...call it saving the earth...save yourself from the bullet in the loaded gun before you save the earth
When death comes to your doorstep, make sure you are alive
full_on
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
279
Posts :
5475
Posted : Dec 27, 2009 21:38
We are fucked. Period.
Respect!
.
...Be gentle with the earth...
...Dance like nobody's watching...
.
...I don't mind not going to Heaven, as long as they've got Coffee in Hell...
Vermeee
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
108
Posts :
1069
Posted : Jan 19, 2010 21:57
Quote:
On 2009-12-27 21:38, full_on wrote:
We are fucked. Period.
Respect!
