25 Feb '15 10:46>
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-contrarian-revealing-funding-sources.html
Why am I not surprised?
Why am I not surprised?
Originally posted by sonhouseit says among other things:
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-contrarian-revealing-funding-sources.html
Why am I not surprised?
Originally posted by humyI hope this will lead to further research into the financial dealings with climate deniers. That dude made $85,000 per year for the past 14 years with that scam. I hope he gets fried.
it says among other things:
"Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, by workers with Greenpeace which were subsequently given to investigators at the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) indicate that Soon received approximately [b]$1.2 million in funding over the past fourteen years from companies such as Exxon Mobile, the American Petrole ...[text shortened]... arming? -how does that fit into the huge global conspiracy theory? that doesn't make any sense )[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseBecause you mistakenly think Exxon/Mobile is against a carbon tax. They are all for it.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-contrarian-revealing-funding-sources.html
Why am I not surprised?
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you don't consider Soon to bought off? I wish I could get $85,000 a year to make false claims. I have to make my 85K the hard way.
Because you mistakenly think Exxon/Mobile is against a carbon tax. They are all for it.
Exxon is the biggest U.S. natural-gas producer. A carbon tax could boost demand for natural gas in U.S. power plants, as gas emits half the carbon dioxide as coal when burned to make electricity.
I think it is interesting that when I pointed out that Monsanto fu ...[text shortened]... king a reverse stance on climate change research. All the sudden the funding source matters now.
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't know anything about Soon so I can't say, but you are accusing him of making false claims. Do you have any proof of that? Even if there is one bad apple it still is meaningless. I found far more liars who contributed to that bunk skeptical science website. What is the tally count?
So you don't consider Soon to bought off? I wish I could get $85,000 a year to make false claims. I have to make my 85K the hard way.
Anyway, it was not Exxon in question here, it was an energy company dependent on coal. Their incentive is to go for ZERO carbon tax since their fuel is about 100% carbon.
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou are amazingly tolerant of those you consider on your side. I imagine you would be screaming to high holler if the dude was saying climate change was man made but he was being paid 85K a year to do so.
I don't know anything about Soon so I can't say, but you are accusing him of making false claims. Do you have any proof of that? Even if there is one bad apple it still is meaningless. I found far more liars who contributed to that bunk skeptical science website. What is the tally count?
I guess it was Humy that mentioned Exxon so I'll leave that goof ...[text shortened]... y other fossil fuels (especially natural gas) will profit while coal stays in the ground, right?
Originally posted by sonhouse"You see NO connection in the fact he has gotten a mil and a quarter over the last 14 years and furthermore no influence on what he writes?"
You are amazingly tolerant of those you consider on your side. I imagine you would be screaming to high holler if the dude was saying climate change was man made but he was being paid 85K a year to do so.
You see NO connection in the fact he has gotten a mil and a quarter over the last 14 years and furthermore no influence on what he writes?
Originally posted by humyYou have done nothing of the sort. Skeptical Science is not an honest source of information. It is alarmist propaganda and I have proven that time and time again. You are the true denier here. No matter how often I discredit your sources you insist they have credibility when they don't. You are a liar!
Yes we do which we have repeatedly already shown you only for you to deny it; It is the evidence for man made global warming.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe latest word is the alarmists as you call them, are 100% correct. It is people like you who will set things up in such a way as to make for extremely difficult decisions to be made in a few decades, our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for the deniers goings on now.
"You see NO connection in the fact he has gotten a mil and a quarter over the last 14 years and furthermore no influence on what he writes?"
Are you claiming that the amount of money you are talking about never goes to the alarmist side? I can't condemn anyone unless I know they are telling a lie about something in their research. Your link did say so ...[text shortened]... my should be skeptical. Can you make a similar case against the company you say is funding Soon?
Originally posted by sonhouse"I suppose you think the current change in our climate, glaciers melting, right now towns in Alaska having to be abandoned because the ocean is already encroaching on their villages, all that stuff is just temporary"
The latest word is the alarmists as you call them, are 100% correct. It is people like you who will set things up in such a way as to make for extremely difficult decisions to be made in a few decades, our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for the deniers goings on now.
I suppose you think the current change in our climate, glaciers melting, r ...[text shortened]... now EVERYTHING about the climate and what is causing the present change.
Is that about right?
Originally posted by humyOf course, denying is the first sign of denial. 🙄
As I just said; "....only for you to deny it"