Originally posted by whodeyI would imagine there are plenty of business groups and other wealthy interests who are eager to provide funding for any scientist to do studies to debunk current climate change theories.
Conversely, now lets take scientist who knows what the powers that be would like them to say and research. They know who the hands that feed them are...that is if they want to be funded.
Originally posted by Melanerpesit's more the other way. a few hundred million of industry funding, vs. $75B-plus for the climate change crazies.
I would imagine there are plenty of business groups and other wealthy interests who are eager to provide funding for any scientist to do studies to debunk current climate change theories.
funny how Democrats think political funding is bad when it's the Republicans doing it.
Originally posted by zeeblebot"Industry" is only providing a few hundred million? - someone is dropping the ball here!! - unless "industry" knows something that the skeptics don't?
it's more the other way. a few hundred million of industry funding, vs. $75B-plus for the climate change crazies.
funny how Democrats think political funding is bad when it's the Republicans doing it.
$79B just for the US.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20819
The Climate Funding Trough; The Canadian Example
By Dr. Tim Ball Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Exposure of corrupt climate science and fraudulent claims has completely upended the climate debate. Now the climate skeptics and deniers are those who pushed the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claim. Falsely accused of receiving oil company money, I know how they used funding to smear people. In reality, almost all the funding came from government and because of the political objective went to block science and promote propaganda. The US Department of Energy (DOE) and other government agencies provided a portion of the approximately $21 million research funding obtained by climate researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
Joanne Nova provided a detailed analysis of US funding in a study for the Science and Public Policy Institute and put the figure at $79 billion since 1998.
Now, politicians aware that misuse of tax money angers, scramble to address the issue while avoiding accusations that they don’t care about the environment. They won’t escape those accusations but leadership is about making tough, fair, and logical decisions.
In a legitimate and necessary action, Prime Minister Harper has stopped funding government agencies used to promote biased and false climate science.
image
Source:
How Canadians Funded False Climate Science
A Calgary Herald (February 23) article, “Canadian climate scientists fight for renewed research funding,” tells a far from complete story. It claims a petition signed by 1,400 students and researchers demands new funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), which they say will die otherwise. There’s the usual emotional appeal; “The foundation’s projects at universities across the country, which are seen as key to understanding the remarkable change underway in the climate, are already being dismantled. And young scientists, trained at substantial cost to the taxpayers, have begun leaving the country in search of work.” But there are no remarkable changes in the climate except in the falsified reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and nothing to support the claim of students leaving the country. The article provides no background of how and why the Foundation was created, which is essential to understanding the story.
Why the Funding Agency Was Established
Environment Canada set up CFCAS as just one program to control climate research and funding. Gordon McBean was Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of Environment Canada (EC) in 2000 when $61 million was assigned to CFCAS. He became Chairman of the Foundation in the month he retired from EC and continues in that position today. A further $50 million was given in 2004.
...
Prevention of Further Waste Is Necessary
Could this be avoided? Absolutely! All you need to understand is why and how the process was set up. Maurice Strong told Elaine Dewar he could not achieve his goal of getting rid of the industrialized nations as a politician, but could get all the money he wanted and not be accountable through the UN. He set up the IPCC and used the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to get access to the weather services in each country. They then diverted funding to the self-proclaimed national emergency of global warming. We must direct funding through agencies already established with filters necessary to eliminate any political bias or influence.
...
Originally posted by FMF1.5 Gigaton
Greenland lost an estimated 1,500,000,000,000 tons of ice between 2000 and 2008. Is that a "policially charged" fact? Or do you think that the ice is still there?
= 1.5 Billion tons
= 1.5 * 10^9 tons
= or 1,500,000,000 tons.
So, yes, 1,498,500,000,000 of your tons of ice are still there.
the referenced link:
Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come
Written by Joanne Nova
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 00:23
(For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf )
[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]
The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
Last Updated on Thursday, 23 July 2009 19:48
http://www.livescience.com/environment/071213-greenland-magma.html
Magma May Be Melting Greenland Ice
By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 13 December 2007 07:57 am ET
Comments (0) | Recommend (1)
As ice in Greenland melts at the surface, water carves fissures and reaches the base, where ice meets land. This sub-glacial ice can lubricate a glacier, causing it to flow to the ocean faster and be depleted more quickly than would otherwise occur. Credit: NASA
Full Size
Previous Image Next Image
1 of 2
As ice in Greenland melts at the surface, water carves fissures and reaches the base, where ice meets land. This sub-glacial ice can lubricate a glacier, causing it to flow to the ocean faster and be depleted more quickly than would otherwise occur. Credit: NASA
Microwave data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imaging radiometer was used to create this image of the 2007 Greenland melting anomaly which reflects the difference between the number of melting days occurring in 2007 and the average number of melting days during the period 1988 – 2006. Credit: NASA/Earth Observatory
SAN FRANCISCO—Global warming may not be the only thing melting Greenland. Scientists have found at least one natural magma hotspot under the Arctic island that could be pitching in.
In recent years, Greenland’s ice has been melting more and flowing faster into the sea—a record amount of ice melted from the frozen mass this summer, according to recently released data—and Earth’s rising temperatures are suspected to be the main culprit.
But clues to a new natural contribution to the melt arose when scientists discovered a thin spot in the Earth’s crust under the northeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet where heat from Earth’s insides could seep through, scientists will report here this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
“The behavior of the great ice sheets is an important barometer of global climate change,” said lead scientist Ralph von Frese of Ohio State University. “However, to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts too.”
The corner of Greenland where the hotspot was found had no known ice streams, the rivers of ice that run through the main ice sheet and out to sea, until one was discovered in 1991. What exactly caused the stream to form was uncertain.
“Ice streams have to have some reason for being there,” von Frese said, “and it’s pretty surprising to suddenly see one in the middle of the ice sheet.”
The newly discovered hotspot, an area where Earth’s crust is thinner, allowing hot magma from Earth's mantle to come closer to the surface, is just below the ice sheet and could have caused it to form, von Frese and his team suggest.
“Where the crust is thicker, things are cooler, and where it’s thinner, things are warmer,” von Frese explained. “And under a big place like Greenland or Antarctica, natural variations in the crust will makes some parts of the ice sheet warmer than others.”
What caused the hotspot to suddenly form is another mystery.
“It could be that there’s a volcano down there,” he said, “but we think it’s probably just the way the heat is being distributed by the rock topography at the base of the ice.”
Originally posted by MelanerpesPerhaps, but are they as powerful as Big Brother? I don't think so.
I would imagine there are plenty of business groups and other wealthy interests who are eager to provide funding for any scientist to do studies to debunk current climate change theories.
Having said that, skewed scientific research can also be seen via the smoking industry which sheilded the public from discovered scientific facts that shed a negative light on the industry.
Originally posted by whodeythe biggest enabler of the tobacco industry is the US government.
Perhaps, but are they as powerful as Big Brother? I don't think so.
Having said that, skewed scientific research can also be seen via the smoking industry which sheilded the public from discovered scientific facts that shed a negative light on the industry.
Al Gore did his bit with that, didn't he? came from a tobacco state? family farmed tobacco?
how would he get reelected year after year if he didn't serve the tobacco death industry?
Originally posted by zeeblebotBut these were scientists that the smoking industry hired. Don't tell me they are not credible. Once again, these are SCIENTISTS!! How can you aruge with a scientists? Are you saying that you know more than they?
the biggest enabler of the tobacco industry is the US government.
Al Gore did his bit with that, didn't he? came from a tobacco state? family farmed tobacco?
how would he get reelected year after year if he didn't serve the tobacco death industry?
Originally posted by whodeythey beat out Mao, Stalin, and the Nazis.
But these were scientists that the smoking industry hired. Don't tell me they are not credible. Once again, these are SCIENTISTS!! How can you aruge with a scientists? Are you saying that you know more than they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that tobacco caused 5.4 million deaths in 2004[6] and 100 million deaths over the course of the 20th century.[7]