Originally posted by zeeblebotIndeed. The scientists who were hired by the smoking industries who covered up their knowledge regarding the health consequences of smoking are no different than those scientists who were involved in climatgate to help cover up data or skew it to the likings of power hungry officials like Al Gore.
they beat out Mao, Stalin, and the Nazis.
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]
Originally posted by whodeySurely the Big Tobacco scientists' counterparts are the scientists who were hired by Big Oil and Big Coal to create 'science' that helped them resist the need to clean up their acts?
The scientists who were hired by the smoking industries who covered up their knowledge regarding the health consequences of smoking ...
Originally posted by zeeblebotDon't you think a lot of this "science and technology" research is related to greener technology research, which has little to do with global warming? Heck, even I participated in "greener technology research".
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 i ...[text shortened]... climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
Last Updated on Thursday, 23 July 2009 19:48
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotpicture the cartoon on the cover page.
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 i ...[text shortened]... climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
Last Updated on Thursday, 23 July 2009 19:48
a handsome, smiling, probably articulate speaker is on a stage marked "IPCC", in front of a group.
cartoon title: The Real Consensus
signed: Jo Nova
a wall poster says: "Eco-Bag-o / Free-Range Plastic Bags / Fed corn and allowed to roam as nature intended".
another wall poster says "BBQ Earth", with a picture of a flaming Earth.
cartoon caption: "Hands-up. Who thinks greenhouse gases have no effect, therefore we all need new jobs. Anyone?"
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorra(For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf )
Don't you think a lot of this "science and technology" research is related to greener technology research, which has little to do with global warming? Heck, even I participated in "greener technology research".
(edit: reformatted to fit your screen.)
page 1 of the report:
Summary for Policy Makers
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.
Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded. Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?
Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance?