Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Feb '15 10:46
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-contrarian-revealing-funding-sources.html

    Why am I not surprised?
  2. 25 Feb '15 11:28 / 10 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-contrarian-revealing-funding-sources.html

    Why am I not surprised?
    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 $1.2 million in funding over the past fourteen years from companies such as Exxon Mobile, the American Petroleum Institute and most heavily, Southern Company, one of the largest electricity producers (which relies mostly on coal) in the country. Further research by investigators at CIC revealed that Soon did not disclose his ties to such funding organizations on nine research papers published in several different journals, in which he offers contrarian views on the cause of global warming...."

    $1.2 MILLION? Bloody hell! I wish somebody would pay me $1.2 MILLION for just saying there IS man made global warming! (since this would be the truth, I wouldn't complain!). I get and always will get exactly $0.00 for saying so.

    And the climate deniers keep hypocritically claiming the vast majority of climate scientists are just lying for selfish financial interest! -as if, despite evidence to the contrary, most scientists would be psychopathic without a conscience thus would naturally all lie just for financial self-interest in one huge totally absurd global conspiracy! Most scientists, just like everyone else, have a moral conscience; -being human beings, why wouldn't they?

    And why are the vast majority of scientists that are not climate scientists and happen to have no (potential ) financial instinctive for claiming man made global warming but have independently looked at the said evidence, are also saying that there is man made global warming? -how does that fit into the huge global conspiracy theory? that doesn't make any sense.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Feb '15 11:47
    Originally posted by humy
    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]
    I 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.
  4. 25 Feb '15 13:39
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-contrarian-revealing-funding-sources.html

    Why am I not surprised?
    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 funded research that is pro-GMO some of the very people that said it didn't imply that research was biased because of that funding are now taking a reverse stance on climate change research. All the sudden the funding source matters now.
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Feb '15 14:23
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    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.
    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.
  6. 25 Feb '15 16:26
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    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 for him to explain if he chooses. Which energy company that is dependent on coal are you referring to? Also, where should they get their funding from if not from that company? If not from them could they get much funding other than from the government? You do not support silencing that opinion entirely do you?

    Convince me the carbon tax was not the idea of those that would profit from the demise of coal, something the USA has a lot of. If the carbon tax is not a war on coal what is it? Surely other fossil fuels (especially natural gas) will profit while coal stays in the ground, right?
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Feb '15 17:52
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    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?
    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?
  8. 25 Feb '15 18:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Do you have any proof of that?
    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.
  9. 25 Feb '15 19:47
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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?
    "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 some of that money was funneled through government funding and greenpeace asked congress to investigate it because of that. How much of that money was through the government?

    Monsanto funds research that seems to support their interests. Does that mean that GMOs are horrible too? At least with Monsanto I can point to a record of corruption and lying and say Humy should be skeptical. Can you make a similar case against the company you say is funding Soon?
  10. 25 Feb '15 19:50
    Originally posted by humy
    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.
    You 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!
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Feb '15 20:05
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "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?
    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, right now towns in Alaska having to be abandoned because the ocean is already encroaching on their villages, all that stuff is just temporary, and the natural cycle will fix all of that in another 50 years or some such.

    Is that about it? Well you and all your denier buddies are 100% wrong. If we don't do something drastic RIGHT NOW, our great grandkids are going to be cursing us and dying by the billions because we cannot grow crops.
    Already the weather guys are predicting a dust bowl in the midwest far worse than the one that happened in the 20th century. And THAT one was disaster for millions of people.

    For instance, the Ogallala aquifier which has given water to the entire midwest for years, is drying up.

    That water was the run off from the last ice age in Canada. There was at that time lakes up north in Canada that made the Great lakes look like a Manhattan puddle. Over many centuries, that water went underground, eventually draining all those beautiful fresh water lakes, which took thousands of years to go all the way underground. Then that water made its way to the midwest, Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc. and in an ironic twist, the dust bowl of the 1930's didn't even have to happen because the aquifier was unknown to the farmers there till the 1950's. But since then, that water has almost run dry and this time, a dust bowl will be even more devastating than the one last century.

    Of course you don't believe a word of that but that is in fact part of the problem.

    You stick your head in the sand and ignore all the warnings as if those scientists are total boobs who knows nothing about anything while YOU with your Phd in physics and metrology know EVERYTHING about the climate and what is causing the present change.

    Is that about right?
  12. 25 Feb '15 20:13
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    You have done nothing of the sort. liar!
    As I just said; "....only for you to deny it"
  13. 25 Feb '15 22:56
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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?
    "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"

    Maybe it is temporary. That sort of thing is not unheard of.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150224113711.htm

    What is your source of information?

    "If we don't do something drastic RIGHT NOW, our great grandkids are going to be cursing us and dying by the billions because we cannot grow crops."

    There is no evidence that will happen. That prediction is based on climate models that have no credibility as I have explained several times before. None of the models agree with one another because none of the climate scientists can agree on the effect of clouds and such. This is exactly why you are the true denier. You deny the models are flawed and cannot predict anything accurately. This is NOT a false claim I made up or was duped into believing by a liar. It is a fact that you will not accept because you are in denial your alarmist position is based on something you were duped into believing by overly zealous (and dishonest) left wingers. If you can show me that models have gotten better recently I'm willing to look at it, but I suspect you are incapable of that. I doubt that has changed at all.

    It is interesting that you mentioned the dust bowl. If that happened today chicken littles like you would claim it as evidence of catastrophic climate change. Now you just claim we will see something worse based on nothing but flawed climate models no climate scientist will stand by in a debate. That is why John Stossel could not get a climate scientist that would debate the so called minority that may not be a minority at all.

    "You stick your head in the sand and ignore all the warnings as if those scientists are total boobs who knows nothing about anything while YOU with your Phd in physics and metrology know EVERYTHING about the climate and what is causing the present change."

    What warnings? The earth has been warming for a long time, long before man burned that much fossil fuels. That is why the majority of climate scientists do not agree with your alarmist views. You actually have a fringe opinion compared to climate scientists. None of them think a lot of people will die from climate change like you do. Climate change happens slowly. You are so out of touch with reality it is like you fear being run over by a glacier. Nobody dies simply because they are forced to move. Don't have a panic attack.

    In the meantime watch out for that glacier.
  14. 25 Feb '15 23:09
    Originally posted by humy
    As I just said; "....only for you to deny it"
    Of course, denying is the first sign of denial.

    You claimed that Monsanto funding a study doesn't affect the result. Was it twhitehead that agreed with you or was it sonhouse? Now you are contradicting yourself and see corruption where you did not before. Once again, you are trying to have it both ways. Now it is hard for you to deny being biased to the point of hypocrisy.

    Exxon would benefit from a carbon tax. They openly support it. Rex Tillerson has said so more than once.
  15. 26 Feb '15 08:35
    yet more evidence for the denialists to deny: -

    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html