U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2014, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Austin
29,026 posts, read 15,643,080 times
Reputation: 7764

Advertisements

And people wonder why the AGW alarmists persist even in the face of science that tells us they are wrong. So as usual, "follow the money".

"So far, the most interesting file I found in the "documents" directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants."

http://www.iceagenow.com/Phil_Jones_has_collected_$22_million_in_grants.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2014, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,423,967 times
Reputation: 7824
So he has collected money in grants? And the issue with this is? All scientific research relies on grants and funding to be done, research ain't free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Houston
21,054 posts, read 10,728,087 times
Reputation: 8233
A lot of money to be made by climate scientists.....as long as global warming remains a concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 10:40 AM
 
9,473 posts, read 5,686,376 times
Reputation: 2161
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So he has collected money in grants? And the issue with this is? All scientific research relies on grants and funding to be done, research ain't free.
And the money will continue, so long as what he publishes (or says) is convenient to those who fund it.

You libs opened the door to that argument, since you constantly argue that all opposition is funded by "big oil". Well, your pet theory is invalid because it's funded by big government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 70,214,451 times
Reputation: 27525
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk;33703560[B
]And the money will continue, so long as what he publishes (or says) is convenient to those who fund it. [/b]

You libs opened the door to that argument, since you constantly argue that all opposition is funded by "big oil". Well, your pet theory is invalid because it's funded by big government.
That's how it works. As long as he keeps their viewpoint the money will continue to flow.


There's no more "science" in this. It's been politicized and there are businesses in the wings waiting to make profits off this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,087 posts, read 11,584,121 times
Reputation: 9700
You want them to work for free and beg for alms in the street? Meanwhile......

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.
The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html#jCp


In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks | Environment | The Guardian

What were you saying about "hiding the money"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,423,967 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
And the money will continue, so long as what he publishes (or says) is convenient to those who fund it.

You libs opened the door to that argument, since you constantly argue that all opposition is funded by "big oil". Well, your pet theory is invalid because it's funded by big government.
No science research is done for free, though there is nothing wrong with investigating where the money comes from.

If a scientist tells me cigarettes are healthy and their funding comes from the tobacco industry, I would question the results. Though if several scientists from different areas also came to the same conclusions, then that would have a different reaction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,423,967 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
You want them to work for free and beg for alms in the street? Meanwhile......

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.
The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html#jCp


In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks | Environment | The Guardian

What were you saying about "hiding the money"?
There has been a lot of money spent on trying to downplay global warming which should also be questioned but I doubt the OP has a problem with that because the results match what the OP wants to hear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 10:52 AM
 
9,473 posts, read 5,686,376 times
Reputation: 2161
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
No science research is done for free, though there is nothing wrong with investigating where the money comes from.

If a scientist tells me cigarettes are healthy and their funding comes from the tobacco industry, I would question the results. Though if several scientists from different areas also came to the same conclusions, then that would have a different reaction.
You absolutely do not tell the truth, even about yourself.

You refuse to believe there's any valid science involved in the refutation of global warming.

It's all just convenient babble to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 10:54 AM
 
11,425 posts, read 5,605,196 times
Reputation: 1673
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So he has collected money in grants? And the issue with this is? All scientific research relies on grants and funding to be done, research ain't free.
Grants have "conditions"; like, outcomes, for instance.

Last edited by Hyperthetic; 03-02-2014 at 11:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top