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.
Absolutely no comparison between the believers and the skeptics. The amount of money flowing into the coffers of AGW fanatics dwarfs the funds on the other side.
but it's 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. It buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases, and includes PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program.
That's just the US government. Doesn't include the hundreds of billions from around the globe.
Very interesting article on just how much money is at stake if the hoax completely collapses.
You would think as much as they hate big business, they would be a little pissed about giant banks standing to make far more on carbon trading schemes than oil companies could ever make by there not being a trading scheme.
Let us not forget that Enron was a huge supporter of carbon trading schemes:
You would think as much as they hate big business, they would be a little pissed about giant banks standing to make far more on carbon trading schemes than oil companies could ever make by there not being a trading scheme.
Let us not forget that Enron was a huge supporter of carbon trading schemes:
Lawrence Solomon: Enron's other secret - FP Comment (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/30/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx - broken link)
I guess liberals side with big banks and Enron....
Most decent scientific research that is backed by an overwhelming amount of overlapping empirical scientific evidence tends to get funding from the U.S. Government. I don't know when people became so ignorant in this country that all of a sudden science became politicized.
Science dictates the terms of the nature of reality backed by empirical methods and more research. It does not mean that it has an objectionable reality based on what political affiliation you side with and merely disagreeing with a scientific finding does not mean that the disagreement should be taught, considered, or even promoted unless there is an independent source of verifiable scientific means behind it.
I find it funny that there was actually an entire global summit on climate change not too long ago and countries from all over the world showed up to discuss how to simultaneously prevent and tackle the issue. Their stances were confirmed by independent but collaterally confirmed empirical studies from places as far reaching as Tokyo University to our very own MIT and many others like it that have all concurrently agreed that climate change is a real issue.
The bottom line is this: We've known for 150 years that carbon traps heat. That has never been a disputed fact. I don't see why people think that if we put more carbon in the air than can be taken out of the air how we would not trap heat? The complete litany of what may happen in the future as a result of this warming; the plethora of changes that will occur may not be scientifically satiated to fulfillment at this point in time. We should not be so stupid as to say that one anecdotal and local experience of a "colder than usual" winter is proof of a global warming hoax.
However, to deny that carbon traps heat is about as infantile, pedantic, and rock-solid stupid as saying that fire will not cook your food. Just because your favorite politician or political party declares something is true or false does not make it so. As I said before... The search for scientific truth is not something we should be having a political debate about but it seems there is a party in America that is so out of touch with reality it thinks it can alter the findings of reality via a political movement.
Absolutely no comparison between the believers and the skeptics. The amount of money flowing into the coffers of AGW fanatics dwarfs the funds on the other side.
That's just the US government. Doesn't include the hundreds of billions from around the globe.
Very interesting article on just how much money is at stake if the hoax completely collapses.
The US spends $79 billion on climate research? Good. It's nice to have education on important matters like climate financed by our government.
You mention the 'other side'. Would that be every single factory on the planet engaged in poisoning our air, water and food?
Here in Milwaukee we can't eat the fish from lake michigan b/c of the dioxin and pcbs in the fish fat/meat. We have ozone action days in the summer b/c the air quality is so poor that people are sickened by just breathing. The water is so polluted in our great lake michigan that we can't even swim in the waters during the summer.
And the billions of tons GW pollutants pumped into our atmosphere do nothing to the climate?
Thank god every single science org connected with climatology affirms the threat of AGW.
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.
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.
