http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12
The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism.
The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
And we have people losing their minds over Exxon giving $23 million to so called skeptics. And they are worried about the validity of the skeptics research? At $79 billion that $23 million less than one five thousandths of what the government has spent. And with $79 billion spent(and even more to come) and yet we're not suppose to question the validity of the recipents of government monies. Only those who received $23 million are the ones who are questioned.
And yet we're told that those who are trying to save us all are the ones who are on the bottom trying to claw their way to the top. I seriously doubt it.
Read Joanne Nova’s important paper Climate Money here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
Contact Robert Ferguson: http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
bferguson@sppinstitute.org Tel. 202-288-5699
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 79
This has been posted before about a few hundred times on Gather and other social network sites and it is always chasing a political tail in circles.
Want to chase a real conspiracy chase Exxon and research the snow job contrasts they hired with their 23 million drop in a bucket including the list of dead scientists they used to try and spread their propaganda, its not Exxon's job to do government research they are just getting nervous because they are going to have to pay to help clean up the mess they created.
Want to talk about wasted money lets talk about the bloated military budget and how many innocent people it has murdered for Exxon and other corporate criminals.
Charles why weren't you complaining about the wasted billions congress was about to throw away on outdated F22 fighters they were told the military didn't even want? talk about political hacks, you GOP politically correct have the wrong conspiracy going again.
If I belonged to either party I would be hiding the fact not bragging about it.
That's not true Jack you are making that up...lying!
That's good Dan it shows the party of "no" is not worth any more now than when your master Bush was sending you the feeds.
Quote me any Republican who says "global warming is a myth and scientific research does not count"!
Proof you need to start showing some proof instead of the same denial I have all ready shown all the proof.
You can't find a quote from a Republican saying what you claim they say, because one does not exist, no Republican has ever said what you claim!
It was nothing more than an empty attack no basis in reality, and since you posted it knowing it was not true that makes you a liar!
Jack likes to make up his facts as he goes along. Don't ask him to prove anything. He thinks with his emotions and believes whatever propoganda he is spoon fed.
A sad thing.
In any case, seems Republicans think global warming is a myth.
Unless you're Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, who merely calls global warming a hoax.
But I'm sure you'll simply parse your straw man as necessary to suggest that you didn't actually say what you said.
Of course, if you want to highlight how the Republican party has been in the forefront of acknowledging the scientific consensus on climate change, feel free to do so.
You'll have to explain how your referenced article validates the argument that "Republicans think global warming is a myth".
Especially since the focus of the article seems to be mostly on Australia, and Republicans only get a slight mention.
But of course if you didn't get past the attention getting headline you wouldn't know that.
I know I will get comments back on this but don't bother because this is only what I believe.
You left out something. Ultimately, climate science is about REALITY, not opinion, not who makes money. The scientists have conducted research, using public funds, most of which came from George W. Bush, no kidding, that has convinced most of them that climate change is a problem. Do you expect the scientists to work for free? Would you then value the results of their research any more than you do now?
As for my agenda. Yes I have one. I want the real public debate about this issue that you and others refuse to admit exists to occur. I want Al Gore exposed for the snake oil salesman he is. I want the Gorical to not throw a tantrum and refuse to attend when he hears that someone who disagrees with him is going to be allowed to speak as well. I want the congress and senate to listen to this debate without trying to belittle those who don't agree with you and the Gorical. That's my agenda I want it all out on public both sides.
What say you? Is my agenda really that nefarious?
remind me to ignore whatever you post from here on in Randee. I am okay with religious persons, I just reject the entire concept of reading science through Biblical glasses.
very true Jeff, you guys are not skeptics, you are denialists.
BTW, Go see what George Carlin had to say about the subject!
Great fun!
I do not refuse to acknowledge that your opinion is one of denial. I acknowledge it freely. I am just arguing that you are incorrect. I am just arguing that your "factual data" is not convincing when compared to the factual data cited by the majority view of climatologists.
Chris,
Consensus is political...Science is fact.
Try to keep up with the discussion.....Those were Chris's words, NOT mine! LOL!
But I don't see humans living happily in the worlds that their actions render real.
cute but rather meaningless slogan. Let's parse those words, shall we? "Science is fact'. In a sense it is, it's just that you and me and not agreeing on this thing. You are trying to argue that a small minority of scientists are correct while a large majority of scientists are wrong. I don't see that happening in other areas of science. Do you think that tobacco smoke does not cause lung cancer? do you believe that AIDS is caused by poor nutrition rather than the actions of the HIV virus? How about Chemistry, do you think that sulfuric acid is a base, and sodium hydroxide is an acid? Let's try physics. Do you think that the Sun orbits the Earth, as the Pope asked Galileo to accept in the early 1600s? How about gravity and momentum, do big hunks of spherical metal fall to earth more quickly than small spherical hunks of metal?
consensus is political. It is short term. But we have had 30 years to consider the process of climate change. in that time the theory of human burning of fossil fuels as the driver of climate change through the mechanism of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere has not gone away or been replaced by a better theory. In science, if you have a better idea, in time it replaces the one that was accepted. That's not happening, except for you and a few contrarians. A group of contrarian, I note, that has thinned over the years instead of grown larger. I wonder why your "truth" is not becoming accepted yet?
This is the same problem as those who can't tell the difference between a "scientific theory" and somebody on the street misusing the Webster's definition of theory.
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study... Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method."
Again is my statement, not at all changed according to or because of your anal retentiveness:
"The real denialists are those who refuse to acknowledge any dissenting opinions from factual data that disagrees with a consensus they have accepted as irrefutable, no matter what."
And again...that you don't see yourself as a denialist, in your own vernacular, "is very revealing." The difference is that I also stated what it actually reveals. You're really the prime denialists as you falsely accuse others of being denialists because you're too engrossed in your own denial to see that.
I'm also not sure why you chose to leave out the line: "Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity." which was the part you intentionally removed and replaced with the ellipsis. Perhaps because you felt it hurt your chosen interpretation. It's hard to see how this intentional distortion could not be seen as dishonest, though perhaps you had some other reason for manipulating the Wiki definition, which in its entirety reads:
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method."
Of course, even the full quoted text is incomplete. Only by reading and understanding the entire Wiki article can one get a relatively full picture of what "scientific consensus" really means. One thing that is clear is that your statement about "the real denialists" is a non sequitur, and most certainly not supported.
A single scientific discovery can completely up set a consensus, where a consensus can never up set a single scientific discovery.
Glad you get my gist David!
David I'm highlighting your all to often used and ineffective tactic of personal attacks in calling your opponent ignorant as a way to bolster your own argument/ego.
Well Chris,
Since what you have done in that statement is to repeat yourself, and haven't added anything to your argument.
I'll say again;
Consensus is political...Science is fact!
It only takes one fact to prove a scientific theory wrong.
What is occurring with our climate today, our observations show that the IPCC's theory that C02 and more importantly man made C02 is responsible for global warming, is being shown to be in error.
Please see the chart I posted below, it clearly shows the C02 concentrations rising and the earth's temperature cooling.
No, Dan, you were trying to obfuscate the fact that she manipulated the quoted passage to remove the part that refuted her point.
You were also trying to obfuscate the fact that her following statement, the one that she claimed the copied passage was supposed to support, was completely unrelated and therefore a non sequitur.
And you use your traditional obfuscation technique learned from the Joanna Nova comic The Skeptics Handbook, which says that whenever your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on you should simply whine "dismiss and demean." This technique is intended to deflect from the fact that you were caught in a lie or caught making some completely illogical, or non sequitur statement. It's a bumper sticker slogan you use to avoid taking responsibility for unsupportable statements.
In this case you have used it to try to hide her lie, and thus, to condone her lie.
I don't obfuscate, that is your M.O.
Hmm I wonder if the obfuscation techniques you refer to from the Skeptics hand book was where it stated "don't get involved in personal attacks, stick with the facts, or maybe "rise above the mudslinging"
I like #4;
Deal with the bully-boy.
It’s entirely reasonable to ask for evidence. If you are met with dismissive, intimidatory, or bullying behavior, don’t ignore it. Ask them why they’re not willing to explain their case. In scientific discussions, no theory is sacrosant. Taboos belong in religions."
Hmmm,
Kinda reminds us of some one we know......Now just who could that be?
How bout you point out those techniques of obfuscation you claim exist in the handbook?
"which is to repeat something again as if it had never been discussed and debunked."
Could you possibly give us a link to where it has been debunked?
Yes David I keep posting it because you can't argue against it...and it's really really funny to watch you post time and time again that you've debunked it without posting how or when you supposedly debunked it.
Anyone want to help David in remembering when and how he debunked my postings that shows that C02 is not responsible for global warming? He seems to be having a hard time remembering.
You simply ignore the myriads of times that others have answered your statements.
The you write "Could you possibly give us a link to where it has been debunked?" Here's just one example where you even admitted the question had been answered at one point, then not long after simply started the cycle again as if it hadn't (and as if you hadn't admitted that it had).
Well gee, Dan. If you ignored it the first hundred times and made believe it didn't happen, why would someone keep wasting their time saying it, linking it, and discussing it? You would simply ignore it again, make believe it didn't happen again, and saturate yet another thread with your repetitive assertions (copied from others) that no one has answered what has been answered a hundred times by now.
Sorry, Dan. That is dishonest. Which is why people stopped listening to you. If they ever did.
In this case you have used it to try to hide her lie, and thus, to condone her lie. This is your pattern. Rather than even address the fact that she manipulated the quoted passage in an effort to support her bumper sticker statement, you try to hide the fact that she did so. Rather than provide some sort of thoughtful analysis, in which you would have had to admit that:
1) she attempted deceit, and
2) her disconnected statements didn't even meet basic tests of logic.
And yet, rather than this realistic and thoughtful analysis you will simply repeat your comic book mantras, repeat the blurbs you copied from some blogger (whose "independent scientists" are mostly all associated with free market lobbying groups, and when caught lying or intentionally misinterpreting or simply ignoring what has been said for the hundreth time, you saturate the thread to dissuade others from reading.
Go ahead, defend that practice. [Which of course you will do with some comment to hide what I've said here and deflect from having to take responsibility for your lies, misinterpretations, and ignoring anything that isn't presanctioned by the free market lobbying groups with mandates to deny any science that might lead to policy options they don't like.]
David claims that the links to his article debunks the position of skeptics and myself that C02 is not responsible for global warming!
Care to help him narrow it down to an actual fact or statement?
Anyone? Please help David find something that proves what he says, his posts are getting more desperate with each he posts!
Your predictions are about as accurate as the IPCC's! No! I mean exactly the same accuracy!
You know! How they predicted that the earth's temperature would rise with the addition of man made C02 but it didn't! LOL!
Secondly, continuously repeating your mantra gets embarrassing after everyone knows you ignore anything that refutes it.
[cue the "but you won't link any of those refutations, will you" (completely ignoring the fact that if you ignored them repeatedly before you will simply ignore them again, and again, and again]
Why don't you name one or two predictions you have made that was/is/has been accurate David?
"cue the"
Yup you said it.....or rather you didn't!
"The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism."
You'll find the Science and Public Policy Institute prominently featured both here and here.
Joanna Nova, of course, is a performance artist who wrote the comic book called "The Skeptics Handbook," which is followed mindlessly by many of Gather's resident "skeptics." Hardly a reliable source of information.
But it's all irrelevant anyway, as the basic premise of the post is faulty. So no conclusion can be drawn other than SPPI really needs to stop doing such obviously faulty "research reports" if they want to be considered a credible scientific source. But then, they already have demonstrated that they care nothing about being credible, just repetitive.
But what actually happened?
The temperature didn't rise, for the last ten years we have been spewing greater and greater amounts of C02 into the atmosphere and there was no temperature rise!
Here, see!
See larger image here
Can't reason those facts away David.
Sure 1998 was a record high and subsequent years are slightly cooler but they are still record highs.
The past 10 years hold MORE record HIGH temps than the past 400 years.
You must quit getting your news from rush.
Even the IPCC has admitted the nearly decade long temperature moderation, Why can't you?
that's repetitive. I am disagreeing with the idea that climate change does not exist, or is caused by sunspots, or is part of a mystical 1500 year cycle. Disagreement is not denial. Am I a denialist for asserting that Obama was born in Hawaii? Am I a denialist for asserting that Californians run the risk of being injured in earthquakes? I am not arguing that many thousands of climatologists cannot be wrong. I am just arguing that it is not remotely likely, and I am arguing that it becomes less likely with the passing of each year without a better theory showing up to knock CO2 emissions off the chair.
Cut them all.
It's not a simple all or none decision. We don't live in a vacuum.
You simply ignore the myriads of times that others have answered your statements.
The you write "Could you possibly give us a link to where it has been debunked?" Here's just one example where you even admitted the question had been answered at one point, then not long after simply started the cycle again as if it hadn't (and as if you hadn't admitted that it had).
Well gee, Dan. If you ignored it the first hundred times and made believe it didn't happen, why would someone keep wasting their time saying it, linking it, and discussing it? You would simply ignore it again, make believe it didn't happen again, and saturate yet another thread with your repetitive assertions (copied from others) that no one has answered what has been answered a hundred times by now.
Sorry, Dan. That is dishonest. Which is why people stopped listening to you. If they ever did.
In this case you have used it to try to hide her lie, and thus, to condone her lie. This is your pattern. Rather than even address the fact that she manipulated the quoted passage in an effort to support her bumper sticker statement, you try to hide the fact that she did so. Rather than provide some sort of thoughtful analysis, in which you would have had to admit that:
1) she attempted deceit, and
2) her disconnected statements didn't even meet basic tests of logic.
And yet, rather than this realistic and thoughtful analysis you will simply repeat your comic book mantras, repeat the blurbs you copied from some blogger (whose "independent scientists" are mostly all associated with free market lobbying groups, and when caught lying or intentionally misinterpreting or simply ignoring what has been said for the hundreth time, you saturate the thread to dissuade others from reading.
Go ahead, defend that practice. [Which of course you will do with some comment to hide what I've said here and deflect from having to take responsibility for your lies, misinterpretations, and ignoring anything that isn't presanctioned by the free market lobbying groups with mandates to deny any science that might lead to policy options they don't like.]
(See full links at David K. Jul 26, 2009, 6:03am EDT)
Do you think re-posting your posts ads validity to your argument?
You post links to your previous gather articles as if you are trying to use your own words to validate yourself.
How does that work?
It gives the appearance of validity to continually claim you have answered the question but only to those who have not followed our discussions, but to those who know you and have been involved in discussions with either of us, they know it is more deception from you.
Although recently you have been forced to offer some response due to continually being embarrassed, you claim the links you provide answer the question when they don't, anyone who follows them will see that for themselves.
You lost the argument hundreds of posts ago, it's just that you refuse to concede, your ego won't allow it.