3 ms·

> "My mind is mostly made up, due to the fact I believe that the energy sector has a much higher profit motive to distort the facts than the academic one, but i

> "My mind is mostly made up, due to the fact I believe that the energy sector has a much higher profit motive to distort the facts than the academic one, but in any case:" The "we're all gonna die" faction gets four orders of magnitude more funding each year than the global warming skeptic faction. Oil company spending on climate science propaganda consists of a few $million here or these, and the best skeptics don't even take any of their money. The best ones are unpaid amateurs (like Steve McIntyre) or they achieved a position in academia decades ago before belief in global warming became required to advance. I suggest you read some skeptics like Steve[1] and see if you think he is as evil as Phil Jones thinks he is[2]. Moreover, the environmentalists control the institutions which create public opinion - namely the media and the universities. I'm guessing this is how your opinion was formed[3]. It's remarkable how utterly dominant cultural forces can see themselves as underdogs. [1] http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/ http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light... [2] http://www.therightplanet.com/2011/11/phil-jones-for-your-eyes-only-email-to-michael-mann/ http://www.therightplanet.com/2011/11/phil-jones-for-your-ey... [3] http://anomalyuk.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-modern-structure.html http://anomalyuk.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-modern-structure.h...

Karunamon 13y ago
I find it interesting that you didn't cite your most pertinent claim.. namely "The "we're all gonna die" faction gets four orders of magnitude more funding each year than the global warming skeptic faction." Further, the fact that you referred to people who believe the climate change theory as the "we're all gonna die" faction tells me squarely which camp you're in, and I'd thank you to avoid further such sneaky pre-framing of the argument if you wish for me to take your claims seriously.
- newnewnew 13y ago
  The biggest skeptic propaganda organization that I know of is the Heartland Institute, which has an annual budget in the single millions. Greenpeace alone has an annual budget in the $hundred millions and there are dozens of other substantial environmentalist non-profits. The NOAA has a budget in the $billions, of which $hundreds of millions are dedicated to climate research, and that is not the only federal organization that deals with climate research. And there are other countries which have budgets allocated for this stuff. For example, all of the choicest anti-science quotes from climategate came out of the UK's University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit[1][2] and their struggle to prevent skeptics from accessing data. I don't know that the global warming hypothesis is untrue. But I do know that our current process is not a method designed to find truth. Scientific data should be open to all humanity, and not hidden for the sake of advancing political agendas. [1] "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" [2] "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Karunamon 13y ago

I find it interesting that you didn't cite your most pertinent claim.. namely "The "we're all gonna die" faction gets four orders of magnitude more funding each year than the global warming skeptic faction." Further, the fact that you referred to people who believe the climate change theory as the "we're all gonna die" faction tells me squarely which camp you're in, and I'd thank you to avoid further such sneaky pre-framing of the argument if you wish for me to take your claims seriously.

newnewnew 13y ago
The biggest skeptic propaganda organization that I know of is the Heartland Institute, which has an annual budget in the single millions. Greenpeace alone has an annual budget in the $hundred millions and there are dozens of other substantial environmentalist non-profits. The NOAA has a budget in the $billions, of which $hundreds of millions are dedicated to climate research, and that is not the only federal organization that deals with climate research. And there are other countries which have budgets allocated for this stuff. For example, all of the choicest anti-science quotes from climategate came out of the UK's University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit[1][2] and their struggle to prevent skeptics from accessing data. I don't know that the global warming hypothesis is untrue. But I do know that our current process is not a method designed to find truth. Scientific data should be open to all humanity, and not hidden for the sake of advancing political agendas. [1] "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" [2] "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."