Land Reclamation and Climate Change

Remind us Again how the Koch brothers and fossil fuel is the boogie men?


The fossil fuel industry's invisible colonization of academia | Benjamin Franta and Geoffrey Supran



After years conducting energy-related research at Harvard and MIT, we have come to discover firsthand that this pattern is systemic. Funding from Shell, Chevron, BP, and other oil and gas companies dominates Harvard’s energy and climate policy research, and Harvard research directors consult for the industry. These are the experts tasked with formulating policies for countering climate change, policies that threaten the profits – indeed the existence – of the fossil fuel industry.

Down the street at MIT, the Institute’s Energy Initiative is almost entirely fundedby fossil fuel companies, including Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. MIT has taken $185 millionfrom oil billionaire and climate denial financier David Koch, who is a Life Member of the university’s board

 

LOL, $185 million compared to the billions from government?

Look, a squirrel!

 

That doesn't answer my question, why is lindzen part of the 97%?



.

 

Global Warming Activists Don’t Like When Someone Follows The Money


Studies that receive financial support from the public sector don’t have to disclose it as a conflict of interest, even when that support is in the millions of dollars. Recent studies that the Environmental Protection Agency is using to support the scientific case for its Clean Power Plan saw the EPA itself give $31.2 million, $9.5 million, and$3.65 million in public funds to lead authors according to EPA public disclosures.

The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of his study was predetermined, saying “in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls.”

Universities typically received about 50 percent of the money that their researchers get in public funds if their research finds positive results, making them deeply dependent upon federal funding and likely to encourage studies which will come to conclusions that the government wants.

Even counting only private money, environmental groups massively outspend their opposition. Opposition to global warming activism only raises $46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks according to analysis by Forbes.That’s almost 6 times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million,and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups. The undeniable truth is that global warming activists raise and spend far more money than their opponents

 

Existence proof. Enlighten yourself to the real green energy.

 

If you actually look closely at the views of Lindzen or any of the so-called AGW denial scientists, you'll find that most of them actually believe that AGW is occurring. It would be foolish for any scientist to deny greenhouse gases. They question the amount of warming due to greenhouse gases. I'll ask you. Where do you draw the line? At what point is warming a problem? .5 deg C? 1 deg C? 2 deg C? 5 deg C?

This 1908 news article shows the obvious nature of the study of greenhouse gases on the climate.