Thread: Is there anything good about the carbon tax???????

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...ch-grants.html

I'm always scared of giving away money fro peanuts in return, i think most of us are.

Prof Jones has stood aside as head of the CRU while an independent inquiry investigates thousands of emails and other documents stolen from the university's computer server and published on the internet.
Climate change sceptics point to an email written by one scientist in November 1999 as evidence of manipulation of the figures to mask falling global temperatures.

from your link, he seems pretty dishonest and money hungry ... give us a break

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Bank of America Pledges $50 Billion to Combat Climate Change

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...11-707739.html

Hallelujah i would also want to be a climate scientist.

Hey Dom

Can you please answer this question for me.

Why would a bank give $50 billion dolars to climate funds?

Joanne Nova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Billions in the Name of “Climate”

“Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)”

By setting up trading networks, tax concessions, and international bureaucracies before the evidence was in, have we ensured that our understanding of the role of carbon in climate science would be sped up, but that our knowledge of every other aspect of climate science would be slowed down to an equal and opposite extent?

“Monopolistic funding creates a ratchet effect where pro-AGW findings are reported and repeated, while anti-AGW results lie unstudied and ignored.
Monopolistic funding creates a ratchet effect where even the most insignificant pro-AGW findings are reported, repeated, trumpeted and asserted, while any anti-AGW results lie unstudied, ignored and delayed. Auditing AGW research is so underfunded that for the most part it is left to unpaid bloggers who collect donations from concerned citizens online. These auditors, often retired scientists, are providing a valuable free service to society, and yet, in return they are attacked, abused, and insulted.

The truth will come out in the end, but how much damage will accrue while we wait for volunteers to audit the claims of the financially well-fed?

The stealthy mass entry of bankers and traders into the background of the scientific “debate” poses grave threats to the scientific process. The promise of “trillions of dollars” on commodity markets—with all of that potential money hinging on finding that human emissions of carbon dioxide have a significant role in the climate—surely acts like blanket of mud over open dispassionate analysis.

Read the whole thing here
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/mas...nding-exposed/

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Hey Dom

Can you please answer this question for me.

Why would a bank give $50 billion dolars to climate funds?

Maybe they want to ensure that if it is right, then they are in on it. Maybe they think it is the right thing to do. We seem to get caught up with numbers. 50 billion isn't a lot in the big picture.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Joanne Nova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love these links, you guys don't even try to make it hard for me.

The Science and Public Policy Institute has ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills

Now reading this link about the extremely complex network of connections, most financed by Exxon. Connections to groups like ..
Frontiers of Freedom http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...edom_Institute
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change ... Exxon funded http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php..._Global_Change

Center for Science and Public Policy
another Exxon sponsored group

Now most of these groups have one thing in common, they all pay a Robert Ferguson, aa American Republican Advisor.

Now does this link sound credible?

Originally Posted by DominorVobis

from your link, he seems pretty dishonest and money hungry ... give us a break

You must have thousands of pairs of blinkers, a pair for every conveivable occasion.

Originally Posted by aussiefree2ride

You must have thousands of pairs of blinkers, a pair for every conveivable occasion.

No none, I'm not a denialist, I have my eyes OPEN

Originally Posted by DominorVobis

Maybe they want to ensure that if it is right, then they are in on it. Maybe they think it is the right thing to do. We seem to get caught up with numbers. 50 billion isn't a lot in the big picture.

You live in a small garden my friend.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

You live in a small garden my friend.

No I actually live very much out in the real world my good friend.

Originally Posted by DominorVobis

No I actually live very much out in the real world my good friend.

Good, we can all see how real it is.