Hi Folks, This comes as no surprise to AGW skeptics, but leftist and Man-caused Global Warming evangelist James Hansen pockets more money for his advocacy of AGW: Follow the Money : James Hansen Gets Another Pay-Off | Sex+Metropolis "Climate scientist James Hansen wins Sophie Prize : The “Sophie Prize†is awarded for disrupting free-market capitalism and pushing the world toward centralized control. " Hansen has also been funded by George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry in the past, according to various sources. Who was saying that AGW wasn't "political science"?
James Hansen received a well-deserved reward for his work reflecting reality. Sounds like he's probably under-appreciated, and that he has some pretty smart friends. Even if your head is in the sand, the idea that Americans would want to support OPEC and be against decreasing pollution is just awfully hard to understand. The fact that Honda supports the linked website should be embarrassing to them.
Nope, you're not biased, are you robbyr2? Unproven accusations that Big Oil funds the AGW skeptics abound, yet you discount documented biased political support of arguably the most significant believer? Nice dodge. But now that you bring it up, who said anyone was against the concept of developing alternatives to oil? Regarding pollution: are you referring to CO2? Nope, that's not pollution, regardless of what the activists at the EPA claim. Advertising makes strange bedfellows, and interesting conflicts of interest.
The Sophie Prize Lists all their previous recipients. Check 'em out and form your own opinions about 'Sophie's Choice'. Whilst following the money don't google this: koch climate funding
I did, my opinion hasn't changed, thanks. Ah yes, Greenpeace. That paragon of unbiased political thought. This appeared on the Greenpeace official blog, written by “Gene†from Greenpeace India: Does anything else have to be said?
And the Koch brothers are unbiased? Their spending $73 million to fund climate change deniers doesn't mean anything? No, of course not.
Koch is a right wing supporter. How does his political contributions suddenly become specifically "denier money"? His funding isnt mainly climate change related. BUT Enron did fund Greenpeace to specifically push for C&T. Pretty ironic.
After looking over the contribution list, Im kind of pissed that Greenpeace would equate that money to be directly climate related. Next to pure BS. Funding Cato and Heritage is to screw the working class. Not to deny climate.
Well, first of all, the source of your allegation is suspect. I do not trust Greenpeace. But even if Koch did donate, and it can be shown it went to skeptics, $73 mil is a fart in a windstorm compared to the funding going to the AGW alarmists. Governments are spending billions to support universities, panels (IPCC) and government labs to cook the answers they're looking for. Those in the grant funding stream are afraid to say that the emperor isn't wearing any clothing in fear that their funding will stop.
This website has a detailed report: Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine | Greenpeace USA It looks more like 25 million dollars. Yes, the Koch bros are out to screw the working class, but Cato and Heritage are supporters of the deniers. This way they get to do both. And businesses like utilities and oil companies (Exxon) wanted cap-and-trade (which gives them the right to pollute more at least at first) before they figured out that they can stop cap-and-trade, direct carbon taxes or regulations that would require them to reduce their carbon footprint.
Well I certainly don't trust MND either. I don't happen to believe that climate change believers are "cooking" anything. And I'm waiting to see evidence that climate change believers who have become skeptics have been hiding for fear of blackmail. The earth is getting warmer. The Northwest Passage is opening up. It's like a high school chemistry experiment. I do know that if we aren't responsible for global warming (some places will get cooler by the way), we can't stop it. And I'm not looking forward to paying for all the engineering that will be required to protect Florida, DC, California's Central Valley or New York City, much less Houston and New Orleans from rising seas. I'd rather think we can stop it. But it really doesn't matter. Popular opinion is pretty irrelevant to science. If you don't worry about the future, you won't have one.
Well, cooking the books is what Michael Mann has been all about with his "hiding the decline" efforts, right? Or do you discount all the data revealed by the Climategate emails? Yup, the earth has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age, and there's no evidence we had anything to do with it. Also, it's been warmer in the not too distant past. Ever hear of the Medieval Warming Period? Maybe not, this is one of the previously identified facts that the Warmists have tried to eradicate. There's nothing to show that mankind is responsible for the warming except unproven computer models run by institutions with political agendas. If we were responsible, wouldn't you expect to see CO2 levels correlate with temperatures? It doesn't, the temperatures correlate with solar output and sunspot cycles.. Do you think we can stop the sun from changing its output? Sounds like you're suggesting that we should do anything, even though it's wrong! Wouldn't we be better served by making judgments based upon real science? By the way, show us maps of the Northwest Passage opening up and real evidence of accelerating sea level increases.
I discount the political interpretations by the troglodytes like Inhofe and Palin. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy]Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Yes, I've heard of the Medieval Warming Period. I may not be a scientific expert, but I do know my history. As you know, the MWP was succeeded by the Little Ice Age that ended that began about 1500 and ended about 1850, so it cannot be said that temperatures have been rising since the last Ice Age. Of course as noted in the following article, the variations for both the MWP and LIA do not appear simultaneously across the world. While the article admits to solar activity being a cause for variation, volcanoes, the Black Death etc are also implicated in regional climate change. The MWP did not affect Greenland for example, where the cooling ended the Viking settlements (along with genetic issues). [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age]Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] This addresses the current disconnection between solar activity and rising global temperatures. Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? Its really simple risk management. If the AGW believers are right, we use fewer fossil fuels, saving them for other uses, reduce our dependence on oil imports (the wildest estimates of our remaining oil in ANWR and offshore gives us about a 10 year supply [not counting Canada's very hard to get tar sands or our 100 year in progress oil shale- and no you can't have our water]), and reduces air and water pollution, not to mention challenging us to develop less expensive ways of powering our modern world that we control, not people who don't like us. If the skeptics are wrong it isn't going to be pretty for coming generations. Not that it will do any good to a true believer, or non-believer: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage]Northwest Passage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Arctic Report Card - Sea Ice Cover - Perovich, et al.
