What Do We Think About Climate Change

Can you really hold THAT against someone?
I mean; Bush isn't exactly popular, or did I miss something here? Also; Its not a stunning shock that any campains for presidency in the US of A, gets their money from somwhere?

 

What do we think about climate change - - "not now dear, I have this splitting headache..."

 

Guillermo seems like that thing is perfect for the Tocomac engine

 

Knut,

The salient point is that a 'scientist', James Hansen, who's influence and opinions are absolutely central to the AGW controversy, received $720.000 from a political organization, an organization that definitely has a dog in this fight, and therefore is biased. If you think some scientists might be biased because they spoke (unpaid) at a seminar that was partially funded by energy companies, then it has to be 'in bounds' to question this $720,000 given to Mr. Hansen, who already receives a generous salary for his work at NASA.

Jimbo

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/james_hansen_abusing_the_publi.html

Ok, well I mostly agree with this fellow.... Give him the pepper he deserves for giving interviews in the paid time, but anyway, he might have some important things on his mind...?
Also, from this link:

"The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming." ​

The Bushmen have clearly already/ earlier showed their true colours, in my opinion. Oil for blood.....

 

Hi Jimbo,

The issue of funding has dogged advocates on both sides of this issue. Nobody can rightly claim neutrality when their research funding comes from a group with a definite political agenda.

Where we see a difference between the two extremes of opinion is in how their supporters give them that money. Soros is very vocal and activist in his approach, and make sure everyone knows that he's supporting research that he likes. On the other hand, ExxonMobil quietly slipped at least $16M to a number of small right wing think tanks between 1998-2005 (see 2007 UCS report, also see IEEE Spectrum 8-July-08, also see Exxon's own donation records), who then quietly passed that money on to researchers trying to disprove climate change.

One side's funding tends to be very obvious and easy to track. The other's is often buried at the bottom of the donor list of a little-known think tank, and takes months to trace.

So your point is valid, Jimbo. I just think it's important, if the funding argument is applied, that it be applied to both sides.

It's interesting to note that several of the more vocal climate change deniers have been cut from Exxon's donor rolls in the last couple of years; they're redirecting that money towards energy security and oil alternatives research. A minor drop in the bucket for a company that size, but it might be a sign of progress....

 

Matt,

The trouble with this bit of money is that it was NOT research funding. Hansen's research is done through NASA, and all his research expenses are covered under NASA's budget. Additionally, he receives, as I pointed out, a generous salary from NASA. So what's with the $720,000?

The Funding argument is NEVER applied equally to both sides; this character 'Boston' has repeatedly introduced the innuendo that Spencer, Christy and others are biased because they simply spoke at functions that were (at least partially) sponsored by the energy industry.

NONE of these men got huge sums to fund a 'media campaign' in addition to their salaries; they were not even paid to speak.

I agree that the funding issue SHould be treated equivocally. Unfortunately it NEVER is and the bias is ALWAYS used to support the AGW agenda.

Jimbo

 

Don't Panic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8

Jimbo

 

Very informative thread here. Informative first, because it helps reasonable minds to discern exactly of what will be concocted the leftist´s arguments for pulling down the West and second, because Jimbo is spot on, has a most appealing logical argument and he prefers scientific method, not emotion and politics- Bravo! (and quite good fun reading this kick-***...)

 

I would be reluctant to believe anything published from USA as the system is sooooo polluted with paid political announcements (lies) that the climate change debate has become irrelevant and is used to hide and distract from the real issues...

Oil is running out FAST
- - - - therefore fertilizer, stuff to make those bloody big tractors work, plastic for almost everything in modern life, including pipes & pails to carry water.
Fish in the oceans are close to extinct and the trawlers are getting bigger and bigger to travel further to get less (less than 50 years ago fishing in Australia could be accomplished with a rowing boat and a 50m long net and help from passers by who would happily accept a small portion of the smaller by-catch)
Oh yes water shortages, and to top it all off OVERPOPULATION....

At this rate no one will get to experience the effects of climate change, Get a grip and face facts, enjoy what is here and learn to live with less by being self sufficient (and I do not mean by hoarding 20 years worth of tinned food and other useless rubbish....)

 

to quote that famous old British Programme "Dads Army"

We're all doomed Captain Mannering, DOOMED!!!"

 

Knut,

If you'd care to do a tiny bit more research, you'd discover that this is not the first time Mr. Hansen has alleged this. He did it 20 years ago to Bush's father, also. At that time the congress convened hearings to explore whether or not this allegation had any merit. One of the senators on that congressional panel was the Democratic Senator from the Great State of Tennessee, a Mr. Albert Gore. The panel demanded that Mr. Hansen produce evidence forthwith, which proved his allegations of scientific censorship against the George H. W. Bush administration. No such evidence was ever offered in testimony, and the matter quietly went away.

Dr James Hansen is FULL OF ****.

Jimbo

 

more like Blood for Oil
kinda like the heroin addict demanding his money for a fix
Im going to miss old Reorge

 

? like a whole hole in the head? - - He did have a bit of entertainment value with his many mistakes, but when such bufoolery costs lives it is not good....

 

exactly