Ext User(Bonzo)
08-08-2007, 07:23 PM
So much for the blatant lie, put out by hysterics feeding at the AGW trough,
that skeptics are well funded!
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7
Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents
of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the
last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION by
comparison.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate EPW
committee, explains how much money has been spent researching and promoting
climate fears.
"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than
$US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to
demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one." (LINK )
For a breakdown of how much money flows to promoters of climate fear, see a
Janaury 17, 2007 EPW blog post: (LINK)
"The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics
with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money
and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do
the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to
the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The
well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets
compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club
Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council
had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media
derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget. In
addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media
immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media
completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate
alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received
$250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of
Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they
still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics.
(LINK) Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is
increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the
earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer
model predictions of a 'climate emergency?'" (See EPW Blog for full article -
LINK )
As Senator Inhofe further explained in a September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech:
"The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to
promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel
industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their
527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent
through PACs in the 2004 election cycle."(LINK)
Now contrast all of the above with how much money the "well funded" skeptics
allegedly receive.
The Paltry Funding of Skeptics (by comparision)
The most repeated accusation is that organizations skeptical of man-made climate
fears have received $19 Million from an oil corporation over the past two
decades. This was the subject of a letter by two U.S. Senators in 2006 (See
Senators letter of October 30, 2006 noting the $19 Million from Exxon-Mobil to
groups skeptical of man-made global warming - LINK )
To put this $19 Million over two decades into perspective, consider:
One 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant of $20 million to study how
"farm odors" contribute to global warming exceeded all of the money that
skeptics reportedly received in the past two decades. To repeat: One USDA grant
to study the role of "farm odors" in global warming exceeded almost ALL the
money skeptics have been accused of receiving over the past two decades.
(Excerpt from article: "The United States Department of Agriculture has released
reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you're also smelling greenhouse
gas emissions." (LINK or LINK )
As erroneous and embarrassingly one-sided as Newsweek's article is, the magazine
sunk deeper into journalistic irrelevance when it noted that skeptical
Climatologist Patrick Michaels had reportedly received industry funding without
revealing to readers the full funding picture. The magazine article mentions
NASA's James Hansen as some sort of example of a scientist untainted by funding
issues. But what Newsweek was derelict in reporting is that Hansen had received
a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation run by Senator John Kerry's wife
Teresa in 2001 and then subsequently endorsed Kerry for President in 2004.
(LINK )
--
Regards
Bonzo
"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the
American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption
of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report" Dr.
Fred Seitz, June 12, 1996, Wall Street Journal
that skeptics are well funded!
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7
Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents
of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the
last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION by
comparison.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate EPW
committee, explains how much money has been spent researching and promoting
climate fears.
"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than
$US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to
demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one." (LINK )
For a breakdown of how much money flows to promoters of climate fear, see a
Janaury 17, 2007 EPW blog post: (LINK)
"The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics
with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money
and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do
the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to
the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The
well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets
compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club
Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council
had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media
derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget. In
addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media
immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media
completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate
alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received
$250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of
Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they
still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics.
(LINK) Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is
increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the
earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer
model predictions of a 'climate emergency?'" (See EPW Blog for full article -
LINK )
As Senator Inhofe further explained in a September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech:
"The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to
promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel
industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their
527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent
through PACs in the 2004 election cycle."(LINK)
Now contrast all of the above with how much money the "well funded" skeptics
allegedly receive.
The Paltry Funding of Skeptics (by comparision)
The most repeated accusation is that organizations skeptical of man-made climate
fears have received $19 Million from an oil corporation over the past two
decades. This was the subject of a letter by two U.S. Senators in 2006 (See
Senators letter of October 30, 2006 noting the $19 Million from Exxon-Mobil to
groups skeptical of man-made global warming - LINK )
To put this $19 Million over two decades into perspective, consider:
One 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant of $20 million to study how
"farm odors" contribute to global warming exceeded all of the money that
skeptics reportedly received in the past two decades. To repeat: One USDA grant
to study the role of "farm odors" in global warming exceeded almost ALL the
money skeptics have been accused of receiving over the past two decades.
(Excerpt from article: "The United States Department of Agriculture has released
reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you're also smelling greenhouse
gas emissions." (LINK or LINK )
As erroneous and embarrassingly one-sided as Newsweek's article is, the magazine
sunk deeper into journalistic irrelevance when it noted that skeptical
Climatologist Patrick Michaels had reportedly received industry funding without
revealing to readers the full funding picture. The magazine article mentions
NASA's James Hansen as some sort of example of a scientist untainted by funding
issues. But what Newsweek was derelict in reporting is that Hansen had received
a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation run by Senator John Kerry's wife
Teresa in 2001 and then subsequently endorsed Kerry for President in 2004.
(LINK )
--
Regards
Bonzo
"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the
American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption
of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report" Dr.
Fred Seitz, June 12, 1996, Wall Street Journal