Liberal censorship - We know you can burn a book, but can you light a kindle?

[UncleBuck]

the government and the IPCC funds research for basically man made global warming only.

[citation still needed]

they out spend the energy companies by a country mile.

[citation still needed]

All the info is out there, I've cited it many times

a list of those you have cited so far:

*rush limbaugh proteges
*the heartland institute (LOL!)
*a discredited paper that has had to run retractions on previous articles on AGW
*"scientists" who believe in creationism
*a scientist who said it was warming in 2009 then 5 years later said it hasn't warmed for nearly two decades

you have yet to provide one single citation of any credibility whatsoever. all your citations have worked against you, especially the political scientist you cited while bemoaning politics in this issue.

 

[jahbrudda]

No, the "I am right, do the research that proves it" is not on the horizon. I showed you 588 billion dollars THAT WE ARE AWARE OF, goes into swaying opinion and not toward research. Show me some numbers and how, exactly HOW this information you claim is false is made to influence the global warming "believers".


In short - you can't, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to do your research for you.

No, the "I am right, do the research that proves it" is not on the horizon. I showed you 588 billion dollars THAT WE ARE AWARE OF, goes into swaying opinion and not toward research. Show me some numbers and how, exactly HOW this information you claim is false is made to influence the global warming "believers".


In short - you can't, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to do your research for you.

You provided noting but a graph from who knows where that was debunked in another thread.
The federal government spends more than $8billion each year on agw, and you compare that to a measly $588million spanning 4 years, it's laughable canndo.

"According to a White House report, combined federal spending among cabinet departments to combat “climate change” was almost $22.2 billion, with $21.4 billion planned for next year. That compares to about the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed 2014 budget, which includes spending about $12 billion on customs and border enforcement, the Daily caller reported. Republicans on the House Energy and Science Committee want to know where all that global warming money is going."



You can argue all you want, the facts just don't support you, your alarmist friend were proven wrong with their own citations.
The US government and the UN outspend all other groups combined, it's not even close.
Despite rising co2 levels, there has be no global warming in the last 17 years, the IPCC cannot even deny this.https://www.rollitup.org/politics/799325-global-warming-petition-project-peer.html


So to me there is a consensus, there is insufficient scientific data that global warming is caused by man.

 

[canndo]

Well canndo, tell me where scientists who do not subscribe to agw would get the money for research, it' sure as hell isn't going to come the government or the IPCC. Do some searching yourself and you will find that the government and the IPCC funds research for basically man made global warming only. And they out spend the energy companies by a country mile.



All the info is out there, I've cited it many times, if you don't have this basic information, you're not ready to debate this issue imo.

I just reread this, it doesn't even make any sense if you understand science at all. There is no money that is applied contingent upon research that only confirms man made global warming - in fact, it is impossible to do so as research money is not granted upon results of that research. That isn't even science. "here, we will only give you money if you give us evidence that the globe is warming" - what a crock.

 

[UncleBuck]

I just reread this, it doesn't even make any sense if you understand science at all. There is no money that is applied contingent upon research that only confirms man made global warming - in fact, it is impossible to do so as research money is not granted upon results of that research. That isn't even science. "here, we will only give you money if you give us evidence that the globe is warming" - what a crock.

ask him to provide citation for his claim that pachauri says there has been no warming for 17 years, it's bucket full of monkeys type fun.

 

[canndo]

You provided noting but a graph from who knows where that was debunked in another thread.
The federal government spends more than $8billion each year on agw, and you compare that to a measly $588million spanning 4 years, it's laughable canndo.

"According to a White House report, combined federal spending among cabinet departments to combat “climate change” was almost $22.2 billion, with $21.4 billion planned for next year. That compares to about the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed 2014 budget, which includes spending about $12 billion on customs and border enforcement, the Daily caller reported. Republicans on the House Energy and Science Committee want to know where all that global warming money is going."



You can argue all you want, the facts just don't support you, your alarmist friend were proven wrong with their own citations.
The US government and the UN outspend all other groups combined, it's not even close.
Despite rising co2 levels, there has be no global warming in the last 17 years, the IPCC cannot even deny this.https://www.rollitup.org/politics/799325-global-warming-petition-project-peer.html


So to me there is a consensus, there is insufficient scientific data that global warming is caused by man.

Firstly, I provided a report on a study, which I gave reference to as to the amount of money that we know of (much is hidden) donated in support of PR campaigns in order to sway public opinion. You seem to confuse "combating" climate change with research. Now, you claim that the government is spending far more money than private industry and private individuals with deep pockets - in order to manipulate public opinion in favor of a belief in climate change. Show me where the government is spending half a trillion dollars on PR and subversive campaigns to change our opinion.


Here's a hint - it isn't there.

the facts support me quite nicely, especially considering that you have not put forth ANY facts to support your assertions. The trouble is that you can't. You simply don't happen to HAVE any facts at your disposal. Did you miss the 10 hottest years on record?

Of course - "to you" there is insufficient scientific data - because you havn't looked at the scientific data but know what you know only by proxy. The trouble with that is you are very selective in your proxies, reading only what supports a preconcieved premise. My approach is somewhat different. I am looking at the money spent in order to have you believe what you do. And it is a whole lot, and it seems to be working, at least in your case.

IS there anything that you believe that big business would not want you to believe? anything at all? Is their PR work so complete?

 

[jahbrudda]

I just reread this, it doesn't even make any sense if you understand science at all. There is no money that is applied contingent upon research that only confirms man made global warming - in fact, it is impossible to do so as research money is not granted upon results of that research. That isn't even science. "here, we will only give you money if you give us evidence that the globe is warming" - what a crock.

Again, you are making no sense what so ever.
The last post you made you falsely claimed that opposition funding was $588billion, do you not know the difference between a million and a billion?
Now you are trying to convince me there is no incentive for scientists to research AGW, are you seriously that naive?
Bottom line, you've been duped and are too stupid to figure it out.

 

[UncleBuck]

you've been duped and are too stupid to figure it out.

can you show me where pachauri said that there has been no warming for the last 17 years, as you claimed?



thanks a lot, beenthere.

 

[jahbrudda]

No, the "I am right, do the research that proves it" is not on the horizon. I showed you 588 billion dollars THAT WE ARE AWARE OF, goes into swaying opinion and not toward research. Show me some numbers and how, exactly HOW this information you claim is false is made to influence the global warming "believers".


In short - you can't, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to do your research for you.

I think you have a problem with numbers canndo, your graph shows $588million in 4 years, not a billions.
Now, compare that to the $billions the government spends each and every year.

 

[UncleBuck]

your graph shows $588million in 4 years

...that we know of.

they've no obligation to make any of their activities transparent or traceable.

 

[canndo]

Again, you are making no sense what so ever.
The last post you made you falsely claimed that opposition funding was $588billion, do you not know the difference between a million and a billion?
Now you are trying to convince me there is no incentive for scientists to research AGW, are you seriously that naive?
Bottom line, you've been duped and are too stupid to figure it out.

Forgive me - half a billion. As to the incentive. Science is funded (proper science) without regard to outcome. "I will pay you money if you arrive at the results I wish", is not science. No, there is no such incentive for real scientists doing real research. I defy you to show me funding that is conditional to results in genuine government research.

Do you really think that thousands of scientists, using millions of data points from hundreds of various specialties are really conspiring to bring you falsehoods - and doing so in order to get grants they would receive regardless of their findings?


Is that the level you are playing at here? Who, exactly is being duped? I have yet to see you lay out the PR campaign fomented by the government pro-global warming.

 

[canndo]

I think you have a problem with numbers canndo, your graph shows $588million in 4 years, not a billions.
Now, compare that to the $billions the government spends each and every year.

The money was spent on campaigns to influence public opinion - do you comprehend that? Is that firm in your understanding? Now, can you please show me a comensurate sum that was spent by the government in order to influence public opinion on global warming? Can you show me public service announcements, commercials, fake grass roots organizations, think tanks or anything else that compares and how much money the government spent on such things?

You claimed that government was spending billions (yes, billions) on such campaigns. Show them to me. Not research, not preparations for the future, but direct influence upon the public in order to alter opinion. Where is it? where are the PR firms? name them.


But I see you are not willing to back up your previous statements.

 

[canndo]

Jabrudda, you really don't underrstand the dynamics of PR in the modern world, and because you do not, you do big industry's bidding without even knowing it.

Look up the Global Climate Coalition, Look up the American Coalition for clean coal energy and economic developement. Look up the Hawthorn Group, gthe PR firm that was hired by the health insurance industry to fight the ACA and is now on task to convince you that there really is no global warming and that thousands of scientists are simply lying to you. Look up the American Energy Alliance, bankrolled by the Americn Petroleum Institute. It was stated by one of the worlds leading experts on climate change, Joseph Romm that "the fossil-fuel companes and the right wing have been very effective in their disinformation campagn". "It's the most successful disinformation campaign in human history".

this is what you are a product of - disinformation on a grand scale, perpetrated upon you by those with their own selfish interest in mind. The first thing they can get you in particular with is the idea that somehow it must be government, government's fault, government's lying, government's disinformation, but unless you can show me those front organizations, those astroturf groups being funded by government, what you have is thin air and bluster. This is exactly, one hundred percent, absolutely why big oil and their group spent the money they did.

Because for many like yourself, it works and it works damn well.

as we all can plainly see.

 

[youknowthekid!]

For a bunch of guys, and a few lucky ladies who come to this forum to say "hey do this to your plant, and look, it's a very happy plant!" or "hey don't do this to your plant, because look, it's very imbalanced!".... You're a bunch of friggin hypocritical idiots lol!!

I mean what are you even talking about anymore? Politics? Are you debating whether or not institutions are driven by greed and greed alone? Anything that influences human income is self-serving... no fucking shit! It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, it's about people having more money and more control. You're all just flaunting the influence that has been spewed upon you!

Why even debate? It's common sense that we're fucking up our planet. Global warming or not; like I said before separate CLIMATE and ENVIRONMENT in your dense heads. ENVIRONMENTS create CLIMATES. There is no linear relationship and no fucking graph that's going to show you simple cause and effect details. You're all so fucking dense to think you can walk outside and use your fat ass, clogged up, American senses to refute CLIMATE change. We're rapidly destroying every single ENVIRONMENT on this planet, and as a result every CLIMATE will soon be different, some drastically different. It is something that will not be stopped without massive human casualties.

Common sense... You all talk about being great growers with the appreciation that you're mimicking the best environmental conditions weed could ask for. You have an understanding of how simple it is to produce awesome results once you know your stuff. You talk about it like it should have been second nature in the first place lol! Then some of you step back and think the Earths CLIMATE produced by a macrocosm of organic processes (that are being annihilated) is just going to foster good results....

Fucking Christ man, you're so dense to deny climate change. Not until CLIMATES worldwide have reached a totally obscure and humanity-threatening range will you give up stubbornness. Until then it is a disease outside of your control. And you're probably really fat too

 

[jahbrudda]

 

[TWS]

 

[canndo]

Yet another post from the right that shows an udder lack of global understanding.

 

[TWS]

Your in denial .

 

[Padawanbater2]

Jabrudda, you really don't underrstand the dynamics of PR in the modern world, and because you do not, you do big industry's bidding without even knowing it.

Look up the Global Climate Coalition, Look up the American Coalition for clean coal energy and economic developement. Look up the Hawthorn Group, gthe PR firm that was hired by the health insurance industry to fight the ACA and is now on task to convince you that there really is no global warming and that thousands of scientists are simply lying to you. Look up the American Energy Alliance, bankrolled by the Americn Petroleum Institute. It was stated by one of the worlds leading experts on climate change, Joseph Romm that "the fossil-fuel companes and the right wing have been very effective in their disinformation campagn". "It's the most successful disinformation campaign in human history".

this is what you are a product of - disinformation on a grand scale, perpetrated upon you by those with their own selfish interest in mind. The first thing they can get you in particular with is the idea that somehow it must be government, government's fault, government's lying, government's disinformation, but unless you can show me those front organizations, those astroturf groups being funded by government, what you have is thin air and bluster. This is exactly, one hundred percent, absolutely why big oil and their group spent the money they did.

Because for many like yourself, it works and it works damn well.

as we all can plainly see.

Nailed it​//////////////

 

[UncleBuck]

watch out guys, they have pictures and whatnot of worn out meaningless platitudes.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
Dec 23, 2013 |By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate
A shift to untraceable donations by organizations denying climate change undermines democracy, according to the author of a new study tracking contributions to such groups.
Wikimedia Commons/Carol M. Highsmith

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.
It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.


Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.
The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.
"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."
"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."
Consistent funders
To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.
According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.
Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.



I showed you mine, show us yours, where is all that money you claim is behind the public influence toward climate change?

The other side is financed by those in the oil industry too, as pointed out to you before. Your point is irrelevant.