January 31, 201412 yr I guess you must have RTS on "ignore" then. I have no one on "ignore." Every message has potential merit. The only thing RTS has offered on this thread is "Follow the Money" (in two different languages). So I followed the $$ and it led to Exxon and the Koch brothers.
January 31, 201412 yr I've always wondered if this scientific community operates much like the hollywood community and the higher education community. That is, if you don't agree with the mantra you'd better keep your mouth closed if you want to advance.
January 31, 201412 yr All this angst about the Feds supporting green company initiatives and nary a word about the billions of taxpayer dollars that support Exxon et al. through corporate welfare benefits. Some of these oil subsidy programs have been on the books since FDR's reign. This sorry tired talking point again. You really need to reload, your firing blanks at this point.
January 31, 201412 yr Author I have no one on "ignore." Every message has potential merit. The only thing RTS has offered on this thread is "Follow the Money" (in two different languages). So I followed the $$ and it led to Exxon and the Koch brothers.Corporate welfare. Another problem, yet unrelated and you continue to shift and change the subject. You cry that discussion that is "non-linear" can't be had, yet yours is circular with no end. Job well done I say.
January 31, 201412 yr This sorry tired talking point again. You really need to reload, your firing blanks at this point. Yeah, I know. You hate to be burdened with these sticky things called facts. Between 1994 and 2009, the U.S. oil and gas industries received a cumulative $446.96 billion in government subsidies. For the same time period, renewables received $5.95 billion. Follow the money. Source: Forbes.com
January 31, 201412 yr Yeah, I know. You hate to be burdened with these sticky things called facts. Between 1994 and 2009, the U.S. oil and gas industries received a cumulative $446.96 billion in government subsidies. For the same time period, renewables received $5.95 billion. Follow the money. Source: Forbes.com How much income tax did those same companies pay in that same time frame? My guess is your calculator doesn't go that.
January 31, 201412 yr Those who promote the theory of anthropogenic global warming are favored with government grants. Follow the money. Al Gore called for making climate change "denial" a taboo in society. "Within the market system we have to put a price on carbon, and within the political system, we have to put a price on denial." Belittle those in opposition. Follow the money. Governments around the world, at the instruction of the U.N., spend huge amounts of money on a problem that only exists in computer models. Follow the money. LA Times refuse to publish letters to the editor that claim man isn't causing climate change. Belittle those in opposition, follow the money. Climate change research has become big business driven by political ideology and greed, not by truth or science. Follow the money. As our friend TTP and those that claim it's consensus has shown, denounce their theory (and that's all it is still) and you will be labeled a heretic, a denier, a fascist and what ever other ugly name they can push on you as you're dismissed as a knuckle dragging relic. As he just proved to all of you, any data available would be laughed off as conspiracy theory denial and obviously being spread by agents of Big Energy. It's straight out of the leftist playbook for shouting down any and all that oppose their religion of anthropogenic global warming.
February 1, 201412 yr Yeah, I know. You hate to be burdened with these sticky things called facts. Between 1994 and 2009, the U.S. oil and gas industries received a cumulative $446.96 billion in government subsidies. For the same time period, renewables received $5.95 billion. Follow the money. Source: Forbes.com Care to hazard a guess on the amount of taxes the two paid?
February 1, 201412 yr How much income tax did those same companies pay in that same time frame? My guess is your calculator doesn't go that. Only one side of the equation paid taxes.
February 1, 201412 yr LA Times refuse to publish letters to the editor that claim man isn't causing climate change. Belittle those in opposition, follow the money. Wall Street Journal a couple years ago declined to print an op-ed piece by a large number of legitimate climate scientists. Instead, Murdoch had the WSJ print some drivel by a group of 16. Headline: The Wall Street Journal and Climate Change Denial A January 27 (2012) op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal contains the usual drivel about climate change denial. Signed by 16 scientists, the op-ed piece claims that the number of “scientific heretics” continues to grow every year. A cursory glance at the exact field of the 16 scientists is very telling. Only a couple of signatories are actually climate scientists, and the rest are not. At least one is an economist. As a rebuttal to the piece points out: “While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science.” Signed by 38 scientists, the rebuttal also points out that the few with climate science expertise “are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.” As you are probably well aware, the Wall Street Journal is owned by none other than Mr. Climate Change Denier, Rupert Murdoch. An article in the Guardian points out that the Wall Street Journal would not publish a letter from 255 scientists from the National Academy of Sciences “that supported the mainstream view on climate change.” The article also points out that the refusal to publish the letter “was seen by some as further evidence that Rupert Murdoch is using his news organizations, such as the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, to further his own anti-regulatory agenda.” Some of the 16 signatories have ties to the oil industry, and specifically, to ExxonMobil. Roger Cohen is one signatory who worked directly for Exxon. Using the Desmogblog.com database on climate change deniers, I found that Cohen worked as the Manager of Strategic Planning and Programs at Exxon. According to Desmogblog, Cohen “became involved in studying global warming when Exxon realized that its ‘business environment’ could be affected.” Another signatory to the op-ed piece with ties to Exxon is Richard Lindzen. Desmogblog mentions a 1995 article by Ross Gelbspan which notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 a day for his consulting services. I could not find anything that said Lindzen did consulting work for Exxon. However, in 2007 Lindzen described Exxon as the “only principled oil and gas company I know in the U.S.” James McGrath is another signatory with ties to Exxon. The chemist’s past research has been funded by oil and chemical companies including Exxon, according to Desmogblog. Exxon gave McGrath $104,470 in funding for past research programs. Clearly there is a link - make it a big tie - between climate change denial and the big carbon polluters like Exxon. Ironically, even Exxon now acknowledges climate change, and its website highlights what the company is doing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/02/wall-street-journal-climate-change-denial/
February 1, 201412 yr Only one side of the equation paid taxes. I hope it was the side that received 99 percent of the subsidies.
February 1, 201412 yr Author So, the triplepundit.com is a better source of reliable data/news than the Wall Street Journal? That says a lot. So, what's next? I should rely on some solid expose' on skin cancer treatment in the National Enquirer instead of relying on something published in the New England Journal of Medicine? You provide straight comedy, please continue, I can't wait for what's next.
February 1, 201412 yr I used to be a faithful reader of the WSJ. That's before Murdoch bought it and ruined it. Besides we're talking about a submitted op-ed piece written by someone other than a WSJ staff writer, so your source = credibility argument holds no water.
February 1, 201412 yr Not every single scientist. I'll grant that there are a few unethical ones on the outer fringes doing this, but not every single one of them the way you and others would like us to believe in your "let's throw the baby out with the bathwater" philosophy about climate change. I'm betting there's a similar number of the fringe one who have been bought off by green industries as there are fringe ones bought off by oil companies and other polluter industries. I was referring to the "green" industries.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.