Exactly! :ylsuper:

So, you support him?

Really? Show me some solid PROOF then.

...said Thomas. :devil:

So, you support him?

Huh? :confused:

Global warming is a theory, not scientific fact.

 

Stop your shenanigans! :lol:

...said Thomas. :devil:

He was shown proof, I don't need proof for what he doubted. I do need proof for the Chicken Little Theory. Please show it to me.

Umm, did you read the article? Just for starters, what part of GRANT is so confusing to you?

 

I did. It was not very specific. Vague mention of Chinese activity in carbon trading, but no proof of anything. Who has as acute an interest in global warming research as the petroleum companies have in disputing it? I have asked this question before. Exactly who is funding research into global warming? Be specific please. Not a clumsy contrarian piece full of inuendo.

I did. It was not very specific. Vague mention of Chinese activity in carbon trading, but no proof of anything. Who has as acute an interest in global warming research as the petroleum companies have in disputing it? I have asked this question before. Exactly who is funding research into global warming? Be specific please. Not a clumsy contrarian piece full of inuendo.

 

From an incredibly cogent post on Page 1 of this thread:

 

A wise person once told me that if you "follow the money" you will learn a lot.

I did. It was not very specific. Vague mention of Chinese activity in carbon trading, but no proof of anything. Who has as acute an interest in global warming research as the petroleum companies have in disputing it? I have asked this question before. Exactly who is funding research into global warming? Be specific please. Not a clumsy contrarian piece full of inuendo.

Like the links you provide?

 

Well, there's orginizations like the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation:

$100 Million in Grant Money Available For Global Warming Research

 

 

Sir Richard Branson:

Branson launches $25m climate bid

 

These are just two examples, there are plenty more.

Billions of dollars have been invested so far in studying climate change ($20 billion from the Bush administration alone), and very little of that money has landed in the laps of those outside of the global warming orthodoxy.

 

Global warming research is becoming a cash cow and where there is money, there is bias.

Like the links you provide?

 

Well, there's orginizations like the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation:

$100 Million in Grant Money Available For Global Warming Research

 

 

Sir Richard Branson:

Branson launches $25m climate bid

 

These are just two examples, there are plenty more.

Billions of dollars have been invested so far in studying climate change ($20 billion from the Bush administration alone), and very little of that money has landed in the laps of those outside of the global warming orthodoxy.

 

Global warming research is becoming a cash cow and where there is money, there is bias.

 

Well, I read the articles you referenced. Branson's $25 million grant is for research to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The DDCF $100 million grant is intended to fund research into clean energy generation and ways for society to adapt to global warming. Neither is for conducting basic research to prove that mankind is responsible for global warming. That is what you are contending--there exists a multibillion dollar global conspiracy to fund research to prove a patently false premise. But you have produced no proof. On the other hand, we know that the energy industry has offered $10,000 payments to scientists willing to dispute research showing a link between human activity and global warming (http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm).

 

And let me ask you a deeper question: If manmade global warming is a hoax as you claim, why are these people spending $125 million dollars on such projects? You suggest we should follow the money, but what motive do the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and Richard Branson have for funding research based on what you contend is a fundamentally flawed premise?

 

Is this the best you can do? Because if it is, I'm kind of disappointed.

It amazes me how many words are expended to try and convince those of us who feel a responsibility to protect our planet that we are incorrect.

It amazes me how many words are expended to try and convince those of us who feel a responsibility to protect our planet that we are incorrect.

I don't think the idea of protecting the planet is incorrect. How bad off it is and man is making it is the point of contention.

 

I don't think anyone on here would argue with the idea of protecting the planet. What hurts it and what does not is the argument.

I don't think the idea of protecting the planet is incorrect. How bad off it is and man is making it is the point of contention.

 

I don't think anyone on here would argue with the idea of protecting the planet. What hurts it and what does not is the argument.

 

 

Bingo. We have a winner. Athough, I would add that we need to examine whether any man made hurt is really significant. It would be hard to argue that the release of man made pollutants into the atmosphere does not hurt the planet. Of course it hurts the planet. The question is whether it is significant hurt.

 

A big problem that we in the U.S. have is understanding the view point of the developing third world countries when we talk about the need to reduce industrial pollution worldwide. I heard an interview on a public radio station (91.7 I recall) where some govt official from India was talking. He chastized the U.S. for wanting to impose pollution cutting measures on India. He reminded the interviewer that the U.S. in its industrial growth area had pollution spewing smokestacks all over the place. To now impose the pollution cutting measures, with the associated high costs, would substantially limit India's industrial growth. In other words, it was fine with the U.S. to dump pollutants into the air, water and ground during our industrial growth era, but its no longer fine to do it as India, China and other developing countries are seeing a robust growth in their industrial areas. Kind of made me pause for thought.

Well, I read the articles you referenced. Branson's $25 million grant is for research to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The DDCF $100 million grant is intended to fund research into clean energy generation and ways for society to adapt to global warming. Neither is for conducting basic research to prove that mankind is responsible for global warming. That is what you are contending--there exists a multibillion dollar global conspiracy to fund research to prove a patently false premise. But you have produced no proof. On the other hand, we know that the energy industry has offered $10,000 payments to scientists willing to dispute research showing a link between human activity and global warming (http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm).

 

And let me ask you a deeper question: If manmade global warming is a hoax as you claim, why are these people spending $125 million dollars on such projects? You suggest we should follow the money, but what motive do the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and Richard Branson have for funding research based on what you contend is a fundamentally flawed premise?

 

Is this the best you can do? Because if it is, I'm kind of disappointed.

 

Here's another for you to put your spin on.

 

Plenty of info, but I'm sure it won't satisfy you.

It amazes me how many words are expended to try and convince those of us who feel a responsibility to protect our planet that we are incorrect.

That is without a doubt a two way street!

It amazes me how many words are expended to try and convince those of us who feel a responsibility to protect our planet that we are incorrect.

Exactly! :ylsuper:

 

It really doesn't matter whether global warning is caused significantly by man. We have a responsibility to do all we can (given the doubt) to reduce our effect on this planet. It's the only course of action that makes any sense at all. I just can't see burying our head in the sand and refusing to even consider the possibilities, simply because they may not be palatable.

 

I realize that this thread was started in regard to global warming; but I think it's a shame that we're so focused in on that one narrow issue. There are so many other ways that we are damaging our environment, and so may ways that damage could be lessened.