A growing number of think tanks sound good for the environment but advocate for industries that could cause environmental headaches. (You think Americans for Balanced Energy Choices touts solar power? Nope.)
A Few Things Ill Considered
A layman's perspective on the science and politics of Climate Change
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
(A comprehesive set of rebuttals to common
"climate skeptic" talking points
vetted and endorsed
by the professionals at
Real Climate)
Profile
This is what I look like. Read my "About" page here.
Search
Recent Comments
- Adam on What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
- Snowman on What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
- coby on What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
- Ian Forrester on What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
- Richard on What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
- crakar14 on Revisiting CO2 Lags, not Leads
- Ian Forrester on What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
- Richard on What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
- Adam on What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
- coby on The Models Don't Have Clouds
Recent Posts
- How does this fit?
- Life's little ironies
- Another Week of GW News, June 28, 2009
- A tale of two interviews
- Hansen arrested in coal mining protest
- Open thread
- New Science Confirms Refrigerant Gases Pose Grave Warming Threat
- Another Week of GW News, June 21, 2009
- Where are they now?
- Know the Number
Blogroll
Climate Science Blogs
- Andrew Dessler
- Climate Feedback (Nature.com)
- Open Mind
- More Grumbine Science
- Rabett Run
- RealClimate
- Stoat
Other Interesting Reads
Fighting the Good Fight
- Climate Progress
- DesmogBlog
- Get Energy Smart! NOW!!!
- Greenfyre
- Gristmill
- Reasic
- The Reef Tank
- Stephen Gloor
The Lighter Side of Catastrophe
Other Information
Archives
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- December 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
« Echos from around the local chamber | Main | Christmas Crap! »
Follow the money
Category: general
Posted on: December 4, 2008 11:13 AM, by coby
Find more posts in: 
Environment
Politics
Comments
Follow the money on both sides of this issue. The endless stream of government funding for research comes to those how predict doom and claim they have a solution. The fact that those who can most benefit from alarmism are the ones in control of producing the reports is a travisty. The IPCC 'peer review' process is a joke by any scientific standards.
You will be watching out for industry funding the sceptics while the IPCC picks all our pockets clean.
Posted by: GrecRI | December 4, 2008 8:55 PM
I would appreciate it if you could get back to me with some specific evidence supporting that interesting conspiracy theory. I have a couple of data points that really fly in its face:
- NASA, home of "alarmist in chief" James Hansen, has had its earth sciences budget slashed over the last several years
- "understand and protect our home planet" was removed from its mission statement two or three years ago
- the scientists who work on the IPCC documents do so on a volunteer basis.
- the IPCC does not fund any climate research of its own, period.
- the US gov't, prime source of research funding, is full of oil interests who clearly do not want to hear about global warming.
- an average petroleum geologists makes far more than an average climate scientist.
So, who is getting rich in the research circles? Because we all know that ExxonMobile is earning the highest profits of any corporation in human history.
Posted by: coby | December 4, 2008 11:09 PM
The same Hansen who just happened to err on the side of warming with his Y2K 'mistake'? In my business, that would have gotten me fired.
Some of the big contributors, with vested interests in alternative energy and who contribute (or contributed) heavily, include (or included before the failure)
- Enron (Ken "let's buy up a bunch of alternative energy companies, then fund green groups and push for Kyoto" Lay)
- Duke Energy (now run by former Enron exec James Roges)who recently donated $2.5 Million to Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment to "address the problems of global climate change" after making similar purchases to Enron
- General Electric (who bought up much of Enron's alternative energy assets and others but now prides itself on donations to green causes).
Then there are money-hungry governments throughout the world who will use any available excuse to creat a new tax and line their officials' pockets - especially if they can do so in the name of saving mankind.
Oh, and let's not leave out the well-known Gore carbon credit credit associations.
There are plenty incentives for big money to be on the warming side of this issue, and make no mistake - they're doing their part. I get a chuckle out of how conflicts of interest can simply be ignored if they fund the cause.
Regarding Exxon's profit, it represents approximately 8% of sales. It happens to be a huge company, and the recent spike in oil prices certainly didn't hurt their bottom line. But 8% by virtually any accounting standard is not exactly an obscene profit.
Posted by: GrecRI | December 5, 2008 9:55 PM