It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gore: Polluters Funding Climate Disinfo

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:58 AM
link   


Research aimed at disputing the scientific consensus on global warming is part of a huge public misinformation campaign funded by some of the world's largest carbon polluters, former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday.

"There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community,'' Gore said at a forum in Singapore. "In actuality, there is very little disagreement.''

Gore likened the campaign to the millions of dollars spent by U.S. tobacco companies years ago on creating the appearance of scientific debate on smoking's harmful effects.


SOURCE:
Live Science


This really does'nt come as a surprise to me, nor should it to anyone, people
have known this and been talking about it for the last few years.

Exxon Mobil, one of the worst corporations in the world when it comes to pollution,
not only climatological but ocean oil spills as well has been one of the main
forces in trying to discredit AICC.


Comments, Opinions?




posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
What ever happened to the glaciers which formed the Fjoirds (sp?) in Norway? Or how about the many valleys and river beds?

Was Exxon around back then when 'they' disappeared'?
The fact is the planet has warming and cooling cycles and so does the solar system. Ever hear of the mini-ice age in the 1300's? What caused that?

I'm not saying that 'we' should just pollute but I think any effect 'we' are having on global warming in negligable.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
What ever happened to the glaciers which formed the Fjoirds (sp?) in Norway? Or how about the many valleys and river beds?
Was Exxon around back then when 'they' disappeared'?


Of course not.



The fact is the planet has warming and cooling cycles and so does the solar system. Ever hear of the mini-ice age in the 1300's? What caused that?


No one's saying (well no one with atleast some knowledge) is saying the Earth does'nt have
natural cycles, but the current state is far from natural.

I question the idea that the whole Solar System is warming at the same time as well,
Mars's warming is a completely closed process that is understood and any planet that
does'nt have a stable circle orbit warms as it gets closer to the Sun.

And yes, I have heard of the mini Ice-Age, I saw a very fascinating documentary
about it on the History Channel.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
That's laughable. $10 million a year? Wow, they're really flooding the market. Anybody have a total of money being poured into pro-global warming? I'm betting it's at least 100x that. Until global warming stops being a cash hog and pouring millions/billions of dollars into the pockets of the scientists researching it, I'm calling it bunk.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
That's laughable. $10 million a year? Wow, they're really flooding the market. Anybody have a total of money being poured into pro-global warming? I'm betting it's at least 100x that. Until global warming stops being a cash hog and pouring millions/billions of dollars into the pockets of the scientists researching it, I'm calling it bunk.



Scientists get payed for reporting the truth.

And there are no companies or programs offering obscene amounts of money to
Joe-schmo to write something saying it's real, regardless of their actual knowledge
of the field.

[edit on 8/8/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Is well know for corporate America to finance groups on the side under the alias of philanthropic activities to use disinformation in order to protect themselves.

Instead of using the money to make the environment safer, by the way they also contribute to the pro environment groups as a cover up.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

Scientists get payed for reporting the truth.

And there are no companies or programs offering obscene amounts of money to
Joe-schmo to write something saying it's real, regardless of their actual knowledge
of the field.

[edit on 8/8/2007 by iori_komei]


Wrong, these scientists are getting paid to research and if they conclude that there is no issue the money goes away. See the problem?



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
[...] Anybody have a total of money being poured into pro-global warming? I'm betting it's at least 100x that. [...]



Here's a good place to start. I've only had the time to read a portion of it so far. Lots of funding is available for pro-AGW research and pro-climate regulation advocacy.


Marshall Institute: Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and Related Activities



Findings

• The study of climate change science and the
policy ramifications of climate change is a
multi-billion enterprise in the United States.

• Private foundations distribute a minimum
of $35-50 million annually to non-profit
organizations and universities to comment
on or study various elements of the climate
change debate.

• This support was significant for many of
the receiving institutions. Climate changerelated
projects accounted for over 25%
of the 3-year total reported grants and
contributions received by 10 of the top-20
institutions. For 6 organizations, climate
change grants accounted for 50% of their
reported grants and contributions received.

• A cursory glimpse of the list of recipients of
those private funds reveals that the vast
majority are spent by groups favoring
restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions
and believe that climate change requires
dramatic government action.

• The U.S. federal government spent nearly
$2 billion to support climate change science
programs in FY 2004.

• More than 2,000 separate climate changerelated
grants were distributed by federal
departments and agencies in FY 2002, the
most recent year for which comprehensive
data is available.

• Federal support for R&D in the environmental
sciences field has tripled in the
past 20 years, rising from $1.2 billion in
1980 to $3.6 billion in 2002, according to
data available from the National Science
Foundation.

• In 28 of the top-30 performing institutions,
federal financing accounts for more than
50% of the institution’s expenditures on
atmospheric R&D.



It's interesting (imo) to note how some folks only want to put the funding of the anti-AGW crowd under the microscope. What about all those eviromental lobbies and advocates, corporate and private, for government regulation of climate/emissions. . . do they get a free pass? Why? What do they stand to gain from pro-AGW research and regulation(s)? You know Exxon et. al., aren't the only ones with a financial stake in all this.


Personally, I think the whole debate stinks... Of course, from my lofty perch up here on the fence, the stench aint as bad.


Regards.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

It's interesting (imo) to note how some folks only want to put the funding of the anti-AGW crowd under the microscope. What about all those eviromental lobbies and advocates, corporate and private, for government regulation of climate/emissions. . . do they get a free pass? Why? What do they stand to gain from pro-AGW research and regulation(s)? You know Exxon et. al., aren't the only ones with a financial stake in all this.


Personally, I think the whole debate stinks... Of course, from my lofty perch up here on the fence, the stench aint as bad.


Regards.



Thanks for that info. It looks like my 100x estimate was much too low. I guess it's OK for billions upon billions of dollars to be fed to the pro-GW crowd but when a fraction of 1 percent of that money is thrown at anti-GW research it's a travesty.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei


Gore said at a forum in Singapore. "In actuality, there is very little disagreement.''

SOURCE:
Live Science


Perhaps he can explain this link:

Climate Momemtum Shifting...

[edit on 8-8-2007 by BlueTriangle]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
You just gotta love Al Gore and the stink of hypocrisy that surrounds him.

This is a guy who tours the world on a private jet, lecturing the rest of us on carbon footprints and all the other blarney he throws around.

A failed politician still doing what politicians do best - "Don't do as I do, do as I say".


THE GORES' RESIDENTIAL "CARBON NEUTRALITY"

According to Schweizer, the Gores own three homes: a 10,000-square-foot home in Nashville, Tennessee; a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Virginia (across the Potomac River from Washington, DC); and a third home of undisclosed size in Carthage, Tennessee. Neutral Source has verified the Gores own a 2.1 acre property at 312 Lynnwood Blvd. in the Belle Meade section of Nashville, Tennessee (Parcel ID 11611005600). Its assessed value in January 2005 was $3 million, but we have not been able to validate Schweizer's claims about its size. So we performed a search and found 15 single-family homes on the market in the Gores' Nashville neighborhood with asking prices of $3 million or more. Of the 298 neighborhood properties on the market, only three are listed at $3 million or more. According to MLS data, these houses are 9.727, 7,340, and 9,878 square feet respectively. So we can confirm that it's quite plausible that the Gores' Nashville home is, as Schweizer claims, 10,000 square feet.


and some more:

AIR TRAVEL "CARBON NEUTRALITY"

Schweizer says Gore travels by private jet to promote his book and movie, a commonplace enough phenomenon among celebrities, wealthy individuals, and politicians, Neutral Source has been unable to locate credible estimates of CO2 emissions from private aircraft. Both CarbonCounter and CarbonFund estimate CO2 emissions from commercial air travel by dividing total aircraft emissions across large numbers of passengers. This would significantly understate Gore's CO2 emissions from air travel because small private aircraft emit more CO2 per passenger simply because they haul fewer passengers.

But we can get some interesting approximations through the back door.

SAS provides an intriguing aircraft emission calculator for commercial aircraft in its own fleet. According to WebFlyer's airline distance calculator, a flight from Copenhagen to London's Stansted Airport (a route SAS flies with several different aircraft) is 567 miles. The distance from Nashville Metro Airport to Washington's Reagan National Airport is 560 miles. For the aircraft SAS has in service on the Copenhagen to London Stansted route, their calculator estimates CO2 emissions ranging from 94.1 kg (207 lbs) per passenger for the Airbus 321 to 139 kilograms (306 lbs) per passenger for the MD 87, a difference of about 50%.

Source:
neutralsource.org...


Nuff said



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
................
natural cycles, but the current state is far from natural.


And how is that?...

In the past 5,000 years alone when CO2 levels were stable the Earth has had many fluctuations between warm and cold climates. There is no proof at all that CO2 causes the warming some want to proclaim it causes.



Originally posted by iori_komei
I question the idea that the whole Solar System is warming at the same time as well,
Mars's warming is a completely closed process that is understood and any planet that
does'nt have a stable circle orbit warms as it gets closer to the Sun.


The thing is that Mars is not the only planet warming, pretty much every planet and Moon with an atmosphere is undergoing a warming cycle, but again the AGW crowd wants to dismiss any and every evidence which finds a natural cycle as the cause for Climate Change/Global Warming.



Originally posted by iori_komei
And yes, I have heard of the mini Ice-Age, I saw a very fascinating documentary
about it on the History Channel.


Have you seen how many times the climate has fluctuated from cold to warm with CO2 levels being stable?....

Global Warming is being used as a political tool nowadays, and also the environlunatics are using it to finally get their way. Being environmentaly friendly is good, but what the environlunatics want is more than that. Just take a look at how many environlunatics are calling for a reduction not only on CO2, but on humans too...

Then some people claim the powers that be want population reduction...it is the environlunatics that want population reduction...

[edit on 8-8-2007 by Muaddib]




top topics



 
0

log in

join