Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

The oil companies are clearly financing both sides of the debate. They want the ensuing melee. There's a lot of talk about the fall into chaos but we are already there.

The oil companies know the oil won't last forever. Also, they need time to secure their monopoly of the green economy. If the world population decided that climate change was real, we would take action together instead of buying their solutions, putting the mega-corps out of business. If climate change is bunk, then we would buy oil like it's going out of fashion, using up the all oil reserves, putting the mega-corps out of business.

It's all about ensuring chaos reigns while the mega-corps retain control and take more control, while we bicker amongst ourselves. The climate is not the enemy and the scientists are not the enemy.

reply to post by misinformational

Note that the author herself is a climate scientist.

She's a scientist, but I don't think she's a climate scientist. Her area of expertise is molecular biology.

Anyway, the government funds, thus controls about 100% of all scientific research. They essentially have unlimited funding.

Here's an eye-opener.

reply to post by Nathan-D

not to disagree
They don't quite have unlimited funding yet, but they will if they get the 20 trillion dollars in carbon taxes passed.
Ken Ley showed 'em how to make money....

Lay and Enron became synonymous with corporate abuse and accounting fraud when the scandal broke in 2001. Lay was the CEO and chairman of Enron from 1985 until his resignation on January 23, 2003, except for a few months in 2000 when he was chairman and Jeffrey Skilling was CEO.

On July 7, 2004, Lay was indicted by a grand jury on 11 counts of securities fraud and related charges

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 16-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by sremmos


I understand that and agree. Everyone is so caught up on the "warming" trend and acts like this is all there is to look forward to. Like were gonna heat up and scorch to death. Everyone needs to step back from the picture and realize warming and cooling cycle on and off regardless of WHO or HOW is creating the warming. Cooling will follow the warming cycle, in the end more will die as a result of an ice age than will die as a result of "warming.

One way to look at it is if Man is causing the warming then they are just pushing us into an ice age much faster than it's natural cycle.

reply to post by Nathan-D


Thanks for pointing that out! I've edited my post.

And yes, the article you linked illustrates quite well the agenda of scientists that claim as fact the hypothesis of global warming being human created. It's not. There is no (that's zero) empirical data that directly links the increase in CO2 with climate change - the fact that both happen to be rising at the same time does not warrant the conclusion that CO2 is causing our planet to get warmer.

I'm not stating that global warming is absolutely not man-made, but there is no evidence PROVING that it is. Further, our planet has had 10x as much CO2 present as now during an ice age. That fact alone does more to disprove that CO2 causes global warming than any of the facts to prove it.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by BigfootNZ


Lord Foul Bane, now there was a nice guy!

So, you are saying it is also analogous that I saltheart, gave myself for the furtherance of Thomas Covenant's journey by searing my soul in a fiery lava flow?

Just because I read lots of sci fi, does not mean that I cannot spot a bunch of sci fi when I see it.

Sorry, TOO many connections to globalization, sustainability agenda, and the power elite.

Just amazing how from one decade, late 70's early 80's to now, we have a global cooling crisis and then to a global warming crisis that needs for the world to come together, under a carbon credit scheme that where it is being used, massive FRAUD and CORRUPTION has already been exposed. Not to mention the absolute LACK of EVIDENCE of one iota of the supposed increase in the ocean levels.

Also, fairly weird that the communist agenda has been proven by papers and other evidence, to be the plan behind the worship of the planet (environmentalism) and an all encompassing monetary control network (carbon credits and redistribution). Did we actually win the cold war, or did they just move locales of influence?

Almost AMAZINGLY, the world is FORCED into a economic downturn by the very government's that are espousing this rhetoric.

Hmmmm, almost conspiratorial if it was not so obvious!

Big Oil funding is nothing compared to Big Government funding.

What happens to the scientists who refuse to toe the big government line and dare challenge their agenda? Where else would the money come from? Doom and Gloom pays a lot better than saying that nature follows a natural cycle.

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by mc_squared

 

Here's some scientific statements we should all consider (if nothing else, read the first one):

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada

There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University

global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland

There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences

We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. [T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.

American Institute of Professional Geologists

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.

The American Association of State Climatologists

Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system.... The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]

You see this is what is so utterly ridiculous about denialists - - random quotes, no context, no links, and above all NO DATES. The only dates available are inside the quotes and these generally appear to be from 20 years ago - all copy and pasted do doubt from some template response of 6 quotes which are all that are needed in the face of almost universal and total agreement on this issue - even from the most ardent denialists - absolutely mind numbingly ridiculous.

reply to post by misinformational

That is a blog... Certainly not a credible source of peer-reviewed information.

How about the U.S. Geological Survey??

hvo.wr.usgs.gov...



Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (cdiac.ornl.gov...) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Muckster]

reply to post by mc_squared


WOW... one of the MANY climatologists, and scientists who don't swallow the AGW is getting some money from oil companies...

Tell us first of all mc_square, you think environlunatic groups are going to provide the funding to this man?...

Not only that but MOST of the scientists that don't believe the lies you obviously love to swallow ARE NOT GETTING PAID BY BIG OIL, simply because they know environlunatics will try to use this as an excuse to claim they are not telling the truth....

BTW, who is paying all the environlunatic groups out there?... Al Gore, and his goons, so they are all part of the lie whether they know it or not because ALL the AGW believers are being paid by environlunatic groups, meanwhile MOST of those who don't believe in AGW are not being paid by big oil....


[edit on 17-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Muckster


And volcanoes are not the only source of natural CO2 on this planet, and in fact natural sources of CO2 combined are a lot more than the anthropogenic factor. But then again this is another fact the AGW believers like to leave out....

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

And volcanoes are not the only source of natural CO2 on this planet, and in fact natural sources of CO2 combined are a lot more than the anthropogenic factor. But then again this is another fact the AGW believers like to leave out....

Yes there are other sources of CO2... never denied that... but the post that i was replying to (by misinformational) was using the old, and incorrect, argument about volcanic activity creating more CO2 than humans... that is why i only addressed that issue.

However, if you wish to discuss other natural sources then fine...


I take it you are referring to decay of organic matter, Ocean evaporation, breathing etc...

All of this is offset by natural CO2 "sinks" such as forests, ocean plankton etc...

If it wasn’t then the world with have a mainly co2 atmosphere...

No one has ever denied that there isn’t any other sources of CO2... but we are releasing vast quantities of CO2 that have been locked in the earth for millions of years... This is tipping the balance.

The trouble with the sceptic argument is that they keep changing the goal posts...

First its... "we are not releasing that much CO2"

Once proven that we are...

"Yeah but volcanoes release more than us in a single eruption"

When that is proven false...

"But what about all the other natural CO2 and cow farts"

All offset by natural sinks that can deal with minor fluctuations in CO2 emissions but not the 28 Billion tonnes (and rising) of extra CO2 released each year.

"There’s no proof that CO2 causes temperature rise anyway"

When explained that there is...

"yeah but the whole universe is heating up"


And on and on it goes...

People are that desperate to hang onto the lifestyle, to which they have become accustomed to, that they are prepared to gamble the world!!!

Now don’t get me wrong... I do understand that there are people who are trying to exploit this for their own personal gain... but that doesn’t negate the fact that human carbon emissions are a very big problem!!

reply to post by misinformational

[edit to remove statement that Joanne Nova is a climate scientist. As NathanD pointed out, she is a molecular biologist]

She is neither a climate scientist, nor a molecular biologist, nor a scientist of any kind - she is merely full of it. In fact this entire OP emerged out of another thread where we've been having a very long discussion about how much Joanne Nova likes to distort information and make stuff up.

Just go to her own About page and see for yourself.

After winning prizes in her science degree in molecular biology

A "science degree"?? What kind of professional lists their credentials so ambiguously? And what sort of "prizes" do you win in your degree? Most people graduate with "honours", maybe win an award or even a scholarship - but I've never heard someone use the term "prizes" before. Perhaps this is just Australian lingo I'm unaware of or something, but I'm sorry - saying you've won prizes in your degree makes it sound like it came from a County Fair. And as it turns out, I can show you that's actually a lot closer to the truth then you would ever imagine.

First of all - Joanne Nova has nothing but a Bachelor's Degree. If this makes her a scientist then that's good news, because I guess that makes me one too considering I just earned my BSc in Physics & Math. So no need to continue this discussion folks - I say climate change is real and I'M A SCIENTIST, wheeeeeeeeee!

And if this is the criteria it takes to impress you anyway misinformational, then please take note John Cook from skepticalscience has a Physics BSc, along with post-grad honours study in Solar Physics. And he is at least upfront enough to still openly declare on his page that he is not a climate scientist. Still, his academic background is much more relevant to the subject matter.


But back to Joanne, since it only gets better with her. Again from her About page:

Joanne joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus

What the heck is a "Shell Questacon Science Circus"? Sounds like some roaming pack of poindexter carnies, gah!

Let's go to their website and find out:

We’re the Shell Questacon Science Circus - science graduates bringing lively presentations of science to towns and schools across regional Australia while we study for a Graduate Diploma in Science Communication.

Ok...sounds a little more legitimate I suppose, although I think it's quite clear this is something meant for entertaining CHILDREN. So obviously this is also what Jo Nova is referring to when she brags that:

As an associate lecturer at ANU Joanne helped to develop the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication in its earliest years.

"Associate lecturer" generally means a $12/hr teaching assistant gig, and the "Graduate Diploma in Science Communication" is just some fluff certificate for explaining science to 6 year olds.

So have I made my point yet?

I sure hope not, because I've still left out the BEST PART. You might know what I'm alluding to:

Shell Questacon Science Circus

Is it that Shell though? Go back to their website, and bingo - there it is - at the bottom of the page:



So wow, what a shocker! "Science communicator" Joanne Nova got her start in some sort of science circus indoctrinating children on a major multinational oil company's dime, and now she happens to be a fervent climate change skeptic, speaker and blogger!

Actually to anyone who's investigated this subject, it's not surprising at all. Because this is exactly the sort of "science circus" you will find ALL over the climate denial blogosphere. So considering your screen name, misinformational, I strongly recommend you dig a little more objectively into it, instead of just rushing to google up and immediately post whatever contrarian point you can find that goes against what I'm trying to tell you.

Because this is exactly what I'm trying to tell you, and you just helped me prove my point: most of the people presenting this skeptical information are not scientists, they are total utter, blatant propagandists. And they are completely manipulating all the uber paranoid conspiracy theorists out there who have nothing but their "Al Gore, LET'S GET 'IM!!" blinders on. These people have a distinct political agenda to push, and it becomes quite obvious if you just open your mind up ever so slightly and have a look around.

Maybe have a start here:
Global Warming: Man or Myth - Global Warming Denial Machine

Originally posted by Aristophrenia
reply to post by mc_squared

 

You see this is what is so utterly ridiculous about denialists - - random quotes, no context, no links, and above all NO DATES. The only dates available are inside the quotes and these generally appear to be from 20 years ago - all copy and pasted do doubt from some template response of 6 quotes which are all that are needed in the face of almost universal and total agreement on this issue - even from the most ardent denialists - absolutely mind numbingly ridiculous.

Very well (do note that EVERY quote is from the past 5 years):

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

Above quote from 2007-11 - Source

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada

There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?

Above quote from 2007-07 - Source

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University

global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035

Above quote from 2006-10 - Source

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland

There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.

Above quote from 2006-05 - Source

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences

We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. [T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.

Above quote from 2009-11 - Source

Just google the institutions I quoted to get their quote references.

Us 'deniers' aren't the ones denying science.

Again - There is NO PROOF or EMPIRICAL DATA that links CO2 emissions with global warming.

And as they say - FOLLOW THE MONEY

[edit - format]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by misinformational]

We had scientists before we had universities
Thinking that an expensive education makes a scientist by someone with a "Degree"
is proof that it doesn't

Ken Lay had a university education
a BA , an MA, and a PHD
He designed the carbon credits fraud, and was a major architect of the whole global warming fraud.
After all the proven discredititation of MMGW advocates..
Their mud slinging just makes it look more and more like they cheated on their exams.



[edit on 17-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Muckster


Ok, I'll concede your point as to what produces how much CO2 - because it doesn't matter! Until science proves that CO2 causes global warming (with empirical data and observation), there is little point in isolating the cause for a compound that no one knows whether or not it's causing a problem.

reply to post by misinformational

After all they put co2 sensors on the sides of volcanoes...

does a satirical smiley count as a second line?
If not they put temperature measuring devices beside incinerator stacks too...
guess they were really not too certain of empirical truth

PS
times of the highest Co2 were amoung the lushest living conditions the planet ever had...ooopsi can't have that...we want to kill offf 85 % of the worlds population
Heh HEh hEH...

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by misinformational


Note that every one of the scientists you quoted have a rap sheet on exxonsecrets or sourcewatch:


John Christy:
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: John Christy

Also, since all the "warmist" scientists are chased after with pitchforks every time they produce a typo in an IPCC report, it should be remembered that John Christy was responsible for one of the most notorious errors ever made in climate science history:

An "Executive Summary" by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."

Tim Patterson:
Tim Patterson - SourceWatch

Chris de Freitas:
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Chris de Freitas
Soon and Baliunas controversy

Don Easterbrook:
Don Easterbrook - SourceWatch
Don Easterbrook hides the incline

Richard Lindzen:
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen
Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch



Meanwhile here's a pretty detailed list of all the scientists who agree with manmade global warming.

reply to post by misinformational

Until science proves that CO2 causes global warming (with empirical data and observation), there is little point in isolating the cause for a compound that no one knows whether or not it's causing a problem.

And there's no empirical proof because, what - people like Joanne Nova told you so?

How about instead of just repeating this claim over and over, you actually take a minute to see if it's true:



(and please don't give me crap about trying to link you to proof by way of a Youtube video - all of Peter Sinclair's information is sourced and linked to peer-reviewed journals in the more info box)


More reading:
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
The human fingerprint in global warming

Presentations of empirical evidence from real climate scientists:
Dr. Chris Field
Dr. Michael MacCracken

reply to post by mc_squared


Again I'll say: Just because CO2 and global warming appear to be rising at the same time DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS A RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO.

There is nothing that directly links them - in the video or the links. Trust me, if there were, it would make the headlines around the world. And should there be, you'll see Carbon Taxes approved the next day.