• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks | Environment | guardian.co.uk



Cat's out of the bag. The funding demonstrates that the conservative agenda is not about actual science, but preserving their business model.

And although these think tanks have influence over government, the people donating to them can remain anonymous. Clandestined financial cabals such as these are the reason why democracy is threatened in most of the western world. They can use their massive fortunes to sway government without the public ever knowing who they are.

As a democratic people, we must stand up and insist our government create legal reforms that prevent lobbying on this massive scale.

120 million doesn't even begin to compare with the billions in funding that institutions and scientists get for toeing the anthropogenic global warming party line.

Besides which, these organizations appear to be generic conservative advocacy groups. The money would be to support ALL of the conservative agenda of which climate science is one, probably fairly small, part.

Global warming fell apart as an issue not because of some conspiracy but because it was obviously an intellectually bankrupt enterprise that was torn apart by its own contradictions and falsehoods and by the excesses, distortions, and exaggerations of its advocates. No one is going to commit serious money to it now. It's dead as a driver of major policy change.
 
120 million doesn't even begin to compare with the billions in funding that institutions and scientists get for toeing the anthropogenic global warming party line.

Besides which, these organizations appear to be generic conservative advocacy groups. The money would be to support ALL of the conservative agenda of which climate science is one, probably fairly small, part.

Global warming fell apart as an issue not because of some conspiracy but because it was obviously an intellectually bankrupt enterprise that was torn apart by its own contradictions and falsehoods and by the excesses, distortions, and exaggerations of its advocates. No one is going to commit serious money to it now. It's dead as a driver of major policy change.

It's not an issue that will go away. Because eventually science wins.
 
It's not an issue that will go away. Because eventually science wins.

Yes, and that's exactly what we are seeing here. Science finally won out.
 
Yes, and that's exactly what we are seeing here. Science finally won out.

Then where is the proof of it all? What definitively demonstrates humans do not substantially influence climate? Why does research continue?
 
Then where is the proof of it all? What definitively demonstrates humans do not substantially influence climate? Why does research continue?

The relevant questions are 1) do we know how to predict the climate for years into the future? 2) Do we know how man's activities will affect the future climate?

The answers are no and no. Efforts to predict future climate have failed. Earlier predictions by the IPCC were wrong in almost every respect. Not just in global temperatures but in the frequency and severity of major storms and other extreme weather events and especially regional changes in the weather. The reasons for the failure are not known, meaning that the effect of perturbations in the climate can't be predicted. Therefore it's not possible at this time to come up with a policy to address problems with the climate in the future.

We are better off adjusting to any changes in the climate if they happen at all, rather than coming up with a policy to address predictions that will likely be wrong.

In the meantime, research goes on in the hopes of being able to do better with forecasting, among other things.
 
The relevant questions are 1) do we know how to predict the climate for years into the future? 2) Do we know how man's activities will affect the future climate?

The answers are no and no. Efforts to predict future climate have failed. Earlier predictions by the IPCC were wrong in almost every respect. Not just in global temperatures but in the frequency and severity of major storms and other extreme weather events and especially regional changes in the weather. The reasons for the failure are not known, meaning that the effect of perturbations in the climate can't be predicted. Therefore it's not possible at this time to come up with a policy to address problems with the climate in the future.

We are better off adjusting to any changes in the climate if they happen at all, rather than coming up with a policy to address predictions that will likely be wrong.

In the meantime, research goes on in the hopes of being able to do better with forecasting, among other things.

Ok, so your argument isn't "they are wrong," it's "we don't know."
 
Ok, so your argument isn't "they are wrong," it's "we don't know."

That's correct. But the advocates are wrong to claim that they know. Serious scientists will admit that there's a lot they don't know.
 
That's correct. But the advocates are wrong to claim that they know. Serious scientists will admit that there's a lot they don't know.

And they do. Uncertainties are discussed constantly. Which is why you should read the actual scientific literature instead of what bloggers and tabloids tell you about the scientific literature. And you definitely shouldn't listen to politicians and spokesmen.
 
It is so pathetic that conservative agenda has been an business model instead of actual science, isn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom