• 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!

Donor's Trust - Billionaire Tax-Breaks to Fight Climate Change Opinion

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,650
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
While money spent by the Koch Foundation and Exxon, to fight Climate Change science, has gone down in recent years, the money from Donor's Trust has skyrocketed. Sound suspicious - it should.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.


Donors_Trust.jpg
 
While money spent by the Koch Foundation and Exxon, to fight Climate Change science, has gone down in recent years, the money from Donor's Trust has skyrocketed. Sound suspicious - it should.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.


View attachment 67225544

What’s wrong with democracy? I know that The Guardian has an anti American and especially anti conservative bend and like to give things that kind of spin. But really, now. What’s wrong with citizens putting their money, where there mouthes are?
 
While money spent by the Koch Foundation and Exxon, to fight Climate Change science, has gone down in recent years, the money from Donor's Trust has skyrocketed. Sound suspicious - it should.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.


View attachment 67225544

So, you are complaining people coming together to form a opposition? Are you afraid of opposing viewpoints?

There are millions of people (right or wrong) that do not go along with the climate change agenda.

Myself, I want the facts from both side of the argument.
 
So, you are complaining people coming together to form a opposition? Are you afraid of opposing viewpoints?

There are millions of people (right or wrong) that do not go along with the climate change agenda.

Myself, I want the facts from both side of the argument.

If the Donors Trust were interested in facts, then it would be funding scientific research and publishing it in scientific journals. That is how facts are determined: though research and evidence, not rhetoric. But the Donors Trust is not interested in facts, preferring instead to fund think-tanks and activist groups whose mission is not the finding of facts, but propaganda aimed at sowing doubt about facts.

It is exactly the same approach as that taken by the tobacco industry as evidence accumulated that smoking damages health: the use of propaganda to suppress and discredit actual research. It is utterly reprehensible behaviour.
 
If the Donors Trust were interested in facts, then it would be funding scientific research and publishing it in scientific journals. That is how facts are determined: though research and evidence, not rhetoric. But the Donors Trust is not interested in facts, preferring instead to fund think-tanks and activist groups whose mission is not the finding of facts, but propaganda aimed at sowing doubt about facts.

It is exactly the same approach as that taken by the tobacco industry as evidence accumulated that smoking damages health: the use of propaganda to suppress and discredit actual research. It is utterly reprehensible behaviour.

:bs

Speaking of propaganda attacks . . .


[h=1]Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate[/h]Guest opinion by Ron Arnold Willie Soon, Ph.D., is an astrophysicist in the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Soon’s career has proven to be a textbook example of speaking truth to power and bravely facing the consequences. Beginning in 1994, Soon produced an important series…

May 9, 2016 in Opinion.
 
If the Donors Trust were interested in facts, then it would be funding scientific research and publishing it in scientific journals. That is how facts are determined: though research and evidence, not rhetoric. But the Donors Trust is not interested in facts, preferring instead to fund think-tanks and activist groups whose mission is not the finding of facts, but propaganda aimed at sowing doubt about facts.

It is exactly the same approach as that taken by the tobacco industry as evidence accumulated that smoking damages health: the use of propaganda to suppress and discredit actual research. It is utterly reprehensible behaviour.

Of course you don't see it ( liberals typically are very poor at introspection), but these folks know something that's glaringly obvious to people outside the bubble. Liberals control most scientific journals and their political bias gets in the way of them sticking to science.
 
If the Donors Trust were interested in facts, then it would be funding scientific research and publishing it in scientific journals. That is how facts are determined: though research and evidence, not rhetoric. But the Donors Trust is not interested in facts, preferring instead to fund think-tanks and activist groups whose mission is not the finding of facts, but propaganda aimed at sowing doubt about facts.

It is exactly the same approach as that taken by the tobacco industry as evidence accumulated that smoking damages health: the use of propaganda to suppress and discredit actual research. It is utterly reprehensible behaviour.

Very well said. I would add that the billionaires are also getting a tax cut for their money. It is actually an investment, not a charitable contribution. "Reprehensible" is a good word.
 
If the Donors Trust were interested in facts, then it would be funding scientific research and publishing it in scientific journals. That is how facts are determined: though research and evidence, not rhetoric. But the Donors Trust is not interested in facts, preferring instead to fund think-tanks and activist groups whose mission is not the finding of facts, but propaganda aimed at sowing doubt about facts.

It is exactly the same approach as that taken by the tobacco industry as evidence accumulated that smoking damages health: the use of propaganda to suppress and discredit actual research. It is utterly reprehensible behaviour.

But you can't prove it.

Any opposition to the global warming alarmists always ends in anti science attacks.
 
But you can't prove it.

Any opposition to the global warming alarmists always ends in anti science attacks.

Proof? I think the links to tobacco's death inducing properties are well established.
 
Proof? I think the links to tobacco's death inducing properties are well established.

I love how you just react to one line out the the entire context of what I was replying to........nice work!

A bit dishonest......but nice.
 

[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]Obama, Gore other climate alarmists refuse to debate, but love to vilify – and love their money Guest essay by Paul Driessen Manmade climate disaster proponents know the Saul Alinksy community agitator playbook by heart. In a fight, almost anything goes. Never admit error; just change your terminology and attack again. Expand your base, by…

January 18, 2015 in Opinion.
 

[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]Obama, Gore other climate alarmists refuse to debate, but love to vilify – and love their money Guest essay by Paul Driessen Manmade climate disaster proponents know the Saul Alinksy community agitator playbook by heart. In a fight, almost anything goes. Never admit error; just change your terminology and attack again. Expand your base, by…

January 18, 2015 in Opinion.

Thanks, Jack, for illustrating my point so nicely.

Paul Driessen, the author of the article you reference, has no history of scientific publication. He is a political polemicist, not a scientist. This means that his writings are political propaganda, not facts. From a scientific point of view, his opinions are worthless. Why do you keep posting nonsense like this?
 
Thanks, Jack, for illustrating my point so nicely.

Paul Driessen, the author of the article you reference, has no history of scientific publication. He is a political polemicist, not a scientist. This means that his writings are political propaganda, not facts. From a scientific point of view, his opinions are worthless. Why do you keep posting nonsense like this?

Of course I don't think it's nonsense.
This thread is about polemics, not science.
 
Of course I don't think it's nonsense.
This thread is about polemics, not science.

It's nonsense because facts are established through evidence and analysis, not debate. It makes no more sense for lay people to debate scientific facts than it does for them to debate, say, the value of pi. Facts are determined through scientific study; the value of pi through mathematical proof.

Reality is not a matter of debate, regardless of how much you may desire it to be. The purpose of the polemic tracts that you post here is not to inform. If it were, they would reference actual scientific studies. It is to mislead.
 
It's nonsense because facts are established through evidence and analysis, not debate. It makes no more sense for lay people to debate scientific facts than it does for them to debate, say, the value of pi. Facts are determined through scientific study; the value of pi through mathematical proof.

Reality is not a matter of debate, regardless of how much you may desire it to be. The purpose of the polemic tracts that you post here is not to inform. If it were, they would reference actual scientific studies. It is to mislead.

I doubt there's any poster here who links to more published research or commentary from scientists than I do. You're just not comfortable being challenged from the scientific high ground.
 

[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]Obama, Gore other climate alarmists refuse to debate, but love to vilify – and love their money Guest essay by Paul Driessen Manmade climate disaster proponents know the Saul Alinksy community agitator playbook by heart. In a fight, almost anything goes. Never admit error; just change your terminology and attack again. Expand your base, by…

January 18, 2015 in Opinion.

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article! I actually got irritated reading it, though, because nothing has changed...it's still the "same old, same old" way of arrogantly treating anyone who questions the high lords of climate science, even when scientifically proving that their results have been proven false ---> first the doubters are belittled by smugly stating that "the time for arguing about climate change has passed," then they're ignored! That is not science, it's nothing more than one-sided dogma! :thumbdown:

I agree with the poster that suggested that the best way to handle this nonsense would be to require everyone to testify under oath in congressional hearings, but I honestly question if even that would work because of the huge amounts of money trading hands today. . . . on a theory that won't prove who was correct for another 70 years? hmmmm...
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article! I actually got irritated reading it, though, because nothing has changed...it's still the "same old, same old" way of arrogantly treating anyone who questions the high lords of climate science, even when scientifically proving that their results have been proven false ---> first the doubters are belittled by smugly stating that "the time for arguing about climate change has passed," then they're ignored! That is not science, it's nothing more than one-sided dogma! :thumbdown:

I agree with the poster that suggested that the best way to handle this nonsense would be to require everyone to testify under oath in congressional hearings, but I honestly question if even that would work because of the huge amounts of money trading hands today. . . . on a theory that won't prove who was correct for another 70 years? hmmmm...

Greetings Polgara.:2wave:

Keep the faith.:mrgreen:
 
I doubt there's any poster here who links to more published research or commentary from scientists than I do. You're just not comfortable being challenged from the scientific high ground.
:lamo
 
It's nonsense because facts are established through evidence and analysis, not debate. It makes no more sense for lay people to debate scientific facts than it does for them to debate, say, the value of pi. Facts are determined through scientific study; the value of pi through mathematical proof.

Reality is not a matter of debate, regardless of how much you may desire it to be. The purpose of the polemic tracts that you post here is not to inform. If it were, they would reference actual scientific studies. It is to mislead.

This is especially disgusting "science."

Climate Scientists Harassing Women (asexually, of course)–Again–Matt Lauer, Meet Michael Mann

Posted on 01 Dec 17 by THOMASWFULLER2 7 Comments
Consensus climate scientists have long been personal and damning in their criticism of those who don’t agree with them. They’ve threatened physical violence (Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”). They of course use the epithet ‘denier’ … Continue reading

". . . But when Mann speaks of Judith Curry, another climate scientist who disagrees with some consensus positions, he says ‘she is a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial.’ This is somewhat odd, as Judith Curry has 224 scientific publications credited to her–Mann is calling her a denier of a science she is helping create. She is also dismissively referred to on blogs published by climate scientists as ‘Aunt Judy’ and much worse.
The same is true for scientists like Sally Baliunas, Jennifer Marohasy, even consensus female scientists like Tamsin Edwards (called a ‘careerist’ by Josh Halpern for not being critical enough of lukewarmers). While male scientists definitely get their share of criticism–even abuse–with females, the invective seems more personal.
Now it is the turn of Dr. Susan Crockford, who has been a zoologist for 35 years. Despite that, despite her PhD from the University of Victoria in Canada, despite over 30 scientific publications, she is now classed as a ‘denier.’. . . "

 
This is especially disgusting "science."

Climate Scientists Harassing Women (asexually, of course)–Again–Matt Lauer, Meet Michael Mann

Posted on 01 Dec 17 by THOMASWFULLER2 7 Comments
Consensus climate scientists have long been personal and damning in their criticism of those who don’t agree with them. They’ve threatened physical violence (Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”). They of course use the epithet ‘denier’ … Continue reading

". . . But when Mann speaks of Judith Curry, another climate scientist who disagrees with some consensus positions, he says ‘she is a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial.’ This is somewhat odd, as Judith Curry has 224 scientific publications credited to her–Mann is calling her a denier of a science she is helping create. She is also dismissively referred to on blogs published by climate scientists as ‘Aunt Judy’ and much worse.
The same is true for scientists like Sally Baliunas, Jennifer Marohasy, even consensus female scientists like Tamsin Edwards (called a ‘careerist’ by Josh Halpern for not being critical enough of lukewarmers). While male scientists definitely get their share of criticism–even abuse–with females, the invective seems more personal.
Now it is the turn of Dr. Susan Crockford, who has been a zoologist for 35 years. Despite that, despite her PhD from the University of Victoria in Canada, despite over 30 scientific publications, she is now classed as a ‘denier.’. . . "


Judith Curry has done much of her work for the Oil Industry. Her expertise is in Geophysics, an oil-industry desireable background.
 
I love how you just react to one line out the the entire context of what I was replying to........nice work!

A bit dishonest......but nice.

Not dishonest at all. If you were responding to a certain topic of a post, you should have broken it up, and stated as such.
 
While money spent by the Koch Foundation and Exxon, to fight Climate Change science, has gone down in recent years, the money from Donor's Trust has skyrocketed. Sound suspicious - it should.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.


View attachment 67225544

When was climate advocating man made climate change ever neutral scientific fact?
 
I doubt there's any poster here who links to more published research or commentary from scientists than I do. You're just not comfortable being challenged from the scientific high ground.

There's an easy way for non-scientists to tell fact from opinion. If an article is published in a scientific journal, or if it supplies references to such articles in order to support its points, then the article is factual. If it doesn't, then it is opinion.

Sadly, almost everything that you post is politically motivated opinion, Jack, not fact.
 
Judith Curry has done much of her work for the Oil Industry. Her expertise is in Geophysics, an oil-industry desireable background.

Typically uninformed.

Judith Curry's Curriculum Vitae - Georgia Tech

curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html
2002-, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology. 1992-2002, Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Environmental Studies Program. 1989-1992, Associate Professor, Department of ...



About | Climate Etc.
https://judithcurry.com/about/

Here is a [link] to my c.v.. You can contact me via email at: curry.judith (at) yahoo.com. Congressional testimony. My views on climate change are best summarized by my recent Congressional Testimony: Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method · Data or Dogma · President's UN Climate ...

[h=3]Judith Curry's Home Page[/h]curry.eas.gatech.edu/



Judith A. Curry Curriculum Vitae. Judith A. Curry School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences · Georgia Institute of Technology · curryja@eas.gatech.edu · Teaching webpage · Publications · Climate Forecast Applications Network · Hurricane Research · Climate Change · Climate Etc.




[h=3]Judith Curry - Wikipedia[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry



Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for ...Education‎: ‎B.S. (1974) in geography, Ph.D. in ...
Nationality‎: ‎American













 
This is especially disgusting "science."

Climate Scientists Harassing Women (asexually, of course)–Again–Matt Lauer, Meet Michael Mann

Posted on 01 Dec 17 by THOMASWFULLER2 7 Comments
Consensus climate scientists have long been personal and damning in their criticism of those who don’t agree with them. They’ve threatened physical violence (Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”). They of course use the epithet ‘denier’ … Continue reading

". . . But when Mann speaks of Judith Curry, another climate scientist who disagrees with some consensus positions, he says ‘she is a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial.’ This is somewhat odd, as Judith Curry has 224 scientific publications credited to her–Mann is calling her a denier of a science she is helping create. She is also dismissively referred to on blogs published by climate scientists as ‘Aunt Judy’ and much worse.
The same is true for scientists like Sally Baliunas, Jennifer Marohasy, even consensus female scientists like Tamsin Edwards (called a ‘careerist’ by Josh Halpern for not being critical enough of lukewarmers). While male scientists definitely get their share of criticism–even abuse–with females, the invective seems more personal.
Now it is the turn of Dr. Susan Crockford, who has been a zoologist for 35 years. Despite that, despite her PhD from the University of Victoria in Canada, despite over 30 scientific publications, she is now classed as a ‘denier.’. . . "


Michael Mann has already had death threats and attempts to associate him with paedophilia from you lot. Now you're attempting to paint him as a misogynist.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom