Russian climate activist inspired by Thunberg is jailed

Bergslagstroll said:

Why do you belive those sources are credible?

Also not even your own sources back your claim: "As opposed to the trillions (yes, literal trillions) in grant monies governments have paid out in the past decade for pro-consensus research?" do you not understand?"

Because according to your first source the American government have spend 79 billions dollars since 1989 and research is only part of that cost. That according to your source that money have been spend also on a lot of other areas. Also Republicans have for almost all that time controlled the White House and/or one or both houses of Congress. So they could have easily blocked any research that wasn't credible. Those 79 billions over three decades can be compared to the billions of dollar a year Trump wants to spend on propping up unprofitable coal plants.

Daily chart - Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants | Graphic detail | The Economist

While the other source with 1.5 billions dollars seem to be for a lot of different sectors like for example renewables, cars to that your source call "green building". There those 1.5 billion is roughly the same amount of money as the revenue of the world's four biggest oil companies.

List of largest companies by revenue - Wikipedia

Also investment in renewables have really payed of, because renewable are now outcompeting fossil fuels on prices.

Declining renewable costs drive focus on energy storage | REVE News of the wind sector in Spain and in the world

Renewable corporate power deals soar tenfold in Europe: study | Recharge

There the evidence is so overwhelming that even Trump have to acknowledge climate change. While at the same time Trump wants to force federal agencies to ignore environmental threats.

Trump now says climate change is 'serious' and not 'a hoax'

Click to expand...

It's $1.5 trillion, not $1.5 billion.

If "renewable are now outcompeting fossil fuels on prices", there's no need for climate-related legislation. As long as you're fine with that, we agree.

Finally, research grants from Big Oil amount to a tiny fraction of their revenues. Millions per year. Certainly not billions, and even more certainly not $1.5 trillion.

COTO said:

It's $1.5 trillion, not $1.5 billion.

If "renewable are now outcompeting fossil fuels on prices", there's no need for climate-related legislation. As long as you're fine with that, we agree.

Finally, research grants from Big Oil amount to a tiny fraction of their revenues. Millions per year. Certainly not billions, and even more certainly not $1.5 trillion.

Click to expand...

Do you realize that the $1.5 trillion includes the sale of power from low carbon and renewable sources? So if you are going to be fair your comparison would need to include the sale of oil and natural gas. And that is in the 10s of trillions.

Buzz said:

Do you realize that the $1.5 trillion includes the sale of power from low carbon and renewable sources? So if you are going to be fair your comparison would need to include the sale of oil and natural gas. And that is in the 10s of trillions.

Click to expand...

My general point is that there are multiple trillions of dollars of money to be made by exploiting climate change as a driver for research, industry, and politics, and @Bergslagstroll's 'Big Oil has put millions into anti-AGW research, hence climatology research must be somewhat fair and balanced' argument is DOA.

If we take the $79 billion in research funds from governments alone for climate change from 1989-2013, convert it into 2019 US dollars ($140 billion, by my calculation), then conservatively add to it the same amortized yearly amount for 2014-2019, we bring the total up to $174 billion. By contrast, compile the $1M, $2M, $5M, and occasionally larger research grants handed out by Big Oil for climatology research over the same period and I'll eat my hat if the total exceeds $5 billion.

And of course, as you know, governments are by no means the only funders of pro-AGW research. Dozens of so-called "banks" (e.g. JP Morgan et al.) and multinationals want their share of the multi-multi-trillion-dollar climate pie and have "invested" incalculable amounts into enterprises favourable to that goal, including research. Because so much of it is done privately and the media is worse than useless when it comes to following pro-AGW money (too busy obsessing over the anti-AGW pennies), I don't believe we'll ever know how big the total figure really is.

Hence claim that there's more pro-AGW research than anti-AGW research. It's true. Claim that pro-AGW research is generally (not always, but generally) of higher quality than anti-AGW research. It's true. But don't insult our intelligence by claiming that the two disciplines have been comparably funded or anything remotely close to it. The difference is a factor of dozens, if not hundreds, and the research that lives is the research that can keep a hundred times the money rolling in. The money doesn't give a crap who's in power in the White House.

COTO said:

My general point is that there are multiple trillions of dollars of money to be made by exploiting climate change as a driver for research, industry, and politics, and @Bergslagstroll's 'Big Oil has put millions into anti-AGW research, hence climatology research must be somewhat fair and balanced' argument is DOA.

Click to expand...

Just admit it... Jo-Ann Nova mislead you and you were a sucker for her BS. There is clearly a lot more money to be made keeping the oil and gas industry right where it is.

COTO said:

If we take the $79 billion in research funds from governments alone for climate change from 1989-2013, convert it into 2019 US dollars ($140 billion, by my calculation), then conservatively add to it the same amortized yearly amount for 2014-2019, we bring the total up to $174 billion. By contrast, compile the $1M, $2M, $5M, and occasionally larger research grants handed out by Big Oil for climatology research over the same period and I'll eat my hat if the total exceeds $5 billion.

Click to expand...

And this is just a completely unfair comparison. A large portion of that money spent on climate change is for things like data collection. For instance... if NASA puts a satellite into orbit to study AGW it can cost a lot of money. Big oil isn't putting satellites into space. Maybe if they do it is to search for oil and gas but not to study climate change. And when big oil does fund denialist research it is usually much cheaper because they just use the data that NASA(or other organizations) collected. Or they just take a study and nit-pick it to death.

Like Anthony Watts who started the web site WUWT. He received a relatively small amount of money to start that site and his SurfaceStations project and now he makes a living off of advertisements and is the biggest pusher of climate misinformation on the planet. That was a "gift" that just keeps on giving... to the oil and gas industry.

COTO said:

And of course, as you know, governments are by no means the only funders of pro-AGW research. Dozens of so-called "banks" (e.g. JP Morgan et al.) and multinationals want their share of the multi-multi-trillion-dollar climate pie and have "invested" incalculable amounts into enterprises favourable to that goal, including research. Because so much of it is done privately and the media is worse than useless when it comes to following pro-AGW money (too busy obsessing over the anti-AGW pennies), I don't believe we'll ever know how big the total figure really is.

Click to expand...

So... I take it you have nothing to back this up, do you?

COTO said:

Hence claim that there's more pro-AGW research than anti-AGW research. It's true. Claim that pro-AGW research is generally (not always, but generally) of higher quality than anti-AGW research. It's true. But don't insult our intelligence by claiming that the two disciplines have been comparably funded or anything remotely close to it. The difference is a factor of dozens, if not hundreds, and the research that lives is the research that can keep a hundred times the money rolling in. The money doesn't give a crap who's in power in the White House.

Click to expand...

Oh come on... the amounts of money spent on climate change research and mitigation are small compared to the gas and oil industry as a whole. If you ask me this kind of whining from denialists is just a bunch of misleading BS.

COTO said:

It's $1.5 trillion, not $1.5 billion.

If "renewable are now outcompeting fossil fuels on prices", there's no need for climate-related legislation. As long as you're fine with that, we agree.

Finally, research grants from Big Oil amount to a tiny fraction of their revenues. Millions per year. Certainly not billions, and even more certainly not $1.5 trillion.

Click to expand...

You right I meant 1.5 trillion. That according to your source it's not the cost of research grants but the total amount spend on a lot of different sectors like renewables and "green buildings" globally this is roughly the same amount as the combined revenue from the world's four biggest oil companies.

Also the fossil fuel companies have spend billions of dollars on delaying the transition away from fossil fuels.

"Over roughly the last three decades, five major US oil companies have spent a total of at least $3.6bn on advertisements – not counting their investments in public relations programs like sponsored beach clean-ups, or their influence through trade associations, dark money groups and campaign donations."

How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation | Business | The Guardian

Buzz said:

Just admit it... Jo-Ann Nova mislead you and you were a sucker for her BS. There is clearly a lot more money to be made keeping the oil and gas industry right where it is.



And this is just a completely unfair comparison. A large portion of that money spent on climate change is for things like data collection. For instance... if NASA puts a satellite into orbit to study AGW it can cost a lot of money. Big oil isn't putting satellites into space. Maybe if they do it is to search for oil and gas but not to study climate change. And when big oil does fund denialist research it is usually much cheaper because they just use the data that NASA(or other organizations) collected. Or they just take a study and nit-pick it to death.

Like Anthony Watts who started the web site WUWT. He received a relatively small amount of money to start that site and his SurfaceStations project and now he makes a living off of advertisements and is the biggest pusher of climate misinformation on the planet. That was a "gift" that just keeps on giving... to the oil and gas industry.



So... I take it you have nothing to back this up, do you?



Oh come on... the amounts of money spent on climate change research and mitigation are small compared to the gas and oil industry as a whole. If you ask me this kind of whining from denialists is just a bunch of misleading BS.

Click to expand...

Also that fossil fuel companies have long time knowned about manmade global warming and their own research showed the devastating effects.

Report details how ExxonMobil sowed doubt on climate change - Los Angeles Times

Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings | Benjamin Franta | Environment | The Guardian

That fossil fuel companies have operation all across the world, so of course they need and have a good understanding of climate change and how it impact their business. Like for example that oil companies want the government to spend billions of dollars on protecting their refineries from climate change just in Texas.

Big oil asks government to protect its Texas facilities from climate change - CBS News

Buzz said:

And this is just a completely unfair comparison. A large portion of that money spent on climate change is for things like data collection. For instance... if NASA puts a satellite into orbit to study AGW it can cost a lot of money. Big oil isn't putting satellites into space. Maybe if they do it is to search for oil and gas but not to study climate change. And when big oil does fund denialist research it is usually much cheaper because they just use the data that NASA(or other organizations) collected. Or they just take a study and nit-pick it to death.

Click to expand...

Your point about research costs is valid, but it hardly makes the comparison unfair. Firstly, because there are orders of magnitude difference in the funding, and secondly, because the millions paid to put up those satellites is still profiting a host of people in a lot of enterprises--both public and private--whose worth (and quite possibly, existence) are tied to the AGW consensus.

Buzz said:

So... I take it you have nothing to back this up, do you?

Click to expand...

What do you want "backed up"? An outline of how to profit off of climate change?

Who/what we're talking about: Economists' Statement | Climate Leadership Council
A summary of how they profit: Carbon trading: A young and exciting market
Where the money goes: Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype
And here: How Goldman Sachs invented cap and trade | Quid Sapio
And, of course, here: 750 Billion Reasons Why Goldman Is Rooting For Greta Thunberg's Success | Zero Hedge
Who pays: https://corporateeurope.org/en/environment/2015/10/eu-emissions-trading-5-reasons-scrap-ets

4% commissions on hundreds of billions is nice, but 4% commissions on tens of trillions they envision passing through these exchanges (and may well get, if the nations are gullible enough): now they're cooking with gas.

Buzz said:

Oh come on... the amounts of money spent on climate change research and mitigation are small compared to the gas and oil industry as a whole.

Click to expand...

OK. And the amounts spent by the Money Boys on climate lobbying, climate think tanks, and goal-seeking climate research are small compared to the US finance industry as a whole. What does either fact have to do with stark disparities in research funding?

Bergslagstroll said:

Also that fossil fuel companies have long time knowned about manmade global warming and their own research showed the devastating effects.

Report details how ExxonMobil sowed doubt on climate change - Los Angeles Times

Click to expand...

Here's the "report": https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/America_Misled.pdf

So:

1. It doesn't list a single figure or in any way attempt to quantify the campaign it's alleging.

2. It's replete with glaringly subjective and prejudiced statements about Exxon's motives.

3. It reads like a pamphlet put out by a first-year undergraduate student in COMM101. It's unprofessional, commercial, disorganized, devoid of all relevant quantifiers, and painfully one-sided. It's an embarrassment to the authors and their respective institutions.

Has Exxon funded climate research favourable to its business interests in the past 60 years? I'm pretty sure it has. Stop the presses.

ibid:

A 2004 NYT ad that questioned the scientific consensus!? The horrors! :shock:`

I'll bet that cost them at least $60K. ...To brainwash the public into questioning the scientific consensus, or give weight to skeptical research.

Is this a joke? You're trying to parody your own argument?

COTO said:

Here's the "report": https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/America_Misled.pdf

So:

1. It doesn't list a single figure or in any way attempt to quantify the campaign it's alleging.

2. It's replete with glaringly subjective and prejudiced statements about Exxon's motives.

3. It reads like a pamphlet put out by a first-year undergraduate student in COMM101. It's unprofessional, commercial, disorganized, devoid of all relevant quantifiers, and painfully one-sided. It's an embarrassment to the authors and their respective institutions.

Has Exxon funded climate research favourable to its business interests in the past 60 years? I'm pretty sure it has. Stop the presses.

ibid:

And they point to specific examples employed by ExxonMobil, including a 2004 New York Times advertisement that read like an editorial. It employed traditional disinformation techniques such as questioning scientific consensus and advocating for a “balanced” scientific approach to climate change, giving weight to those skeptical of the prevailing research.​

A 2004 NYT ad that questioned the scientific consensus!? The horrors! :shock:`

I'll bet that cost them at least $60K. ...To brainwash the public into questioning the scientific consensus, or give weight to skeptical research.

Is this a joke? You're trying to parody your own argument?

Click to expand...

This is just one of many examples of the enormous amount of money fossil fuel companies have spend on trying to delay necessary action on climate change.

How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation | Business | The Guardian

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

There that money have really payed off. Take for example that you still have western politicians that wants to spend billions of dollar on propping up the coal industry.

Adani mine would be 'unviable' without $4.4bn in subsidies, report finds | Environment | The Guardian

Daily chart - Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants | Graphic detail | The Economist

More than 300 people was murdered last year for standing up to human rights and protecting the environment.

"More than 300 human rights defenders working to protect the environment, free speech, LGBTQ+ rights and indigenous lands in 31 countries were killed in 2019, a new report reveals.
Two-thirds of the total killings took place in Latin America where impunity from prosecution is the norm.

Colombia, where targeted violence against community leaders opposing environmentally destructive mega-projects has spiraled since the 2016 peace accords, was the bloodiest nation with 106 murders in 2019. The Philippines was the second deadliest country with 43 killings, followed by Honduras, Brazil and Mexico."

More than 300 human rights activists were killed in 2019, report reveals | Law | The Guardian

Bergslagstroll said:

More than 300 people was murdered last year for standing up to human rights and protecting the environment.

Click to expand...

And more than 100,000 people were murdered last year for simply being Christian. To wit:


What's your point?

Bergslagstroll said:

This is just one of many examples of the enormous amount of money fossil fuel companies have spend on trying to delay necessary action on climate change.

How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation | Business | The Guardian

Click to expand...

Wow. $3.6 billion in ads over 30 years. That's definitely not a tiny fraction of the $172 billion and $1.5 trillion pro-AGW funding numbers I've already cited twice.

Kindly stop spamming us with articles repeating points you've already made 3+ times and acknowledge/address the analysis being presented to you.

COTO said:

Wow. $3.6 billion in ads over 30 years. That's definitely not a tiny fraction of the $172 billion and $1.5 trillion pro-AGW funding numbers I've already cited twice. View attachment 67272002

Kindly stop spamming us with articles repeating points you've already made 3+ times and acknowledge/address the analysis being presented to you.

Click to expand...

72 billion was how much the American government have invested in science and technology research, administration, foreign aid, tax break and what you bias source call propaganda campaigns over the last 30 years. There that government funding have been under oversight by Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Trump and Republicans in congress. That NASA fore example only spend 100 million a year on carbon monitoring according to Trump's pick for head of NASA.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero. | Space

While the 3.6 billion dollars was only the advertisement budget for the five major American oil company. That you have a lot of other fossil fuel companies both in the US and in other countries. There those companies also spend a lot of money on public relations programs and influence through trade associations, dark money groups and campaign donations. There the influence is so great that you even have a coal lobbyist as head of EPA.

Senate confirms ex-coal lobbyist to lead U.S. environment regulator - Reuters

Also global subsidies to fossil fuel are hundreds of billions each year, much bigger than subsidies to renewables.

Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies are down, but not out – Analysis - IEA

Also the 1.5 trillion according to your other sources was the revenue from what you sources called the green sector. That this include anything from renewables to housing. While those 1.5 trillion is roughly the same amount as the revenue of the world's four biggest fossil fuel companies.

List of largest companies by revenue - Wikipedia

Bergslagstroll said:

72 billion was how much the American government have invested in science and technology research, administration, foreign aid, tax break and what you bias source call propaganda campaigns over the last 30 years. There that government funding have been under oversight by Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Trump and Republicans in congress.

Click to expand...

The figure in 2019 dollars is $172 billion, and all $172 billion went to support pro-AGW campaigns/industries in one form or another. Even if the research funding was only 20% of this, it still dwarfs your $3.6 billion figure tenfold.

Bergslagstroll said:

While the 3.6 billion dollars was only the advertisement budget for the five major American oil company. That you have a lot of other fossil fuel companies both in the US and in other countries. There those companies also spend a lot of money on public relations programs and influence through trade associations, dark money groups and campaign donations.

Click to expand...

The $172 billion figure doesn't include any money spent on pro-AGW research by industry, trade associations, dark money groups, etc.

Bergslagstroll said:

Also global subsidies to fossil fuel are hundreds of billions each year, much bigger than subsidies to renewables.

Click to expand...

Your own reference makes it clear that the $260 billion in FF subsidies and $140 billion renewable subsidies went to lowering consumer electricity/power prices, not research or promotion. It also makes it clear that the lion's share of the FF subsidies were in Middle Eastern countries trying to make power and fuel oil affordable for their citizens.

Bergslagstroll said:

Also the 1.5 trillion according to your other sources was the revenue from what you sources called the green sector. That this include anything from renewables to housing. While those 1.5 trillion is roughly the same amount as the revenue of the world's four biggest fossil fuel companies.

Click to expand...

All I care about is the fraction of the $1.5 trillion that ultimately goes towards carbon credits, carbon dividends, greenwashed cash grabs, lobbying for quality-of-life-reducing bans/taxes/policies, risky geoengineering initiatives, and any research that explicitly supports these things.

The only thing you should care about is the fraction of the Big Oil revenues that go to suppressing green technologies that genuinely have greater utility (i.e. are cheaper and more reliable) than O/G. This budget is included in the $3.6 billion figure insofar as far as I can see.