"climate change hoax" follow the money
- Thread starter way 2 go
- Start date
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.
The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.
"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.
https://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm
WASHINGTON — A climate-change skeptic at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has relied on grants from fossil-fuel energy interests apparently failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest in a newly released paper, according to a complaint by a climate watchdog group.
The paper by Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon and three other climate-change skeptics contends that the UN panel that tracks global warming uses a flawed methodology to estimate global temperature change. Soon and his co-authors claim to have a simpler, more accurate model that shows the threat of global warming to be exaggerated. The Chinese journal that published the paper, Science Bulletin, imposes a strict conflict of interest policy on authors, obligating contributors to disclose any received funding, financial interests, honors, or speaking engagements that might affect their work.
In a note at the end of the paper, all four authors claimed no conflicts of interest on the published study. But Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, an organization based in Virginia, said Soon’s long track record of accepting energy-industry related grants indicates otherwise and might constitute a violation of Science Bulletin’s disclosure policy.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/112780330
"Follow the money?" You betcha. :chuckle:
The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.
"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.
https://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm
WASHINGTON — A climate-change skeptic at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has relied on grants from fossil-fuel energy interests apparently failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest in a newly released paper, according to a complaint by a climate watchdog group.
The paper by Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon and three other climate-change skeptics contends that the UN panel that tracks global warming uses a flawed methodology to estimate global temperature change. Soon and his co-authors claim to have a simpler, more accurate model that shows the threat of global warming to be exaggerated. The Chinese journal that published the paper, Science Bulletin, imposes a strict conflict of interest policy on authors, obligating contributors to disclose any received funding, financial interests, honors, or speaking engagements that might affect their work.
In a note at the end of the paper, all four authors claimed no conflicts of interest on the published study. But Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, an organization based in Virginia, said Soon’s long track record of accepting energy-industry related grants indicates otherwise and might constitute a violation of Science Bulletin’s disclosure policy.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/112780330
"Follow the money?" You betcha. :chuckle:
way 2 go
Well-known member
they're like a cult and they get all upset if you disparage their false belief
Except that credible climate scientists aren't saying that the world is going to end because of global warming:
| Of course the world isn't ending | |
Last edited:
way 2 go
Well-known member
Alate_One
Well-known member
Are ANY of the companies that could possibly benefit from Climate change being real top ten or even top 100 corporations?
"Follow the money" goes directly to oil and gas. They stand to lose far more money than any of these supposed beneficiaries stand to gain.
So of course, they hid their own data.
"Follow the money" goes directly to oil and gas. They stand to lose far more money than any of these supposed beneficiaries stand to gain.
So of course, they hid their own data.
Kind of a shock to find all that money being used in a attempt to buy off scientists if they'll just deny climate change.
If truth is on their side, why do deniers think they have to bribe scientists to write reports?
If truth is on their side, why do deniers think they have to bribe scientists to write reports?
way 2 go
Well-known member
not thousands , but trillions of dollars
15. Paying $100B to the influencers is pocket change, as the Carbon credit commodities market will generate trillions in the end. A great investment.
Yes, ExxonMobile alone, will profit many billions if it can get the right environmental controls. Carbon credits are a scheme that would be profitable for them as well.
As ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said in a speech before the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington in January 2009:
A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions — from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.
Since then, he has repeated that message in many other high-level forums, including our annual shareholders meeting and in television interviews, like in this 2013 interview with Charlie Rose. Moreover, he has mentioned the topic in his private meetings with high-ranking political leaders of both parties.
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/perspectives/exxonmobil-and-the-carbon-tax/
You didn't know that, did you? You're being played. The only way to avoid being a sucker is to get out there, find the facts, and learn to think for yourself.
Good luck.
Whenever you wonder if Trump can really be THAT stupid, just remember one word
August 09, 2018
At some point, you may have experienced a moment of doubt. A moment that goes something like “This Trump guy, sure he looks, and acts, and sounds like a racist buffoon who thinks a Windsor knot is man’s highest achievement, but … what if that’s all a trick?” It’s not a trick. And here’s a handy place where you can go when that moment of What if Him Has Brain occurs: Asbestos.
Donald Trump is an asbestos denier.
That’s not to say that Trump doesn’t believe that asbestos exists. He does. It’s that he doesn’t believe it causes cancer. The World Health Organization may believe that asbestos is still knocking off over 100,000 people a year, and the CDC may believe that includes about 15,000 Americans each year from a combination of mesothelioma and asbestos-induced lung cancer, and the definitive proof of asbestos’ connection to these diseases may have been established in 1964 …
But Trump claims asbestos is “100 percent safe.” And he’s so fond of it that he tweeted “If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn’t work, the World Trade Center would never have burned down.” And Trump has a theory about why asbestos got “a bad rap.”
Trump: I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented.
So, if it seems strange to you that the EPA just made it easier to use asbestos after decades of restrictions, despite it being completely banned by 60 countries. Or it seems unusual that a Russian company has actually put Donald Trump’s face on its asbestos-based products. Yes, really. It’s because Donald Trump believes asbestos is an absolutely safe product that could have saved the World Trade Center and which was removed from buildings because of a mob scheme. Compared to Trump, believers in a Flat Earth are a bastion of insight and careful reasoning.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-really-be-THAT-stupid-just-remember-one-word
********************************************
Only "The Donald" would insist that asbestos is safe and that health measures for its removal are all part of a conspiracy perpetuated by organized crime!
Trump has since graduated to become America's resident authority on climate change - the nation's "Denier and Chief!
The real tragedy is that instead of dismissing Trump as an eccentric billionaire who is totally out of touch with reality, he has created his own cult of unquestioning disciples!
Last edited:
Didn't know that. I thought the dumbest thing he believed was that wind generators cause cancer.
Rex Tillerson was right.
The total ignorance of economics displayed by the leftists on this thread is phenomenal. I don't know how anyone can be that retarded on economic issues. They think raising costs for manufacturers is great thinking and going to help the average Joe. Yeah, what great reasoning. You know who pays those costs? We the people because the higher the costs of manufacturing the more the manufacturer has to charge we little people for their product. So, who is really getting taxed and funding the carbon tax fraudsters? We the people. You know the little guys. The poor and the constantly shrinking middle class. Al Gore wants a few more mansions and jet planes so he and his buddies are going to indirectly extort the money from the average Joe.
This is always what happens in socialism.
This is always what happens in socialism.
way 2 go
Well-known member
are you triggered by the name Trump , sorry
this thread is about the climate change hoax and who is profiting from it
did you watch the video or read the summary or did you stop at the name Trump, (sorry I mentioned his name again).
2. (Post-Carbon tax) Products are still made. Now taxes charged.
3. Carbon taxes are paid to UN IPCC, others
4. UN IPCC issues Carbon credits.
5. So called Carbon credits actually go into the bond market, and allow the UN (and approved others) to use it as an investment vehicle. This is a trillion dollar industry.
6. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore once monopolized the market.
7. UN IPCC used their PR branch (or propaganda arm) to pressure the US into playing ball with the Paris Accord, despite the obvious fraud.
8. US pressured to create $100B Green Fund
9. Green Fund used to bribe 190 other nations into joining Paris Accord, and thus legitimizing the UN scam. Odd wording here
10. Advisors and NGOs who used US Green Fund money to influence joining of Paris Accord ended up enriching themselves in the process
11. Scientists alter findings to make situation seem worse.
12. Developing countries allowed to make situation worse. As an example, China puts out 11B tons/year now, and will be able to emit 22B tons in 2030.
15. Paying $100B to the influencers is pocket change, as the Carbon credit commodities market will generate trillions in the end. A great investment.
"If i think it might cost me money, then it can't be true!"
Not a very good approach if you want to live in the real world. Notice that was Exxon's idea; "just hide the truth, and everything will be O.K."
And you still can't get your head around that ExxonMobile is pushing for carbon credits. You're being played.
Not a very good approach if you want to live in the real world. Notice that was Exxon's idea; "just hide the truth, and everything will be O.K."
And you still can't get your head around that ExxonMobile is pushing for carbon credits. You're being played.
Fun fact of the day: According to Nikki Haley, when Rex Tillerson and John Kelly tried to recruit her to sabotage Trump, one of the issues they were trying to stop Trump on was leaving the Paris Climate Accord. The question for you is, why would Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., support the Paris Climate Accord?
Why is Exxon lying to you?
eider
Well-known member
30 years ago researchers warned us all about the increasing holes in the ozone layers at each Pole.
Most of the World reacted.
The holes are closing.
And for ten years we've been warned about increasingly erratic and violent weather patterns.
Hello! They're coming!
And for several years researchers have warned of sea level rises, caused by retreating glaciers and ice reduction at the poles.
Hello! They're happening!
Bury yours heads in sand, you deniers!
Most of the World reacted.
The holes are closing.
And for ten years we've been warned about increasingly erratic and violent weather patterns.
Hello! They're coming!
And for several years researchers have warned of sea level rises, caused by retreating glaciers and ice reduction at the poles.
Hello! They're happening!
Bury yours heads in sand, you deniers!
Tillerson realizes that mankind's reliance on fossil fuels can't continue indefinitely, if companies like Exxon are to remain economically solvent in the future, they must reposition themselves to take advantage of new energy sources!
Tillerson understands that in the 21stC Exxon can no longer limit itself to be just an oil and gas company, it needs to embrace a range of future scientific discoveries and reinvent itself as an "energy" company!
All of that is true; ExxonMobil is angling for a future which diverges from oil/gas, but it is also true that ExxonMobil admits climate change is real: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change
way 2 go
Well-known member
15. Paying $100B to the influencers is pocket change, as the Carbon credit commodities market will generate trillions in the end. A great investment.