Annual seasonal snow ice is totally unrelated to the original perma ice, which is currently dissappearing off the arctic, Greenland and Antarctica.
What is really (actually) happening is continually twisted by the scepticle oil coal brigade.
Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years
Funds allocated to organisations lobbying against Obama’s climate bill and working to undermine rules to reduce carbon pollution, tax records show
Suzanne Goldenberg and Helena Bengtsson
Tuesday 9 June 2015 21.26 AEST
Last modified on Tuesday 9 June 2015 22.21 AEST
The secretive funders behind America’s conservative movement directed around $125m (£82m) over three years to groups spreading disinformation about climate science and committed to wrecking Barack Obama’s climate change plan, according to an analysis of tax records.
The amount is close to half of the anonymous funding disbursed to rightwing groups, underlining the importance of the climate issue to US conservatives.
The anonymous cash flow came from two secretive organisations – the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund – that have been called the “Dark Money ATM” of the conservative movement.
The funds, which when channelled through the two organisations cannot be traced to individual donors, helped build a network of thinktanks and activist groups. These worked to defeat climate bills in Congress and are mobilising against Environmental Protection Agency rules to reduce carbon pollution from power plants which are due to be finalised this summer. In many cases, the anonymous cash makes up the vast majority of funding received by beneficiaries – more than comes openly from the fossil fuel industry.
Paying for the Climate denial (mis)information.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years
Heard they're also channeling money into schools in the US - to provide "fair" and balance teaching about global warming. Kinda like Creationism can be scientific.
The good old Guardian commo paper, one sided as always.
Read the comments.
Paul Moulton
1h ago
3 4
A few obvious points:
1) one sides information is the others disinformation
2) activists whining about activism is hypocritical
3) skeptic funding is peanuts to warmist funding
Reply
Report
palindrom Paul Moulton
1h ago
6 7
1) False symmetry.
2) Huh?
3) Bull****. Real research costs real money. Wingnut welfare is derp-cheap.
Reply
Report
John Samuel Paul Moulton
1h ago
5 6
Science funding is science funding.
Denialist PR funding is many times larger than realists PR funding.
FIFY.
Reply
Report
james rust
2h ago
3 4
The money funneled to groups promoting abandoning fossil fuel use is in the tens of billions per year--some funded by Putin. Why not do an article looking at these expenditures.
James H. Rust , Professor
Reply
Report
palindrom james rust
1h ago
4 5
Why would Putin fund groups devoted to abandoning fossil fuel use, when Russia depends on fossil fuel exports for a very large portion of its revenue?
Reply
Report
Paul Moulton palindrom
1h ago
1 2
Because fracking competes with Russian gas perhaps.
Reply
Report
leftAlready
2h ago
1 2
And by contrast, in 2011, the US spent $4 billion on climate research. For those of you not very good at maths, that's 96 times the spend on 'contra' research.
CERN, the European theoretical physics research centre, spends 50% of it's budget on 'contra' research. Why? Because when it publishes papers, it wants to ensure that the findings are sound.
As it is clear to see from the catalogue of errors coming out of the IPCC and others (temperature hiatus, lack of deep ocean warming, increase in antarctic ice), they are not being held accountable for their poor performance . The IPCC 'scientists' have been clamouring over the last few years to refute or 'explain' these deviations from their models and yet still expect the population to believe the future predictions of the same models!
It should be fairly clear to all that the 'contra' scientists should have their funding increased to help promote 'good' science. Currently, climate 'sceptics' are like Galileo and the Renaissance church and the science being produced by the IPCC virtually unchallenged by the 97% of scientists that want part of that $4 billion pot of gold.
It is also clear, from recent apathy and voting trends, that the voting public are not convinced either. If something is really to be done about climate change, get the science right and, for the love of good science, bring back a balance; 97% of scientists believing in a climate model smacks, to me at least, of the voting patterns in a banana republic.
They all keep coming up with the same answer basilio?
And you accuse others of being wilfully misinformed?
Mon Dieu!!!
The "hockey stick" graph was prominently featured in a report the IPCC issued in 2001. The image immediately became a powerful tool for people who were trying to raise public awareness of global warming ”” to the regret of some seasoned climate experts who recognized that, like all science at the point of publication, the graph was preliminary and uncertain.
Any lingering doubts were quashed in 2012-2013 with the publication of two definitive studies. One study, signed by 78 authors in a massive collaboration, used tree rings and other proxies in seven continental areas to check the findings of Mann's team. They found that the world at the opening of the 21st century was unquestionably warmer than at any time in the past two millennia. The other study used a variety of climate proxies from sea-floor sediments, plus some terrestrial ones, to get highly accurate data far into the past. Their graph showed a rise at the end of the last glacial period, fairly steady temperatures to around 4000BCE, and then a gradual decline ”” until the abrupt rise in the 20th century, shooting back to the level of the warm period around 9000-4000 BCE and on track to climb beyond.(48b)
J'accuse basilio my shrill friend.
There are points of broad agreement and points of disagreement amongst scientists. Surely you cannot deny that...... unless you only inhabit SkS, Romm et al sites?
That was a very interesting site TS. Did you notice the paragraph a bit further on discussing the Mann Hockey stick graph ?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
J'accuse basilio my shrill friend.
No need to be nasty ole pal, but typical of the deniest camp who are concerned about what may be the emerging reality
The principle of Net Neutrality calls for equal treatment to be accorded to all Internet traffic, without discrimination or priority for any person, entity or company.
“There has to be democratic debate. It’s a debate that is waiting to happen. Shrill voices do not win debate. Cool-headed reasoned arguments on both sides are need of the hour,” Mr. Khullar said.
There is no broad agreement on those points basilio. Not in the scientific community.
Politics yes (it is useful for a particular agenda), source of funding yes, acceptance in the hierarchy of academia yes, actual science not so much.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?