Who is paying off the scientists
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
Okay, if we accept Oddy's proposal that every single scientist has no integrity and accepts bribes to change their data and every single grad student, assistant, secretary, et al, is in on the plot, I still want to know WHO is paying off the scientists. And how?

Do the Illuminati or the John Birch Society or whatever indescribably wealthy group that for some reason wants to lie about the climate (and there is a whole other topic. Why?) keep track of every single student who majors in meteorology in every college and university around the world? Who is in charge of checking up on students and who makes sure that those students are bribed? Who figures out how much to bribe? What happens if a kid changes majors? Do they have to pay the bribe back? How do they keep the kids from telling anyone. "Hey, mom and dad, guess what, I won't have any student loans when I graduate because the Illuminati are paying the bills to guarantee that I lie about my data?"

That's the problem with these vast cloudy conspiracy theories. They require so many unbelievable details. That a group of rich folks got together and said let's bribe scientists to lie about the climate. Why would they do that in the first place? Where do they meet? Who is charge? How are they organized? How do they carry out their nefarious plans so no one notices?

Does a chemistry major notice that all the meteorology majors are driving hot cars and say, I better switch majors and get me some of that action?

And how do they actually CHANGE the climate. I mean, the planet is warming. Even I noticed it. I just read the Stardust and can see the obvious change over the last century. Are these the same folks who went back in time to change Obama's birth notice in the newspaper?

How do they guarantee that every single meteorologist ON THE PLANET is greedy bastard like themselves? I mean, most scientists don't get into science for the profit but for the knowledge. Do they reach into high schools and even grade school and discourage genuinely curious kids from being interested in the weather and make sure only greedy bastards major in meteorology?

Come on, Oddy, old man. Be realistic. NO ONE is bribing thousands upon thousands of scientists SECRETLY so fix the data. Can't be done. Too many people. Too many variables. Too much chaos.

Kind of like weather. . .

Top
+5
-6
Posted by Cottonwood Kid (-33) 5 years ago
In product based research, say herbicide weed efficacy, it is common for a university to find the a product "superior" when the company made a bigger donation to the university research department. Have first hand experience as an undergrad assisting a grad student. DuPont doesn't like second place. Statistics lie and liars use statistics. It happens more than you'd suspect.
Top
+4
-3
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
This is not product based research. This is pure science. And it is happening, according to Oddy, all over the world. Every single meteorologist is being bribed. Oh, except for the 3% that support his theories.

Do researchers get bribed? Yes. Do they sometimes get caught? Yes. Are they being bribed to lie about something that makes a company a profit? Yes.

Are 97% of all climate scientists getting bribed who are doing research, not producing something for sale, being bribed. I suspect not.

One case of fraud does not mean everyone is fraudulent, unless you are opposed to feeding the hungry or dealing with progress.
Top
+3
-5
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Reply to Amorette Allison (#365206)
Amorette Allison wrote:
Come on, Oddy, old man. Be realistic. NO ONE is bribing thousands upon thousands of scientists SECRETLY so fix the data. Can't be done. Too many people. Too many variables. Too much chaos.

Kind of like weather. . .



Gobbled up that "97%" hook, line and sinker, didn't you? You have spent waaaayyy too much of your life inside the City limits.

Come on, Amorette, old gal. Be realistic...

Wherever did you ever get the idea that it takes "thousands upon thousands" to run a shake-down scheme? I can think of several individuals who have done it quite successfully for years.

And they got more press.

Success is all a matter of how stupid or how susceptible to intimidation your audience is........

Here's a chewin' bone for ya..

In spite of all the hype, "climate change" can't even get into the top ten of most peoples list of things to hand-wring over.

Imagine that...Guess we are all doomed..
Top
+5
-7
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2410) 5 years ago
Amoretti said

Okay, if we accept Oddy's proposal that every single scientist has no integrity and accepts bribes to change their data and every single grad student, assistant, secretary, et al, is in on the plot, I still want to know WHO is paying off the scientists. And how?

I have never heard Oddy say "all" of any group were on the take, or conspiring in any way. He has on occasion, presented numbers represented as percentages to illustrate prevailing perspectives.
Top
+5
-5
Posted by Cottonwood Kid (-33) 5 years ago
Reply to Amorette Allison (#365209)
Amorette Allison wrote:
This is not product based research. This is pure science. And it is happening, according to Oddy, all over the world. Every single meteorologist is being bribed. Oh, except for the 3% that support his theories.

Do researchers get bribed? Yes. Do they sometimes get caught? Yes. Are they being bribed to lie about something that makes a company a profit? Yes.

Are 97% of all climate scientists getting bribed who are doing research, not producing something for sale, being bribed. I suspect not.

One case of fraud does not mean everyone is fraudulent, unless you are opposed to feeding the hungry or dealing with progress.


But it IS product-based science, the product is the research report. University research is a publish or perish environment. And if you are publishing findings outside of what your benefactors want to hear, you will receive fewer and fewer dollars for your research program.

For example, in the 90's K.J. Reddy and George Vance at the University of Wyoming made a killing researching the impacts of selenium in mine spoil. At the time, it was alleged by Scott Fisher, a regulator at OSM in Denver, that selenium on mined landscapes would leave us nothing but fields of Princes Plume and primary selenium indicator Astragalus and Agropyron species. At nearly every professional mining conference in the 90's, Reddy and Vance would present there latest research. They were trying to develop a method to predict plant level selenium levels from analysis of selenium concentration in soil. (They never really figured it out. I did, the ratio of ABDTPA extracted Se to Total Se correlates to plant Se with an r^2 of .77)

It's ironic that after Mr. Fisher retired from OSM, the big selenium scare went away and the money dried up. Reddy and Vance went on to the next "big issue" that had lot's of associated research dollars.

All of the this is not to say that climate change is not real, it is. The percentage of it that is man-made is debatable. It should be researched throughly. It is though, important to understand that ALL published research needs to be viewed carefully for what it is and the agenda it represents. Most politicians don't understand the process.

Follow the money, chew the meat, spit out the bones. Researchers tend to focus on issues where they can obtain funding. They will milk that cash-cow until it goes dry, and then they kill it, eat it, and tan the hide. The process forces over-emphases on a topic to keep the money flowing.

And sometimes researchers make bat-poop crazy claims to keep the money faucet flowing. Keep the findings that are deviant to what your benefactors want to hear to yourself as long as you can. When the cash starts to dry up publish the outlier information as "new discovery". That new discovery will need to be peer-reviewed, which will generate additional cash for awhile. It's a game. Sometimes science happens, sometimes it doesn't. To pretend that modern scientists and science are pure as the wind-driven snow, is to not understand the process and what is actually occurring. They are people too, just like investment bankers, lawyers, mine engineers, or anyone else wanting to further their business.

Again, always, always follow the money. It will lead you to the truth. Climate change research is current cash-cow.

[Edited by Cottonwood Kid (2/28/2016 9:32:44 AM)]
Top
+5
-1
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
WHO is doing the bribing? HOW are they doing the bribing. And don't just say "grants." There are many, many agencies and companies that give grants. And, again, how can you guarantee when the bribe has been made, that the scientist will stick do it? How can you guarantee that every scientist, every grad student, every person involved is willing to lie and cheat for money?

That is the problem with conspiracy theories. They fall apart under scrutiny. This has to be a world-wide conspiracy as well, to make it work. Is the same mysterious organization bribing climate scientists in Australia as in the U.S? Or is there a branch office.

If other people don't care about climate change, that doesn't make it less real and less of a threat. If some scientists are bribed and some scientists lie on their data, others will tell the truth and the truth will out. And, yes, some people do lie to keep up the grants but not EVERYBODY lies to keep up the grants and to make the conspiracy work, EVERYBODY has to lie,.

And the truth is, the planet is warming and we are probably screwed because of people who are unable to deal with reality.

Like Donald Trumpet fans.

Another question? What if the theory of man-caused global warming is right? What if all those scientists who didn't lie and didn't take a bribe and just did the research are right? Why are you so afraid of that being reality?



[Edited by Amorette Allison (2/28/2016 11:34:22 AM)]
Top
+4
-7
Posted by Cottonwood Kid (-33) 5 years ago
It's a systemic problem of, as this article says "Monopolistic Science". Most of the money comes from the federal government... ultimately from Y.O.U.


The Summary
The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?

Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.

Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?


http://joannenova.com.au/...g-exposed/

References:

Climate Change Science Program, Annual Report to Congress: Our Changing Planet http://downloads.climatescience.gov/ocp/ocp2009/ocpfy2009-8.pdf

Analytical Perspectives Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/spec.pdf

1993-2005 GAO, Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should be Clearer and More
Complete http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf Appendix II page 34.

OMB, Fiscal Year 2008. Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Table 8. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy08_climate_change.pdf

Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Change Programs in the FY 2009 Budget, p 1. AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch15.pdf
Top
+4
-1
Posted by Bob Netherton III (+2773) 5 years ago
This is terrible! Everyone knows that:

1. Big Oil,and Coal obviously have NO VESTED INTEREST in climate change denial. They are a set of poor, honest businesses just trying to get by. They are denying climate change because of purely scientific reasoning.

2. ALL politicians denying climate change do so because of hard science. It has nothing to do with pleasing any political donors. When Trump sticks his nose out the door and notices it is chilly, it is completely scientific of him to say "It's cold our today. How can there be Global warming?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

A recent headline from The Onion...."Koch Brothers Buy Each Other the Same Election for Christmas".
Top
+4
-5
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
What Exxon Knew About Climate Change

Wednesday morning, journalists at InsideClimate News, a Web site that has won the Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on oil spills, published the first installment of a multi-part exposé that will be appearing over the next month. The documents they have compiled and the interviews they have conducted with retired employees and officials show that, as early as 1977, Exxon (now ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies) knew that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously. This did not prevent the company from then spending decades helping to organize the campaigns of disinformation and denial that have slowed—perhaps fatally—the planet’s response to global warming.

Read More: http://www.newyorker.com/...ate-change

---

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.

Read More: http://www.scientificamer...years-ago/

---

ExxonMobil and Sierra Club Agreed on Climate Policy—and Kept It Secret

ExxonMobil and Sierra Club may be thought of as natural enemies, particularly when it comes to a question so tricky as how to address climate change. That's what two men named David thought, too, when they first met in 2008 to talk about a climate policy with very little support: a national tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Secretly, however, they found that a common problem—the threat of unwieldy legislation—can for a time scramble the very idea of friends and enemies.

“Demonizing people is not a good idea,” said David Bailey, who at the time managed climate policy for ExxonMobil in Washington. “I realized that people at the Sierra Club don’t all have horns and a tail, and—I think—likewise.”

His negotiating partner at the time, David Bookbinder, was the chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club. The two wonks, working for organizations that are typically locked in opposition, recognized a shared interest in finding an alternative direction for U.S. climate policy. It took nearly a year and more than a dozen meetings to come up with a short document that bridged a huge chasm. It turns out that America's biggest oil company and one of its most iconic environmental groups could collaborate. What they came up with has gone unacknowledged until now—and it could provide a path past an intractable impasse on climate policy.

Read More: http://www.bloomberg.com/...-it-secret
Top
+3
-3
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
ExxonMobil's CEO admits global warming is caused by CO2

Though 27 percent of Americans deny global warming, it’s notable that even Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil's CEO, publicly states that “increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere will have a warming impact.”

ExxonMobil - world’s #3 company - doesn’t dispute that its fossil fuel product is the cause of global warming.


Read More: http://www.examiner.com/a...used-by-co
Top
+3
-1
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Webmaster.

Re: Exxon CEO.

Nobody ever claimed that there were not idiots on both sides of this argument.

If the government's buy-in to this hoax is $80 Billion (and I'd venture to say it's much higher than that), there is no entity or corporation on the planet that can offset that kind of influence. To even make the assertion is ridiculous.


Amorette says;

"If some scientists are bribed and some scientists lie on their data, others will tell the truth and the truth will out. And, yes, some people do lie to keep up the grants but not EVERYBODY lies to keep up the grants and to make the conspiracy work, EVERYBODY has to lie,."

"the truth will out"...HaHaHa!

What a joke..

As I said before, the success (of a shake-down) is all a matter of how stupid or how susceptible to intimidation your audience is...

Publish or perish is the name of the game and the last time I looked, the only "Conservative College" left on the planet is Hillsdale. College professors will toe the party line if they wish to remain college professors and the party line is where the money is..."sky is falling".

And since you really don't get it, perhaps you will remember when it used to be a joke about the tax-man figuring out a way to tax the air you breathe?

Well, he did. The shake-down is called "carbon credits".

Climate change is real. It always has been. Making it the source of fear-mongering is nothing more than a massive attack on your wallet and has absolutely nothing to do with "saving the planet".
Top
+3
-3
Posted by Bob Netherton III (+2773) 5 years ago
Dear God! Even Exxon is in on the conspiracy! Is there no end!?
Top
+4
-3
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
But, but, this implies scientists are being paid off to claim there is no climate change when there is. I am so confused. My little lady brain just cannot deal with science and facts and reality.

Top
+2
-2
Top
+2
-4
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 5 years ago
http://www.theguardian.co...her-booker

Yes, let's listen to a guy who believes asbestos is harmless.
Top
+2
-2
Posted by Tomm (-1033) 5 years ago
It is no wonder dozens have stopped following MC.com, and many have stopped joining in on the topics.
Top
+3
-4
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 5 years ago
Please enlighten us why sneering at your commentator who doesn't believe asbestos is harmful, is any different than a conservative poster sneering at a citation from the Huffington Post or Rolling Stone.
Top
+3
-2
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 5 years ago
Dear TOMM -

please take a moment to peruse the following link which I believe addresses your concerns with the nominal vs reported readings from various monitoring stations:

http://www.factcheck.org/...ture-data/

I can but only assume that you will take this further clarification of the accepted temperature sampling methodologies and use it to modify, for better or for ill, your understanding of this most vexing issue, as an rational being would.

Thank you for you kind attention to this matter.
Top
+5
-3
founder
supporter
Posted by Tucker Bolton (+3677) 5 years ago
Tomm, are you aware that "The Telegraph" is a very conservative UK rag? It has long been embroiled in controversy regarding, favoring advertisers and questionable, editorial policies.

I am amazed at the lack of critical thinking. If it is in print it's not necessarily the truth, reading only print that agrees with your ideology or listening to radio talk shows, for the same reason, just creates more zealots.

Tomm, I am not targeting you. However, there seems to be so much of this linear thought, on both sides that any attempt at dialog is wasted. Think, read, search, discover and develop your own thoughts. Otherwise it is the same as claiming to be a Christian and only quoting John 3:16.
Top
+5
-2