ADVERTISEMENT

The Worlds Largest Industry

Boilermaker03

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2004
9,435
4,307
113
Valparaiso, IN

"The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry."


"The groundwork had been laid well, not least by entering into relationships with scientists who, Enron expected, would further its cause (James Hansen, the scientist who more than any other is responsible for bringing the possibility of climate-change catastrophe to the public, was among the scientists Enron commissioned). Just as shrewdly, Enron saw the importance in silencing the scientists who didn’t accept the alarmism that had driven the Kyoto Protocol. In a 1998 letter, Enron CEO Ken Lay, among others, asked president Clinton to appoint a bi-partisan “Blue-Ribbon Commission” designed to pronounce on the science and, in effect, marginalize the skeptics.

The precise commission that Lay demanded didn’t happen but the general marginalization of scientists did, and continues to occur to this day, with great success. Scientists who question the Kyoto Protocol invariably find themselves subject to public ridicule; all too often they find they are unable to obtain funding for their research, or even that their employment has been terminated."




The man in this video (Dr David Deming) was contacted by someone from NPR because they wanted to interview him about an article that Dr Deming published on warming he found over the course of the past 100 to 150 years, but ONLY if Dr. Deming was willing to say it was all caused by man. When he refused to do so, the reporter hung up on him. Later a top researcher in the area of Climate Change emailed him saying that they "needed to get rid of the Medieval Warm period."




"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past 2 years this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection."

"Earths climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do know that throughout human history warmer temperatures have been associated with more stable climates and increased human health and prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic instability, famine and increased human mortality."
 


 
Why are all the links from 2009?
??? 2009 is not relevant or current enough? So, global warming has all happened in the past 40 years?

He spoke the truth about the squashing of contrary research bias that applies to all kinds of government funded grants, not just climate. That is just the way the system works. There are those that are professors that will tell you the same privately lest they lose funding. NOTED and respected by the way.

 
Last edited:
??? 2009 is not relevant or current enough? So, global warming has all happened in the past 40 years?

He spoke the truth about the squashing of contrary research bias that applies to all kinds of government funded grants, not just climate. That is just the way the system works. There are those that are professors that will tell you the same privately lest they lose funding. NOTE and respected by the way.

That's a very good link. These are interesting as well.


"The causality works like this. Global cooling depresses atmospheric CO2 levels down to 190-200 parts per million—barely enough to sustain plant life. Inadequate CO2 wipes out forests and grasslands, especially in high altitude areas with cold climates. Vegetation dieback increases soil erosion, drying, and desertification. Those changes in soils increase dust storms. Dust deposited on ice sheets over millennia significantly reduce their albedo (ability to reflect rather than absorb sunlight). Reduced albedo enables the next solar maxima to melt the ice, shifting the climate into an interglacial."

The researchers summarize their argument as follows:

“Ice ages are therefore forced by orbital cycles and Milankovitch insulation, but regulated by ice albedo and dust-albedo feedbacks. And the warming effects of dust-ice albedo are counterintuitively caused by a reduction in global temperatures and a corresponding reduction in CO2 concentrations. And while this proposal represents a reversal of conventional thinking it does explain each and every facet of the glacial cycle, and all of the many underlying mechanisms that control its periodicity and temperature excursions and limitations.


The study concludes by noting that although CO2 plays a key role in regulating global climate on geologic time scales, “the greenhouse-gas attributes of CO2 play little or no part in this complex feedback system.”



Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.
 
This might help you:

@TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong

Scientific American. Union of Concerned Scientists. All of the groups that are supposedly finding this information and known to be infiltrated by environmental zealots.

JFC, they are even taking the word of Greenpeace on what the oil companies are spending. Again, NO PROOF.

Adam Markham - Interim Director of Climate and Energy Program for Union of Concerned Scientists

Education - Zoology (1982) - Archeology (2022)
Former Employment - Program officer for Climate Change - World Wildlife Fund
CEO - Clean Air Cool Planet

Johanna Chao Kreilick - President - Union of Concerned Scientists
Education - BA in Anthropology (1988) - Negotiation, Economic Policy (2005) - Certificate in Negotiation (Harvard 2022)
Former Employment - Open Society Foundation

These are the only two I even looked up and it's blatantly obvious that neither are void of major bias based on former employment and severe lacking of any type of climate education. Now I will agree not having formal education doesn't mean that they can't understand the issue. I just don't think I'd stake a whole lot of confidence in them.
 
Last edited:
Boilermaker03 tends to not like evidence. It always destroys the narrative he's going for.
There is no evidence. No links to any proof. Just the testimony from corrupted institutions, and one with specific conflicts of interest.

You guys ALL ignore the evidence to the contrary that we link. REAL evidence. Yet you want to believe in Zoologists and Economists on the Climate. Give me a Fukking break...
 
Last edited:
This might help you:

“We didn’t reach those conclusions, nor did we try to bury it like they suggest,” ExxonMobil spokesperson Allan Jeffers tells Scientific American. “The thing that shocks me the most is that we’ve been saying this for years, that we have been involved in climate research. These guys go down and pull some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and the selective use of materials.”

This sounds exactly like what the left does all the time. If what Jeffers is saying weren't true, then why did Exxon make those documents publicly available? If they were trying to do some kind of massive coverup, wouldn't you think they'd keep those under wraps?
 
@TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong

Scientific American. Union of Concerned Scientists. All of the groups that are supposedly finding this information and known to be infiltrated by environmental zealots.

JFC, they are even taking the word of Greenpeace on what the oil companies are spending. Again, NO PROOF.

Adam Markham - Interim Director of Climate and Energy Program for Union of Concerned Scientists

Education - Zoology (1982) - Archeology (2022)
Former Employment - Program officer for Climate Change - World Wildlife Fund
CEO - Clean Air Cool Planet

Johanna Chao Kreilick - President - Union of Concerned Scientists
Education - BA in Anthropology (1988) - Negotiation, Economic Policy (2005) - Certificate in Negotiation (Harvard 2022)
Former Employment - Open Society Foundation

These are the only two I even looked up and it's blatantly obvious that neither are void of major bias based on former employment and severe lacking of any type of climate education. Now I will agree not having formal education doesn't mean that they can't understand the issue. I just don't think I'd stake a whole lot of confidence in them.
Ah yes, the science is the thing corrupted by money, not the trillion dollar oil industry that has literally caused multiple wars over the past few decades.
 
@TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong

Scientific American. Union of Concerned Scientists. All of the groups that are supposedly finding this information and known to be infiltrated by environmental zealots.

JFC, they are even taking the word of Greenpeace on what the oil companies are spending. Again, NO PROOF.

Adam Markham - Interim Director of Climate and Energy Program for Union of Concerned Scientists

Education - Zoology (1982) - Archeology (2022)
Former Employment - Program officer for Climate Change - World Wildlife Fund
CEO - Clean Air Cool Planet

Johanna Chao Kreilick - President - Union of Concerned Scientists
Education - BA in Anthropology (1988) - Negotiation, Economic Policy (2005) - Certificate in Negotiation (Harvard 2022)
Former Employment - Open Society Foundation

These are the only two I even looked up and it's blatantly obvious that neither are void of major bias based on former employment and severe lacking of any type of climate education. Now I will agree not having formal education doesn't mean that they can't understand the issue. I just don't think I'd stake a whole lot of confidence in them.
I guess anyone that opposes your view is a zealot and not to be trusted. What makes you so knowledgeable? You always sound like you get your talking points from Fox News, which btw I don't think can be trusted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan
I guess anyone that opposes your view is a zealot and not to be trusted. What makes you so knowledgeable? You always sound like you get your talking points from Fox News, which btw I don't think can be trusted.
I don't listen to Fox. I listen to Scientists on the opposing view as well as people that bring actual data.
 
Ah yes, the science is the thing corrupted by money, not the trillion dollar oil industry that has literally caused multiple wars over the past few decades.
When the vast majority of the scientists that push climate change are only funded by the government and if you don't fully believe in climate change you can't get government funding. Yeah I think that's a pretty good sign it's corrupted.
 
Last edited:
When the vast majority of the scientists that push climate change are only funded by the government and if you don't fully believe in climate change you can't get government funding. Yeah I think that's a pretty good sign it's corrupted.
So why has scientific consensus always been the same despite any changes in who's been in office over the past several decades?

Turn off the TV my dude.
 
Who are some of your non-partisan scientists then-be more specific please?
William Happer
Willy Soon
Freeman Dyson
David Legates
Roy Spencer
Kary Mullis
Ivar Giaever
William Gray
Piers Corbyn
Richard Lindzen
John Christy
Nir Shaviv
Ian Clark
Jan Veizer
Timothy Patterson
Henrik Svensmark
Jan Veizer
Murry Salby
Bob Carter
William Briggs
Timothy Ball
Tom Segalstad
Daniel Botkin
Jennifer Marohasy
David Evans
Judith Curry

This is just to list a few.
 
So why has scientific consensus always been the same despite any changes in who's been in office over the past several decades?

Turn off the TV my dude.
Because the President doesn't control climate science funding.

If you're basing your ideas off of scientific consensus then you need to step aside on this one. Consensus is not science. You'd know that if you knew anything about how science is supposed to work.
 
Because the President doesn't control climate science funding.

If you're basing your ideas off of scientific consensus then you need to step aside on this one. Consensus is not science. You'd know that if you knew anything about how science is supposed to work.
Here is my favorite refutation about 97% or 99% about "settled science". The arithmetic in the Cook study applies today. It is NOT 97%, maybe a small plurality but, that is also up for debate.

 
William Happer
Willy Soon
Freeman Dyson
David Legates
Roy Spencer
Kary Mullis
Ivar Giaever
William Gray
Piers Corbyn
Richard Lindzen
John Christy
Nir Shaviv
Ian Clark
Jan Veizer
Timothy Patterson
Henrik Svensmark
Jan Veizer
Murry Salby
Bob Carter
William Briggs
Timothy Ball
Tom Segalstad
Daniel Botkin
Jennifer Marohasy
David Evans
Judith Curry

This is just to list a few.
Some of them check out but they some hold extremist positions that are at odds with the vast majority of the scientific community and/or work for the oil companies, i.e.-Kary Mullis (R.I.P.) who sounds like a crank from Wikipedia:

In his 1998 autobiography, Mullis expressed disagreement with the scientific evidence supporting climate change and ozone depletion and asserted his belief in astrology.[39][40] He claimed that climate change and HIV/AIDS theories were promulgated as a form of racketeering by environmentalists, government agencies, and scientists attempting to preserve their careers and earn money.[21] Mullis said science was being harmed by "the never-ending quest for more grants and staying with established dogmas", and that "science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what they are going to find out," not for what they actually produce.[13] The New York Times listed Mullis as one of several scientists who, after success in their area of research, go on to make unfounded, sometimes bizarre statements in other areas.[41]

Mullis also questioned the scientific validity of the link between HIV and AIDS, despite never having done any scientific research on either subject,[42][43] leading some[who?] to label him an AIDS denialist.[44][45] He wrote that he began to question the AIDS consensus while writing a NIH grant progress report and being unable to find a peer-reviewed reference that HIV was the cause of AIDS.[21][46][third-party source needed] He published an alternative hypothesis for AIDS in 1994,[47] claiming that AIDS is an arbitrary diagnosis used when HIV antibodies are found in a patient's blood.[48] Seth Kalichman, AIDS researcher and author of Denying AIDS, names Mullis "among the who's who of AIDS pseudoscientists".[49] Mullis was criticized[by whom?] for his association with HIV skeptic Peter Duesberg.[50][failed verification] According to California Magazine, Mullis's HIV skepticism influenced Thabo Mbeki's denialist policymaking throughout his tenure as president of South Africa from 1999 to 2008, contributing to as many as 330,000 unnecessary deaths.[16]

Use of hallucinogens[edit]​

Mullis practiced clandestine chemistry throughout his graduate studies, specializing in the synthesis of LSD; according to his friend Tom White, "I knew he was a good chemist because he'd been synthesizing hallucinogenic drugs at UC Berkeley."[16] He detailed his experiences synthesizing and testing various psychedelic amphetamines and a difficult trip on DET in his autobiography.[21] In a Q&A interview published in the September 1994 issue of California Monthly, Mullis said, "Back in the 1960s and early 1970s I took plenty of LSD. A lot of people were doing that in Berkeley back then. And I found it to be a mind-opening experience. It was certainly much more important than any courses I ever took."[51][verification needed] During a symposium held for centenarian Albert Hofmann, Hofmann said Mullis had told him that LSD had "helped him develop the polymerase chain reaction that helps amplify specific DNA sequences".[52]

 
  • Like
Reactions: mdthornb
Here is my favorite refutation about 97% or 99% about "settled science". The arithmetic in the Cook study applies today. It is NOT 97%, maybe a small plurality but, that is also up for debate.

That article is 100% correct on the 97% false claim.
 
Some of them check out but they some hold extremist positions that are at odds with the vast majority of the scientific community and/or work for the oil companies, i.e.-Kary Mullis (R.I.P.) who sounds like a crank from Wikipedia:

In his 1998 autobiography, Mullis expressed disagreement with the scientific evidence supporting climate change and ozone depletion and asserted his belief in astrology.[39][40] He claimed that climate change and HIV/AIDS theories were promulgated as a form of racketeering by environmentalists, government agencies, and scientists attempting to preserve their careers and earn money.[21] Mullis said science was being harmed by "the never-ending quest for more grants and staying with established dogmas", and that "science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what they are going to find out," not for what they actually produce.[13] The New York Times listed Mullis as one of several scientists who, after success in their area of research, go on to make unfounded, sometimes bizarre statements in other areas.[41]

Mullis also questioned the scientific validity of the link between HIV and AIDS, despite never having done any scientific research on either subject,[42][43] leading some[who?] to label him an AIDS denialist.[44][45] He wrote that he began to question the AIDS consensus while writing a NIH grant progress report and being unable to find a peer-reviewed reference that HIV was the cause of AIDS.[21][46][third-party source needed] He published an alternative hypothesis for AIDS in 1994,[47] claiming that AIDS is an arbitrary diagnosis used when HIV antibodies are found in a patient's blood.[48] Seth Kalichman, AIDS researcher and author of Denying AIDS, names Mullis "among the who's who of AIDS pseudoscientists".[49] Mullis was criticized[by whom?] for his association with HIV skeptic Peter Duesberg.[50][failed verification] According to California Magazine, Mullis's HIV skepticism influenced Thabo Mbeki's denialist policymaking throughout his tenure as president of South Africa from 1999 to 2008, contributing to as many as 330,000 unnecessary deaths.[16]

Use of hallucinogens[edit]​

Mullis practiced clandestine chemistry throughout his graduate studies, specializing in the synthesis of LSD; according to his friend Tom White, "I knew he was a good chemist because he'd been synthesizing hallucinogenic drugs at UC Berkeley."[16] He detailed his experiences synthesizing and testing various psychedelic amphetamines and a difficult trip on DET in his autobiography.[21] In a Q&A interview published in the September 1994 issue of California Monthly, Mullis said, "Back in the 1960s and early 1970s I took plenty of LSD. A lot of people were doing that in Berkeley back then. And I found it to be a mind-opening experience. It was certainly much more important than any courses I ever took."[51][verification needed] During a symposium held for centenarian Albert Hofmann, Hofmann said Mullis had told him that LSD had "helped him develop the polymerase chain reaction that helps amplify specific DNA sequences".[52]

Which ones work for oil companies? Please show proof and not just some green website claiming so.

First of all, you're using consensus as a reason to not listen to these scientists. Again, shows you know nothing about how science works. Secondly, fine throw Mullis out. I added him because of things I read and watched him talk on Climate, which was pretty much spot on. (Although, I don't get how someone being wrong on one thing (AIDS) suddenly makes them wrong about everything).

Jesus, you're also character assassinating the man for experimenting with drugs in the 60's? A TON of people did drugs back then. WTF.
 
Last edited:
Which ones work for oil companies? Please show proof and not just some green website claiming so.

First of all, you're using consensus as a reason to not listen to these scientists. Again, shows you know nothing about how science works. Secondly, fine throw Mullis out. I added him because of things I read and watched him talk on Climate, which was pretty much spot on. (Although, I don't get how someone being wrong on one thing (AIDS) suddenly makes them wrong about everything).

Jesus, you're also character assassinating the man for experimenting with drugs in the 60's? A TON of people did drugs back then. WTF.
The information on Mullis was straight from his Wikipedia page. I looked at some of the backgrounds of who you cited and some of them did work for oil companies at some point in their careers. If you ever follow court proceedings the defendant can usually find some expert that has an opposing view to present to the jury.

BTW what makes you such an expert in the field of science that you seem to be hanging your hat on? Do you have some specialized education or training that gives you opinion such gravity?
 
The information on Mullis was straight from his Wikipedia page. I looked at some of the backgrounds of who you cited and some of them did work for oil companies at some point in their careers. If you ever follow court proceedings the defendant can usually find some expert that has an opposing view to present to the jury.

BTW what makes you such an expert in the field of science that you seem to be hanging your hat on? Do you have some specialized education or training that gives you opinion such gravity?
Yes I've heard some of these scientists talk about doing some side work for companies in things like legal cases. Most refuse to take money for the work so that they can't be disparaged in the way that you are trying to do.

Are you saying that someone can't understand a subject if they aren't "specially trained" for it? That's nothing more than an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy.
 
When the vast majority of the scientists that push climate change are only funded by the government and if you don't fully believe in climate change you can't get government funding. Yeah I think that's a pretty good sign it's corrupted.
You need to save all your links into a file since it may take a lot of searching down the road since "hits" in an area make it easier to search...assuming of course they remain at the same location. Follow the money will many times lead you down a path less traveled like Robert Frost stated for many things...even if the money given to ukraine may be hard to follow to the ultimate recipient... ;)

start saving your links please...
 
You need to save all your links into a file since it may take a lot of searching down the road since "hits" in an area make it easier to search...assuming of course they remain at the same location. Follow the money will many times lead you down a path less traveled like Robert Frost stated for many things...even if the money given to ukraine may be hard to follow to the ultimate recipient... ;)

start saving your links please...
Way ahead of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tjreese
Yes I've heard some of these scientists talk about doing some side work for companies in things like legal cases. Most refuse to take money for the work so that they can't be disparaged in the way that you are trying to do.

Are you saying that someone can't understand a subject if they aren't "specially trained" for it? That's nothing more than an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy.
You have characterized yourself as having more understanding of science and the scientific method than the rest of us and I just want to understand how your omnipotent position was established.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdthornb
You have characterized yourself as having more understanding of science and the scientific method than the rest of us and I just want to understand how your omnipotent position was established.
No, you guys have characterized yourselves as to NOT understand how science works. That's different than me believing that I have some enhanced understanding of the scientific method. I just understand it. I assumed you guys didn't because you continue to believe in and push consensus.
 
No, you guys have characterized yourselves as to NOT understand how science works. That's different than me believing that I have some enhanced understanding of the scientific method. I just understand it. I assumed you guys didn't because you continue to believe in and push consensus.
You say you understand how science works but the rest of us don't, which is quite a highhanded statement don't you think?
 
You say you understand how science works but the rest of us don't, which is quite a highhanded statement don't you think?
No it's not, when you try to use the notion of consensus in a scientific discussion. All I'm doing is pointing out that you're not talking science, you're talking politics.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT