Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate

47 posts in this topic

A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.

The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funnelling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.independe...ce-8466312.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone that is not fooled into thinking chemtrails are mere contrails knows this already.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't surprise me. I think people are starting to wake up to the fact of global warming in spite of them. Can't hide the truth forever.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite: "The trust has given money to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is currently being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't surprise me. I think people are starting to wake up to the fact of global warming in spite of them. Can't hide the truth forever.

there has been NO global warming for sixteen years during which time human carbon dioxide emissions have increased 30%. people have awoken to this fact.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite: "The trust has given money to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is currently being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester."

funny that Michael Mann claims in his affidavit that he has won the Nobel Prize - he hasn't. so in his defence against allegations of fraud, he submits a legal document to a court fraudulently misrepresenting his qualifications. too funny.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny that Michael Mann claims in his affidavit that he has won the Nobel Prize - he hasn't. so in his defence against allegations of fraud, he submits a legal document to a court fraudulently misrepresenting his qualifications. too funny.

When things become politicized, everyone will end up dirty. Politicizing climate research, on both sides, is stupid. Politics is about making your point a 'fact' not about the 'truth' or doing something that works. Neither side wants to do anything, they don't want to do what's right, it's money for both sides!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I raise the question. What are you personally going to do about it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is nothing in this article stating how this money has corrupted anyone. anyone who works gets funding from someone.

merely implying that anonymous funding corrupts people is real stupid.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When things become politicized, everyone will end up dirty. Politicizing climate research, on both sides, is stupid. Politics is about making your point a 'fact' not about the 'truth' or doing something that works. Neither side wants to do anything, they don't want to do what's right, it's money for both sides!

there is no empirical evidence that man is causing global warming - just ask, and you will not receive.

it was always about politics and belief.

Edited by Little Fish
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I raise the question. What are you personally going to do about it ?

F-if I know, since the scientist can't even agree on if it's happening, what's causing it and numerous other things that politics has forced into opposing corners instead of conducting science.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no empirical evidence that man is causing global warming - just ask, and you will not receive.

it was always about politics and belief.

You obviously think I'm of the view that 'global warming' is happening, it's not, it's climate change. You're also making it seem like this would be a bad thing, this 'man-made global warming' boogeyman you speak of.

In my personal opinion, we influence the climate but there are other deciding factors that affect global climate changes. If we reduced our CO2 would it 'reverse' climate change? Nope, cause climates always change.

I believe in climate change that's being caused by numerous factors including human activities. It's not the primary cause nor the only one, but should we reduce what we do that does actually cause damage? Like oil spills and the like? Oh yes. But should we head back to our hunter-gatherer phase? No. Climates will always change.

Edited by Hasina
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the carbon credit market is projected to be four times bigger than the oil market.

I think the warmists have been suckered into the pick pocket hands of the bankers (again).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry what is a carbon credit market ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously think I'm of the view that 'global warming' is happening, it's not, it's climate change.
you seemed to be championing mann whose work has been the flagship for the warmist movement and was discredited by an amateur hobbyist who receives no funding from big oil, koch brothers etc.
You're also making it seem like this would be a bad thing, this 'man-made global warming' boogeyman you speak of.
a warmer world is not a bad thing in my opinion.
In my personal opinion, we influence the climate but there are other deciding factors that affect global climate changes. If we reduced our CO2 would it 'reverse' climate change? Nope, cause climates always change.
there is no empirical evidence man is causing climate change or global warming. if you believe man is causing climate chanae, that's fine, but its not science to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry what is a carbon credit market ?

you haven't heard of carbon trading?

its real money you will have to pay to goldman sachs and al gore for emitting carbon dioxide.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I call BS. This is not healthy regardless of Global Warming statements. The explained causes are the same.

http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/8762/when-good-air-mass-goes-bad

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/01/17/china%E2%80%99s-bad-air-day

you haven't heard of carbon trading?

its real money you will have to pay to goldman sachs and al gore for emitting carbon dioxide.

Gotcha. Thank You

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you seemed to be championing mann whose work has been the flagship for the warmist movement and was discredited by an amateur hobbyist who receives no funding from big oil, koch brothers etc.

a warmer world is not a bad thing in my opinion.

there is no empirical evidence man is causing climate change or global warming. if you believe man is causing climate chanae, that's fine, but its not science to believe.

Oh no, I just found it funny that among other things, unrelated to climate change, he was also called a child molester. Is this the whole reason you picked my post to quote? Cause I said something about Mann without even stating an opinion about him? Alright~

What's 'empirical evidence' to you?

Now, I know this is from a 'biased' site (heck any site that takes a stance on any issue at all is biased, yes?) but it may give some evidence. But since you may just disregard with 'there has been NO global warming for sixteen years during which time human carbon dioxide emissions have increased 30%. people have awoken to this fact.' But, here it is anyway: http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

Since I may be a bit dense from just reading from a biased source, could you point out the flaws in this evidence?

Edited by Hasina
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, I just found it funny that among other things, unrelated to climate change, he was also called a child molester. Is this the whole reason you picked my post to quote? Cause I said something about Mann without even stating an opinion about him? Alright~

he was acussed of molesting the data...and he's from penn state uni (same as child abuser landusky), but mann sues just about everyone who criticises his work and instead pretends they are attacking him personally.
What's 'empirical evidence' to you?
something you can measure in reality for a start.
Now, I know this is from a 'biased' site (heck any site that takes a stance on any issue at all is biased, yes?) but it may give some evidence. But since you may just disregard with 'there has been NO global warming for sixteen years during which time human carbon dioxide emissions have increased 30%. people have awoken to this fact.' But, here it is anyway: http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

Since I may be a bit dense from just reading from a biased source, could you point out the flaws in this evidence?

its just a simple rhetorical argument dressed up to look like science (using dodgy measurements too), "co2 causes warming, we emit co2 therefore we are the cause of global warming." the only real question that needs to be answered is "how much", and it is that which has not been measured, probably because its too small to be measurable. Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its just a simple rhetorical argument dressed up to look like science (using dodgy measurements too), "co2 causes warming, we emit co2 therefore we are the cause of global warming." the only real question that needs to be answered is "how much", and it is that which has not been measured, probably because its too small to be measurable.

I'm gonna by pass the 'molesting data' comment, no where near as damning as, say, molesting innocent children.

From the link it's states: Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.

Now let me ask, do you mean 'how much' as in 'how much CO2 causes climate change'? It doesn't put too much of a link in my own views, since I did say humans are just one factor of climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million.
greenland ice cores show co2 as 330-350 ppmv over the last 10,000 years. how can you explain that?
Now let me ask, do you mean 'how much' as in 'how much CO2 causes climate change'?
sorry, i meant how much warming due to man emitted co2. Edited by Little Fish
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

greenland ice cores show co2 as 330-350 ppmv over the last 10,000 years. how can you explain that?

sorry, i meant how much warming due to man emitted co2.

I'm no scientist, but I am an accountant by day and a snoppy dresser by night, so I don't bloody know since this isn't my field of research nor even a primary interest of mine.

You'd think the scientists could come to a conclusion, but you have 'experts' on both sides doing their thang, talking the lines, walking the walk, without coming to a solid conclusion that can't be refuted by anyone.

I know science can't be like accounting, tap tap, oh hey! Everything adds up! But you'd think the scientists would be willing to grab ALL THE DATA and study it and come to a final conclusion, but no can even agree on what ALL THE DATA is or even if we have ALL THE DATA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to peruse that, thank you!

I do have to say something I find funny; a lot of the current generation is blaming global warming on the past generations while at the same time continuing to do the same activities they view as 'the reasons for climate change'. I've heard many people of my generation who are hardcore environmentalists saying things like 'why didn't our parents care enough?' For the same reasons we don't, we're short sighted creatures who are self-centered. It's the same attitude that gave us creation myths, comments such as 'humanity is a plague on the Earth' and other such presumptuous things that place man outside of what he is, an animal with a knack for making tools.

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Gates = anti Christ

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2009/05/what_goes_on_in_a_secret_billi.html

And if no one realizes this,Mark Zuckerberg is now in this elite crowd .

His endorsement of Chris Christie,four years before the next election is a huge red flag in my opinion .

Edited by Simbi Laveau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.