View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To summarize the prestigious Copenhagen Consensus's global consensus on the looming U.N. climate change enclave, that political U.N. body of 40,000 [brainwashed loons, I submit] will demand emission cuts that will cost One Trillion Dollars every year to cut the global temperature rise by 2100 by 0.306 degrees F. That's $278,000,000,000,000 per degree averted IF every government cooperates at maximum efficiency.
Meanwhile hundreds of millions (maybe billions?) of people will have died of 18 already identified, relatively dirt cheap, well understood, AVOIDABLE causes.
Source: peer reviewed paper in "Global Policy".
Of COURSE AGWA loons claim it's bunkum; that's what they DO. But the same loons also still condemn eating saturated fat and blame ulcers on stress. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17750 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Was this how mrgybe made his living? He's certainly bragged that it worked. From the Washington Post
Quote: | Climate change has long been a highly polarizing topic in the United States, with Americans lining up on opposite sides depending on their politics and worldview. Now a scientific study sheds new light on the role played by corporate money in creating that divide.
The report, a systematic review of 20 years’ worth of data, highlights the connection between corporate funding and messages that raise doubts about the science of climate change and whether humans are responsible for the warming of the planet. The analysis suggests that corporations have used their wealth to amplify contrarian views and create an impression of greater scientific uncertainty than actually exists.
“The contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust,” said Justin Farrell, a Yale University sociologist and author of the study, released on Monday in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Numerous previous studies have examined how corporate-funded campaigns have helped shape individual views about global warming. But the Yale study takes what Farrell calls the “bird’s-eye view,” using computer analytics to systematically examine vast amounts of printed matter published by 164 groups—including think-tanks and lobbying firms—and more than 4,500 individuals who have been skeptical of mainstream scientific views on climate change.
The study analyzed the articles, policy papers and transcripts produced by these groups over a 20-year period. Then it separated the groups that received corporate funding from those that did not.
The results, Farrell said, revealed an “ecosystem of influence” within the corporate-backed groups. Those that received donations consistently promoted the same contrarian themes—casting doubt, for example, on whether higher levels of man-made carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere were harmful to the planet. There was no evidence of such coordination among the non-funded groups.
The existence of corporate money “created a united network within which the contrarian messages could be strategically created” and spread, Farrell said.
“This counter-movement produced messages aimed, at the very least, at creating ideological polarization through politicized tactics, and at the very most, at overtly refuting current scientific consensus with scientific findings of their own,” he said.
The report did not examine the impact of outside money on the messages of groups that encourage activism on climate change. Farrell suggested that there were qualitative differences between such groups and those that sought to advance corporate interests by promoting skepticism about science.
“Funders looking to influence organizations who promote a consensus view are very different from funders looking to influence organizations who have the goal of creating polarization and controversy and delaying policy progress on a scientific issue that has nearly uniform consensus,” he said.
|
The only ecosystem oil companies believe is worth preserving? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5181
|
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mac wrote: | Was this how mrgybe made his living? He's certainly bragged that it worked. |
Quote me...........once again, a complete fabrication. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5181
|
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The name caller from Berkeley loves totally one sided studies that reinforce his biases.
Quote: | The report did not examine the impact of outside money on the messages of groups that encourage activism on climate change. Farrell suggested that there were qualitative differences between such groups and those that sought to advance corporate interests by promoting skepticism about science.
“Funders looking to influence organizations who promote a consensus view are very different from funders looking to influence organizations who have the goal of creating polarization and controversy and delaying policy progress on a scientific issue that has nearly uniform consensus,” he said.
|
Laughably disingenuous. And these people wonder why so many don't trust their myopic views and biased "studies". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scottwerden
Joined: 11 Jul 1999 Posts: 302
|
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Twenty eight high-tech entrepreneurs have created the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, whose goal is to develop and bring to market clean energy sources in the fight against global warming.
Quote: |
Investors in the Breakthrough Energy Coalition include Gates, Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com; Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook; Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Atlantic; George Soros, the philanthropist; and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. The participating countries include the U.S., Saudi Arabia, France, India, Canada, Chile, Norway, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates and Australia.
|
Gates, Bezos, and Zuckerberg are some of the most successful businessmen in America. So why would they be committing $2B of their own money to something that is a bunch of BS, as some around here believe?
Full article is here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5181
|
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
George Soros, the philanthropist...........that's funny, thanks. Specifically, who is saying that pursuing clean energy is BS? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9122 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mrgybe wrote: | George Soros, the philanthropist...........that's funny, thanks. Specifically, who is saying that pursuing clean energy is BS? |
Over the past 4 decades George Soros has given Billions, that's Billions w a B..to help with hunger in Africa, Education in Eastern Europe, and many other philanthropic causes. Not sure whats funny about that. Pretty silly comment from you Mr. Gybe. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5181
|
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boggsy, You can choose to be obtuse all the time, or you could take a day off. George Soros is a speculator who has made a vast fortune without producing anything tangible. He, like the others mentioned, has established a charitable foundation for tax reasons. His foundation has given money to some good causes, which is admirable, but does not make his current, or past raison d'etre philanthropy. That's the reason Zuckerberg, Bezos, Branson et al were not described as philanthropists........it does not properly describe what they primarily do. The Seattle news outlet just couldn't bring themselves to use the more accurate description "Hedge Fund manager and Currency Speculator." Doesn't sound as good to the warm and fuzzy crowd does it? That's why it's funny. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scottwerden wrote: | Twenty eight high-tech entrepreneurs have created the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, whose goal is to develop and bring to market clean energy sources in the fight against global warming. Why would they be committing $2B of their own money to something that is a bunch of BS |
Well, let's see:
• Ideology.
• Politics.
• $2B is meaningless chump change to these people. Their wealth fluctuates that much every hour of the day.
• Clean energy is GOOD.
A diphtheria vaccination costs twenty cents; 6 million lives are saved for a measly million dollars if volunteers inject the vaccine. To cram at least 10 powerfully referenced books into two sentences, many hundreds of millions of lives can be saved THIS YEAR with things as simple and relatively cheap as clean water, nutrition, and all the other measures PROVED -- not predicted by computer models of chaos theory -- to save lives. That's why AGWA is ranked nineteenth priority in the REAL -- i.e., apolitical -- world; it costs thousands of times more to save each HYPOTHETICAL life than do proven measures.
We just watched Accuweather Chief Long-Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi last night tell us for the 138th time and explain in the 97th way why AGWA is unadulterated BS. NO ONE here has 1 tenth of 1 percent of his chops. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please don't tell us that Boggsy or anyone else here doesn't know that George Soros spends millions on Media Matters, or that MM is scum. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|