The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about how science works.

If the scientists works for free then what is the grant money for in the first place?

Scientists just don't so studies. If they work for a university they spend up to half their time campaigning and trying to raise funds. A large portion of their work is not science at all.

Using Google I still wasn't able to find where oil companies admit they lied about man made global warming.
That should be the easy top result for Google, given their bias.

A former EXXON employee/whistle blower leaked an internal EXXON memorandum,which revealed the oil companies' $30,000,000 campaign of climate denial.

[redneck]

.



Your Tax Dollars Fund the ‘Global Warming’ Narrative


https://capitalresearch.org/article/...ing-narrative/

The cycle looks something like this: government grants fund politically-useful studies, which muddy the waters of real science – prompting global warming proponents to demand greater sums to conduct unscientific research on climate change. And with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars up for grabs, many such groups have a strong financial incentive to invent new studies. As Robert Brulle wrote in the press release for his study, “Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square.” 1

As Dr. Steven J. Allen reminds us in this video, skepticism is a healthy and integral element of the scientific method; it keeps scientists factual and honest, because research that can’t be reliably replicated should be questioned. By glossing over such reasonable objections, politically-motivated climatologists do harm to the very science they are purportedly experts in.

Video

https://m.youtube.com/watch?index=5&...ZjGC2mbGxPMTxw

As the nearby “U.S. Government Funding of Climate Change” article explains, the narrative that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming has failed to yield actual scientific evidence – let alone an academic consensus. Nevertheless, proponents of this message have been largely successful in harnessing government grants to produce what amounts to faux-scientific propaganda; studies which set out to prove a politically-minded agenda, rather than the factual forces behind global climate change.

These grants often reveal their own biases and motivations:

Residents of southeast Louisiana regularly experience environmental harm yet remain bound economically to industries that exploit the local environment. While environmental awareness is common, climate change denial is persistent in the community.


The researchers’ implication is clear. These residents have the incorrect opinion, and that warrants a government-funded study to correct their “denial.”

And as taxpayers, we all have the privilege of paying for it.

>

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

May the side with the most money win.

I think that this is the logic of it.You play enough 'story' into the narrative,that people's eyes just kinda glaze over, and their response is to grab a cold one,turn on the tube and say ----it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

.



Your Tax Dollars Fund the ‘Global Warming’ Narrative


https://capitalresearch.org/article/...ing-narrative/







Video

https://m.youtube.com/watch?index=5&...ZjGC2mbGxPMTxw







>

Researchers paid more,don't beg for grant money.
And a perusal of the actual research papers,written by the researchers,is the only way to achieve un-filtered access to their information.
I recommend you skip the 3rd-parties.Go right to the horse's mouth.I think that you'll be shocked at what you find.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Follow the money.

It leads to the fossil fuel companies. Who earn more profits than any industry, in history.

It's not more marginally profitable though. There might be more overall profit because we use fossil fuels in absolutely everything, and it's so vital to every single aspect of our lives, but many other industries have much higher profit margins.



... and it depends on who you're saying is making a profit. The US went negative in profits for a while. It's a fairly volatile market, so you can go from making a profit to losing your shirt fairly quickly.



Profit is not an indication of "evil factor" either. There is nothing intrinsically evil about profit. We all innately want the highest return on our investment of anything. If we watch a movie, we want it to be a very good movie so that our investment of time is rewarded with high entertainment value. We aren't evil because we want to see a good movie instead of a bad one, and we aren't evil because we want to sell our product for a higher profit rather than a lower one.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Oil companies make the highest profits ever in history. They have a massive incentive to lie - and they now ADMIT that they lied about climate change. Their shareholders are not going to be happy.

Scientists get grants so they can go sit on a glacier and gather data. They don't make any profit.

Yeah, big oil has/does/will attempt to deceive. It shouldn't be tolerated if it can be proven that they meant to deceive, and that the deception has caused harm. The problem is that they separate themselves from culpability by hiring researchers to make the claims. Can't blame the oil companies then, because they are simply reiterating what the "researchers" are saying. It's like infomercials selling male enhancing drugs; can't blame the drug maker since it's some guy just giving his opinion that it works great.

Scientists make huge profits too. Heck, they sometimes get government grants that fund research that they then use to publish a book. Essentially the government funds their personal book / lecture profits by supplying the means to gather data in the first place. I'm not against this by the way, but to think scientists have completely altruistic and objective motives is not true.

[oil pan 4]

https://amp.theguardian.com/environm...climate-denial

Chevron’s lawyer noted that the IPCC states that climate change is caused “largely by economic and population growth,” not fossil fuel extraction.

Can you say case dismissed?

Plus the oil companies didn't burn the vast majority of what they pulled out of the ground, we all did.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

A former EXXON employee/whistle blower leaked an internal EXXON memorandum,which revealed the oil companies' $30,000,000 campaign of climate denial.

I don't see how that means they acknowledge that man made global warming is true.
That's just lobbing.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I don't see how that means they acknowledge that man made global warming is true.
That's just lobbing.

We've known since 1859 about the greenhouse effect.Everyone interested knows this.
We also know from Arhrenius Svante's research that carbon dioxide is directly associated with greenhouse warming.Everyone interested knows this.
It was discovered by astronomers who weren't necessarily looking for it when they found it.But it is what it is.Everyone interested knows this.
And we also know from astronomy,that carbon dioxide can be bad news when we contemplate Venus.It's basically twice as far from the Sun as Mercury,yet over twice as hot! The reason being,that it has a greenhouse gas atmosphere.Carbon Dioxide.Everyone interested knows this.
For the oil companies,fearing climate-based policy the narrative would be something like:
Wow,the Supreme Court has just ruled that carbon dioxide is a toxin,and they're gonna regulate it's sale.
That could cut into our profits.So let's spend some money on a disinformation campaign to muddy the waters for policy makers long enough that,by the time the Congress rules to regulate,that we've already extracted all economically recoverable oil there is,and it's no longer an issue,and our industry has made it's $trillion.
For some millions of dollars in sowing doubt about the implications of carbon emissions,we continue to earn billions.
It's perfectly logical,and a great investment.And your tax lawyer figures out a way to charge off the entire expense as a legitimate business cost of doing business.
Just kick the can down the road and let future generations deal with the environmental blowback.
In foreign countries Exxon is synonymous with the CIA.There's very little they could possibly not know about.Including every published paper on climate change.It's quite literally their business to know these things.
And I'm the guilty one! I burn the stuff.And I'll be receiving a small oil royalty this year from oil wells in Oklahoma that my maternal grandfather owned through his oil company in Ardmore.
I'm indebted to everyone associated with the petroleum industry,worldwide.
And I'm not anti-oil,but I'm very concerned about combustion products,from all kinds of fossil fuels now.
Global climate change is in my backyard now.It may be in your backyard too.And Exxon's.

[oil pan 4]

I'm more worried about the quadrupling to 10x-ing of liquid fuels in my life time.

The demand is going through the roof because of china and the stuff is getting harder and harder to find and get.

[freebeard]

21 post so far today? Is it that important?

This is going to happen a lot faster than fission power.

It sounds to me like fission power.

Just kick the can down the road and let future generations deal with the environmental blowback.
In foreign countries Exxon is synonymous with the CIA.There's very little they could possibly not know about.Including every published paper on climate change.It's quite literally their business to know these things.
And I'm the guilty one! I burn the stuff.And I'll be receiving a small oil royalty this year from oil wells in Oklahoma that my maternal grandfather owned through his oil company in Ardmore.

Aha! A plutocrat. I just watched a bad movie (Idaho Transfer, directed by Peter Fonda). It had a very dark take on what replaces the oil when it's all gone.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about how science works.

It's worse.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=science+paper+reproducability+problem