Sorry to tell you guy but you aren't good enough to warrant a dodge. You only demonstrated further how little intellectual wattage you have invested in your position. If you would like to be further humiliated for your lack of knowledge, by all means, I am happy to oblige.
So according to you, scientists all around the world, all from different countries and economic backgrounds, invented global climate change over the course of years for the sole purpose of the redistribution of wealth in the United States.... sounds like quite a conspiracy theory.
No, only a couple of scientists made this up. It really began with the KT energy budget which is one of the stupidest bits of pseudoscience ever put out there. As to the whole AGW hoax, I don't think scientists made it up at all. Frankly, I don't give the hockey team enough credit to have thought up something like the hoax they promote. If you care to discuss the pseudoscience which you blindly support as actual science, and are up to an actual discussion on the topic rather than simply spewing news bytes, let me know.
AGW is a political movement, funded by environmentalist groups and government hand outs with the express purpose of restricting industry and redistributing wealth.
Disparity of funding proves nothing. Obviously the scientists are going to be spending more money... they are the ones doing the actual research. See that's the thing about science, it takes lots of time effort and research to prove something... while on the other hand if something is completely wrong, it will get shot down almost immediately when another scientific group analyzes the data or tries to scientifically reproduce it.
Doing actual research. Interesting notion but alas, not very discriptive of what has been going on within the climate pseudoscience community. Climate pseudoscience consists almost entirely of computer models; those models being based on assumption and bias written for the sole purpose of reaching a pre decided conclusion.
In the past decade, over 600 billion has been poured into climate pseudoscience. Can you point to a single repeatable experiment that proves that an increase in a trace atmospheric gas can alter the global climate? Can you point to a single piece of hard, observable evidence that establishes anything more than the most etherial link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. Can you point to a single thing going on the global climate today that even begins to approach the boundries of natural variability? The answer to all those questions is no, but it will be interesting to see your attempts at answers.
You might start with someting easy like naming a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience. The second law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan-Boltzman laws all predict that such a greenouse effect can't exist.
So according to you its all a conspiracy to raise taxes, gotcha.
No it is a political excuse to redistribute wealth. Even when things are explained to you in detail, you don't seem to be able to grasp what you were just told.
Again you are basing the entire argument on who spent more money, and failing to acknowledge who has more influence over the government and public.
When you guys go after industry on any topic whatsoever, your primary argument is to follow the money.
As to who has more influence with the government, your conclusions once again, show that thinking isn't your best thing. Most of the universities in the US that benefit most from climate science $$ are state universities. That is to say they are government schools. Do you really believe an oil company with its own money holds more influence with the government than the government's own schools?
As to influence with the public, if you are seriously arguing that oil companies have more influence than the educational system, I am going to have to point out that you have discovered a level of stupid even lower than that previously mapped out by konradv.
The fact that Oil companies spent any money at all funding skeptics should be a huge red flag to you. Why would they need to do this at all...
And again, very shallow thinking on your part. I see a trend here, how about you. Of the paltry 50 million spent by oil companies on skeptics, the great bulk of that money was spent in the 90's when the AGW movement first started getting real traction. The spending was a panic reaction since at the time AGW seemed that it might pose a real threat to existing energy companies.
As time went on, the best and brightest deducted that they are going to make money either way and in fact there was something to be said for the whole regulation business. If you do a bit of research, you will find that the amount spent by oil companies since the turn of the century on skeptics is paltry indeed.
To be fair I personally do believe there is a certain amount of fear mongering surrounding climate change to get the public's attention... but that does not mean that it is false and you should disregard it.
The reason to disregard climate pseudoscience has nothing to do with the fear mongering. Climate pseudoscience should be disregarded for its dishonesty, hiding of science that proves it wrong, data tampering, failed predictions, disregard for the physical laws, and its abject failure to produce a single piece of repeatable, observable evidence establising anything even approaching a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate after having wasted over 600 billion dollars worldwide.
