Any Suspicious Observers members here?

LB, let me get this straight. Are you saying that money only goes to man made climate change pushers? If so, why would that be? My guess is the fossil fuel industries has the most money to throw at studies like the video back a few posts. That guy has taken millions from Koch. I don’t research this personally but defer to the scientific community to do that for me.

Edit : Not a video, rather an article (post 51)

I’m not saying “only”, but there’s a fairly good chance. Being that it’s “politically expedient” to do so, sure, funding would be way more likely than trying to prove the opposite.

If you’re a reporter throwing hardball questions to your mayor, what do you think your chances would be to get asked to (or allowed into) the next press conference, vs a reporter that lobs those nice softball questions that make him look good.

Again, there doesn’t have to be any conspiracy involved, certainly no membership cards or non-disclosure agreements, but just an awareness of (as mentioned) knowing who butters your bread. Anyone in the industry who’s remotely savvy will know that.

If I worked at a company with a dimwit boss, and always called him out on his dumb-ass decisions, my career-options would be quite limited. On the other hand, if I did my job regardless and even let him take the credit, though I did the exact opposite of what he told me to do, you’d better believe I’d advance faster.

Added: There doesn’t have to be any Grand Conspiracy at the company, just a lick of common sense and political savvy.

I am not getting who the funding money is coming from and what motive they might have to be pushing this theory. Again, it looks to me the existing energy tycoons have the most to gain by funding a few dissenting voices to muddy the waters. Similar to what the tobacco industry did years ago.

Universities, for one.

It’s all about the magnetic field that encircled the earth.

Those industries are behind people like Willie Soon et al. Fortunately, money alone doesn’t make results from any research look plausible where it’s plain wrong. Tobacco industry tried and failed, too.

Universities are the recipients of the research money. But who is supplying the money worldwide to study man made climate change? I don’t see any incentive for the government to fund these studies. I do see incentive for disinformation by the fossil fuel industry though. That is my take anyway. The greenhouse effect was 9th grade science back in the 70s before lobbyist dollars turned it political.

Yet if you look at the post I made on the first page, the “science” as shown in headlines of the 1970’s clearly said we were in the grips of the next ice age. Yet interestingly enough, I agree 100% with what you say here until you get to your last (I bolded that part) sentence which as my earlier post shows, isn’t accurate.

1970s headlines –2nd time as you missed it on p1:

Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)

Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)

New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)

Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)

Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)

Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)

Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)

Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)

Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (The New York Times, July 18, 1970)

Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)

Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)

Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (The Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)

Pollution May Bring Ice Age – Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)

U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)

Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)

Danger: Ice age may lurk in dusty skies (The Christian Science Monitor, July 12, 1971)

New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)

Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)

Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)

Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)

Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)

Ice Age Cometh For Dicey Times (The Sun, May 29, 1972)

Ice Age Coming (Deseret News, September 8, 1972)

There’s a new Ice Age coming! (The Windsor Star, September 9, 1972)

Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)

British Expert on Climate Change Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)

Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (The portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972‎)

New Ice Age Slipping Over North (The Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)

Beginning of new ice age (The Canberra Times, September 12, 1972)

Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)

Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ‎September 12, 1972‎)

British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)

Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)

Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)

Geologist at Case Traces Long Winters – Sees Ice Age in 20 Years (Youngstown Vindicator, December 13, 1972)

Ice Age On Its Way, Scientist Says (Toledo Blade, December 13, 1972)

Ice Age Predicted In About 200 Years (The Portsmouth Times, December 14, 1972)

New Ice Age coming? (Popular Science, January 1973)

The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)

Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1973)

‘Man made Ice Age’ Worries Scientists (The Free Lance-Star, June 22, 1973)

Fear Of Man-made Ice Age (The Spartanburg Herald, June 28, 1973)

Possibility Of Ice Age Worries The Scientists (The Argus-Press, November 12, 1973)

Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)

Ominous Changes in the World’s Weather (PDF) (Fortune Magazine, February 1974)

Atmospheric Dirt: Ice Age Coming?‎ (Pittsburgh Press, February 28, 1974)

Support for theory of a cooling world (The Canberra Times, May 16, 1974)

New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)

Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)

2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)

Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)

Imminent Arrival of the Ice (Radio Times, November 14, 1974)

Making a BBC Science Special [The Weather Machine] (New Scientist, November 14, 1974)

The Weather Machine (BBC, November 20, 1974)

New ice age ‘could be in our lifetime’ (The Canberra Times, November 22, 1974)

Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ‎December 4, 1974‎)

Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ‎December 5, 1974‎)

More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel, ‎December 5, 1974‎)

Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 5, 1974)

Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)

Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)

B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)

Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)

New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ‎March 3, 1975‎)

The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)

The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)

Cooling trend may signal coming of another Ice Age (The Sun, May 16, 1975)

Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Change May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)

Summer of A New Ice Age (The Age, June 5, 1975)

In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)

Experts ponder another ice age (The Spokesman-Review, September 8, 1975)

Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal entinel, December 11, 1975)

Deadly Harvest [Film] (Starring: Kim Cattrall, Clint Walker, 1976)

The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)

Ice Age Predicted (Reading Eagle, January 22, 1976) Ice Age Predicted In Century (Bangor Daily News, January 22, 1976) I

It’s Going To Get Chilly About 125 Years From Now (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 23, 1976)

Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)

Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)

The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)

The Ice Age Cometh… (New York Magazine, January 31, 1977)

The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)

Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977)

Space Mirrors Proposed To Prevent Crop Freezes (Bangor Daily News, February 7, 1977)

Sunspot lull may bring on new ice age (The Christian Science Monitor, March 30, 1977)

As I said before I don’t research this subject much. Correct me if I am wrong but global warming and a new ice age are not exclusive of each other. If the Atlantic currents are changed Europe’s temperature will drop. A whole slew of contradictory results. Deserts will form. Extreme storms. Extreme droughts. Here is an article from MIT with more info than I can remember.

Edit: Spelling is not my high point.

Mmmmmmm, you say that like it’s a bad thing.

I could go for that…

I spell poorly. Math was my high point :smiley:

I still could go for randomly-forming desserts.

Lemme go burn some coal to get started…

Thats funny. You always are good for something. :wink:

I really can’t wrap my head around the logic in thinking that human-caused climate change is being exaggerated/falsified for economic reasons, while the price of oil being absolutely essential to the US Dollar - and therefore a huge portion of the world’s economic activity - is completely ignored. That seems like a much larger incentive than the pittance of research grants, etc. that is spent on climate change.

We all know how newspapers like to make big titles even with biaised and flawed studies.

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the ’70’s? No

I don’t believe there are any climate scientists who claim that 100% of climate change is due only to human causes.

I also think that people with money most often don’t want to waste it. I think it is more difficult to get funding for research testing a hypothesis with no data behind it, as opposed to getting funding for research for testing a hypothesis that has a grounding in existing evidence, because people would rather not spend their money on attempts to prove things not based on facts, or attempts to disprove what is already proven repeatedly, and with a lot of evidence.

For example, would you expect a proposed study attempting to prove that nicotine is not addictive to get funded easily? Or a study trying to prove that cancer can be caused by thoughts that one might get cancer?

It isn’t true that good research proposals based on facts cannot get funding if not proposed by people with connections. Certainly, as in any endeavor, getting funding is easier if one has connections to people with money. But I hear often of research proposals from children’s experiments at science fairs getting funding from people with money who know a good idea when they see one. Similarly, grant proposals are often evaluated in a formal way, with strict protocols intended to weed out bias. The evaluators are not allowed to know where the proposals come from.

I think there is some bias in some environmental/earth science research funding, with regard to which projects get funding and which do not, but the bias has to do with which experiments have a faster and easier payoff for the researchers and for the field scientists who would apply the research. Similarly, in medical research, the funding tends to go to research with a faster and easier payoff. The other diseases get left behind in funding. What follows is predictable, in environmental research and in medical research: if you can see the problem or disease in a microscope and see easily whether your proposed treatment works, it is more likely to get funded. In contrast, if we don’t yet have the technology to see the specific environmental problem or disease, and/or if seeing and quantifying the effects of the tested treatment is more difficult, it is less likely to get funded. In addition, it follows that it is easier to get funding for an experiment of a quick fix of a problem than to get funding for an experiment that is only one of a long, time-consuming series of experiments that would be needed to some day, in the distant future, lead to a fix or cure.

Control.

“Carbon credits”, “carbon-based taxes”, you name it. Whole industries will be put under a big bureaucratic thumb, which can selectively punish or reward even individual companies if they don’t bend over on demand.

People can store huge amounts of gasoline in 55gal drums if need be, but if everyone has electric cars, they can turn off the juice to whole areas just like they’re doing to California because of wildfire threats, and those cars will have limited miles of travel before they just sit dead.

And I just loooooooove genius ideas like “sequestering” CO2 to inject underground under high pressure. Like it won’t fizz up somewhere else, or aquifers won’t end up supplying seltzer instead of water. Ummm, how much energy will it take to do something like that? What’s going to power the pumps to collect and pressurise it?, the transportation from one site to another, making the containers (CO2 tanker-trucks??) and/or pipelines to move it, etc.? :person_facepalming:

It’s lots and lots of makebusy work for one as-yet-uncreated sector while putting other sectors out of business, and the only ones to profit are the bureaucrats “administering” those schemes.

This is already accomplished through unequitable taxation and funding of different industries and power sources, denial/approval of new projects, etc. No fake “boogeyman” of climate change is needed for corporate and government bodies to exert their influence, they have been and are doing that right now.

Look at what has happened to one of the most practical energy sources - nuclear. Was the target of insanely well funded campaigns to limit its development and sway public opinion during the last few decades of the 20th century.

[quote=Lightbringer]

[quote=BurningPlayd0h]

‘And I just loooooooove genius ideas like “sequestering” CO2 to inject underground under high pressure. Like it won’t fizz up somewhere else, or aquifers won’t end up supplying seltzer instead of water. Ummm, how much energy will it take to do something like that? What’s going to power the pumps to collect and pressurise it?, the transportation from one site to another’

Sequestering fracking mixture into the ground is already being done. I agree we should not be pumping crap into our aquifer.

As far as picking winners and losers, harnessing the sun and wind is not going to be condensed into a few mega companies such as our energy industry is now. Not when joe blow can mount an array on their roof or back yard.

Let’s disregard the climate change angle and look at the pollution generated by burning coal, which BTW is how I heat my home. I am suggesting there is no real downside to switching to sustainable energy sources and it might even create jobs so why not? Error on the side of caution. I’m sure ExxonMobil will spin off just fine.