In 2016, about 20 percent of NASA's budget is going to climate-related studies, and of course, in the departments of NASA that specialize in it, the number is close to 100 percent.
Hundreds of billions around the world are flowing into scientific organizations and industries whose fiscal health now depends on climate change being a human-caused crisis.
This is a massive industry. It survives only as long as the AGW thesis holds up. And yet, everyone in that industry is seen as totally objective.
I suspect very little of that money flows to anyone who either believes that the warming in the period since the Little Ice Age isn't caused by human activity, or that the effects will not be disastrous. It's not too surprising that a pro-AGW consensus among climate scientists and others feeding at this trough is fairly easy to come by.
My point stands. If studies funded by oil companies are open to skepticism, then for the exact same reasons so are studies funded by governments and industries that stand to gain vast amounts of power and/or money from "fixing" the crisis.
Spend a little time at this site. Sorry, but "Follow the money" applies to everybody.
Current Events » in reply to How does that support your claim?
You don't have to yell. I'm right here.
The whole thread (81 posts)
- Where to watch tonight's Republican debate?
- Chart 4 IS table 3
- Ah it looks like you wisely deleted your post ...
- That wasn't the intention
- Getting a bit cocky, aren't we?
- Cocky...?
- Looks like we're all back for the next year of marathon election coverage
- Hah! Not me. I've got work to do.
- "The Democrats are running a crook and a communist this year."
- Ah it looks like you wisely deleted your post ...
- You've heard of youtube, right?
- Still shaking my head.
- I never took the "liberal media bias" seriously- untill tonight. n/t
- Report from Boulder...
- I don't think it matters much WHERE you watch it...
- Wait for it
- Ticket price
- Chart 4 IS table 3
