I keep hearing how skeptics are paid for by big oil. Just wondering if any skeptics here are paid for by big oil. And, if you work for big oil, e-mail me and we can set up some payment options.
Also, if taking funding from big oil negates the study, does this mean any money from government agencies like the IPCC must also be negated? It would seem so since the IPCC ONLY exists to prove AGW. If it was disproved today, the IPCC would be disbanded tomorrow. Mean while, big oil at least provides us with gas, oil, and an actual product which we all need.
2009-08-26T14:44:04Z
For those who say the IPCC only collects scientific data, how does it feel to have your eyes, nose, and ears full of sand. Exactly who produces the Summary of the actual technical data. How many scientist have come out and said the politicians changed the meaning of their scientific work? And agani, if AGW was disproved today, what would happen to the IPCC? It would be disbanned, and all those paid people would be unemployed. There only concern is to show man causes global warming, even though, no scientific study has supported the theory. Maybe if the AGW crazies understood the scientific process, they to would realize that man has made no significant contribution to climate change.
David2009-08-25T21:09:29Z
Favorite Answer
When people say skeptics are funded by fossil fuel companies, they are not talking about the "skeptics" here on Yahoo Answers. They're talking about the big name skeptics, like Richard Lindzen who it has been shown charges a hefty sum to Big Oil for his consulting services. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#Fossil_Fuel_Interests_Funding
And you obviously haven't the faintest clue what the IPCC does. It merely collects and analyzes the peer reviewed scientific literature. It does not do any kind of research and it does not try to "prove" anything. (If it were under some elaborate government pressure, why would they say there is only a 90% certainty? Why wouldn't they just say 100%?)
Actually it is the environmental groups like greenpeace and others of the type that have prevented the move to alternative energy that have and are funded by the big energy companies. They first began this program back in the 50s as they realized the threat first nuclear and then solar would be to their profits. This is why the same groups that protest nuclear plants also protest high capacity solar plants and wind farms. They are also the central groups calling for co2 reductions while at the same time preventing functional alternatives to coal and oil for power generation. These energy company funded eco terrorists are also working hard to get hydro electric power plants and their dams shut down and removed to create more demand for coal, natural gas and oil fueled power plants.
So it AGW and all of its eco terrorist comrades that are secretly funded by big oil. Hansen and his GISS organization are indirectly funded by Exxon-mobile through the university he is located at because the university is funded by them and has been since the 20s when it was taken over by the founder of Standard Oil.
All the global warming skeptics don't understand that there are thousands of scientists at universities around the world who are sending their children through expensive colleges on the many, many billions invested in proving that global warming is true (easily 10x what big energy is spending to debunk it). Ironically, as the story goes, Margarete Thatcher started the GW scam to push the move toward more nuclear power plants. And it is true that if GW were a real threat, the only rational and scalable replacement (non-CO2) power source would be nuclear. But alas, the GW industry was, over time, hijacked by the "progressive" greens as a means to an end: scaring people into giving up wealth, progress, and personal liberty in the name of their fruit-loops Mother Earth religion (See: misanthropic). And most of the scientists are just prostitutes along for the gravy train.
Doubt if many skeptics are paid by big oil, I'm certainly not. Government agencies only produce reports positive to what they are set up to report to justify their existence, not to report on or investigate the real and correct facts.