Where does all this money go??

[gsvol]

How can climate scientists spend so much money? ClimateQuotes.com

According to Paul Driessen (author of Eco-Imperialism),
The US Big Government has funded $90 billion in GW
research over the past 20 years promoting climate
crisis science.

Ever wonder why you never stop hearing about
studies finding GW responsible for everything from
kidney stones to cannibalism?

Explains Richard Lindzen (Sloan Professor of
Meteorology at MIT): "It's become standard
that whatever you're studying, include global
warming's effects in your proposal and you'll
get your (government) funding."

 

[bamacheats]

I think global warming is making my scotch taste funny. I need to do a study.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[TennTradition]

There is a lot of truth in Lindzen's statement. However, it should be noted that it isn't like the money is earmarked for GW research. Some is - and maybe this 90 billion was. Other money isn't specifically intended for GW research, but ends up funding something that might be tied to GW. For example, almost all biological and engineering research into biofuels is motivated by CO2 emissions abatement.

There is work directly related to climate change, such as understanding UT better or making better predictions. There is also a much larger body (at least, it seems larger to me) if work that includes pontential solutions for mitigating climate change or coping with it. This is where I see Lindzen's statement as quite true. A whole lot of papers are introduced using concerns over GW as part of their motivation. And there are certainly some groups out there that stretchbthete work into the realm if climate change in an attempt to make it look more impactful or important. On the other hand, you also have very good work that directly relates to potential solutions that is quite obviously tied to GW without any stretch.

A ton of the work in my lab is motivated by more efficient combustion as well as engineering to reduce CO2 emissions. It is almost always motivated in the context of concerns over climate change. And, interestingly, much of it is directly funded by industry. Most if it, actually. It is also supplemented in some cases by more general funding from government resources.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

Like always, TT enters as the voice of reason in this debate.

 

[gsvol]

Like always, TT enters as the voice of reason in this debate.

If you think circular verbosity with a liberal sprinkling of pc buzz words thrown in to be the voice of reason then you would be right.

It appears that the AGW hoax puts food on the table of Mr TT.

 

[TennTradition]

If you think cricular verbosity to be the voice of reason then you would be right.

It appears that the AGW hoax puts food on the table of Mr TT.

No more than the hoax that is the internal combustion engine, the crackpot process of oil refinement, or that pesky imaginary gas hydrogen.

 

[gsvol]

...... GW research......
.......GW research, ......
.......tied to GW.......
.......CO2 emissions abatement. .......
........climate change,.......
........mitigating climate change ......
........concerns over GW ........
.......climate change .......
........tied to GW .........
.........reduce CO2 emissions........
.........concerns over climate change. .....
....... funding from government resources......

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie
can be maintained only for such time as the State
can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all
of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is
the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Goebbels, Nazi minister of propaganda

 

[TennTradition]

Excuse me for using the words or terms GW and CO2 in response to your post about......GW. I'll try to avoid staying on topic in the future as to avoid blowing your mind through rational discussion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie
can be maintained only for such time as the State
can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all
of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is
the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Goebbels, Nazi minister of propaganda

You should do a little self-reflection on this, gsvol.

 

[gsvol]

I think global warming is making my scotch taste funny. I need to do a study.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Reminds me of the Proxmire Golden Fleece awards
which was won one year by some academians for a
grant of $880,000 to study whether goldfish were
more agressive on gin or tequila, how much of that
booze do you think they poured in the fish tank??

Excuse me for using the words or terms GW and CO2 in response to your post about......GW. I'll try to avoid staying on topic in the future as to avoid blowing your mind through rational discussion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Seems like a rationalization of your propoaganda rather
than rational discussion since you mentioned global warming numerous times, climate change several and
then point to CO2 reduction as being the goal of the
research when we know that CO2 makes no appreciable
contribution to any projected global warming and in fact
we are undergoing a global cooling phase which makes
all these billions of dollars just throwing good money after
bad.

You should do a little self-reflection on this, gsvol.

You find it hard to think outside the box don't you?

[IMG[http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy172/ostracon321/Al_Gore.jpg[/IMG]

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.
----------------------------

The global surface temperature record, which we
update and publish every month, has shown no
statistically-significant “global warming”for
almost 15 years.

Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a
strong el Nino – expected in the coming months
– will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs
deployed throughout the world’s oceans since
2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans,
where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global
warming” must accumulate, have been cooling over
the past six years.

That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global warming” will
happen on anything other than a minute scale.

- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

Bottom line, you can take your chicken little
ideas back inside the henhouse and work on
laying your next egg.

 

[IPorange]

Holy crap. You've posted the same link THREE TIMES in the last five hours. Who can't think outside the box?

 

[gsvol]

Holy crap. You've posted the same link THREE TIMES in the last five hours. Who can't think outside the box?

And each time I pointed out that the scientific
research proves that your theory which you
keep proffering as fact is indeed not true.

 

[Cartervol]

I honestly don't how they come up with many of their figures when it comes to budgeting. Some times i think they just throw a number out there and see if they get a bite. Most of the time they do.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

You should do a little self-reflection on this, gsvol.

.

 

[droski]

my buddy has a job with the obama administration teaching developing countries how to develop green technologies. i kid you not. he flies all over teh world. massive waste of money.

 

[Cartervol]

I'd say a lot of it winds up in their pockets. Most of these guys have yacht payments, three houses and a time share in a third world country.

 

[fl0at]

my buddy has a job with the obama administration teaching developing countries how to develop green technologies. i kid you not. he flies all over teh world. massive waste of money.

Massive waste of money, or a neat trick to test new technology on a smaller scale in order to determine feasibility of said technology in our nation?

Probably a massive waste of money. I may be giving too much credit. I'm probably giving too much credit.

 

[Weezy]

I'd say a lot of it winds up in their pockets. Most of these guys have yacht payments, three houses and a time share in a third world country.

Which ones?

My research might have fallen under this. One way to win grants for new reactors is to use the clean energy pitch.

 

[droski]

Massive waste of money, or a neat trick to test new technology on a smaller scale in order to determine feasibility of said technology in our nation?

Probably a massive waste of money. I may be giving too much credit. I'm probably giving too much credit.

i think they are selling us crap cheaper than we can produce it rather than making new technologies we haven't invented.

 

[fl0at]

i think they are selling us crap cheaper than we can produce it rather than making new technologies we haven't invented.

Probably. I just read "develop" as "create," although I guess it could mean "reproduce."

My interpretation of the word and context it was used in must have been off.

 

[gsvol]

Quality propaganda doesn't come cheap.

Recovery Act spent over 600 million dollars on climate change research; billions on GHG mitigation ClimateQuotes.com

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA), better known as the stimulus act or
stimulus package, was passed with the stated goal
of helping our economy. It was meant to create
jobs and boost consumer spending. Opponents of
the nearly $1 trillion act pointed out that many of
the provisions had nothing to do with helping the
economy.

Looking back at a few different documents, I've
found that the stimulus act spent over $600 million
dollars on climate change research among three
Federal agencies. In addition, there was $25 billion
spent on researching different greenhouse gas
emissions mitigation options.

 

[TennTradition]

I know that DOE was given money to dispense that went to alternatives research, which I think could fall under greenhouse gas mitigation (unless we're talking about corn ethanol). This was spread out over a lot of companies. There were also a lot of loan guarantees.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[lawgator1]

Confirmed, scientists are witches.