The idea that the climate change cause, supported to a greater or lesser degree by just about every government and with countless billions of taxpayer funds behind it, is in any real sense threatened by “powerful groups of deniers” is a crude attempt to use conspiracy theory to stifle open debate, debate that can include the reality or otherwise of climate change, the extent of climate change, the consequences of climate change and, indeed, what to do about climate change.
This is a long run on sentence of a paragraph, but the point it is trying to make is good. You have a billion dollar industry that is heavily financed by governments and thus the taxes of people world wide. Yet, we are asked to believe that a few people saying, “hey wait a second, the predictions are not panning out” is a threat to this industry. It’s not the “deniers”. It’s that the either the models, the data, or both that must be wrong, because the predictions are most definitely wrong. That’s the threat, as it should always be if we are really talking science.
I think the US government has spent something like $35 Billion on climate change studies since 1989, an in 2013 spent $22.2 Billion on climate change (which includes all the green energy initiatives run by Obama’s buddies).
If you pooled all the oil money that Rand, Anthony Watts, and other prominent skeptics were paid, you could probably buy a Grand Slam breakfast at Denny’s.
To warmists, this means the sides must somehow be evenly matched. They think the oil companies are fighting against them tooth and nail, when it’s the energy companies that fund a lot of their campaigns, such as the one against coal (natural gas companies want to get the government to ban coal so they can sell more natural gas, naturally). Oil companies would of course love some externalities that would let them sell oil at $200 a barrel. It’s the consumers who are getting screwed in all this.
The article, while very good, omits a very important and very relevant point; The British Royal Family has long striven to maintain a separation from politics (this is why they don’t vote, and make a point of letting that fact be known). So, Prince Charles is trampling over that aspect of being a royal, and thus undermining the very premise of the modern role of the monarchy.
I also take issue with their description of him as “self-indulgent” regarding his carbon footprint; a far more accurate term would be “massive hypocrite”.
*puffs pipe*
I’ve heard it rumored that Prince Charles’ son and heir, Prince William, carries the mitochondrial DNA of an Indian housekeeper.
What are we to make of that? What will the Lords say? And now William has gone and married a commoner, the daughter of a British Airways steward and stewardess!
The idea that the climate change cause, supported to a greater or lesser degree by just about every government and with countless billions of taxpayer funds behind it, is in any real sense threatened by “powerful groups of deniers” is a crude attempt to use conspiracy theory to stifle open debate, debate that can include the reality or otherwise of climate change, the extent of climate change, the consequences of climate change and, indeed, what to do about climate change.
This is a long run on sentence of a paragraph, but the point it is trying to make is good. You have a billion dollar industry that is heavily financed by governments and thus the taxes of people world wide. Yet, we are asked to believe that a few people saying, “hey wait a second, the predictions are not panning out” is a threat to this industry. It’s not the “deniers”. It’s that the either the models, the data, or both that must be wrong, because the predictions are most definitely wrong. That’s the threat, as it should always be if we are really talking science.
I think the US government has spent something like $35 Billion on climate change studies since 1989, an in 2013 spent $22.2 Billion on climate change (which includes all the green energy initiatives run by Obama’s buddies).
If you pooled all the oil money that Rand, Anthony Watts, and other prominent skeptics were paid, you could probably buy a Grand Slam breakfast at Denny’s.
To warmists, this means the sides must somehow be evenly matched. They think the oil companies are fighting against them tooth and nail, when it’s the energy companies that fund a lot of their campaigns, such as the one against coal (natural gas companies want to get the government to ban coal so they can sell more natural gas, naturally). Oil companies would of course love some externalities that would let them sell oil at $200 a barrel. It’s the consumers who are getting screwed in all this.
The article, while very good, omits a very important and very relevant point; The British Royal Family has long striven to maintain a separation from politics (this is why they don’t vote, and make a point of letting that fact be known). So, Prince Charles is trampling over that aspect of being a royal, and thus undermining the very premise of the modern role of the monarchy.
I also take issue with their description of him as “self-indulgent” regarding his carbon footprint; a far more accurate term would be “massive hypocrite”.
*puffs pipe*
I’ve heard it rumored that Prince Charles’ son and heir, Prince William, carries the mitochondrial DNA of an Indian housekeeper.
*nibbles on a scone*
seriously.
*raises eyebrow and points pipe*
What are we to make of that? What will the Lords say? And now William has gone and married a commoner, the daughter of a British Airways steward and stewardess!
*starts ranting*
😀
Mister Coffee Enema says what, now?