The fossil fuel industry has been funding climate science (among many other Government non-adventures) since its beginning.
Who is pegminer trying to kid? Maybe he should get the facts straight before pointing the finger at anyone (point your finger at someone and there are 3 fingers of your own pointing right back at ya).
All one has to do is check to see how much fossil fuels are paying the Government in taxes, tariffs, and more taxes and compare it to how much is being paid for climate research. Climate research doesn't pay for itself. That's for sure!
Where have you been hiding, watts claimed for years he was not funded at all, the papers obtained from Heartland prove this was a lie and he was funded, if I recall the number mentioned was 30,000.
Watts then changed his tune and claimed this was to produce a new website, given both his websites are off the shelf blogs which anyone with a basic knowledge of html can create for nothing, that seems a large amount. This was just from Heartland it's not really much of a secret that the multiple fronts set up, of which Heartland is just one, have amongst a number of functions, to funnel money to denier experts, we know now what Heartland do but what about the half a dozen others, a number of lead denier 'experts' are the claimed expert contacts for each of these in one form or another if each is paying similar amounts to these 'experts' then 15000-30000 soon starts to add up to quite large sums for very little real work other than the odd appearance or blog entry.
James the difference is we rarely use "skeptical science" tending to link more to sites like NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, USGS, if you where truthful you would admit that without blogs you would have nothing.
The entire denier case is built on fiction from blogs I rarely ever link to skeptical science and never using them again would make little difference to me, If deniers stopped using blogs what would you have left Youtube videos and the occasional rant from Fox news or Glenn Beck, very credible, maybe you should look up the meaning of 'hypocrites'
I find it quite funny to see a denier to trying to make a case against blogs when they play very little part in what you call the alarmist case, but are pretty much the entire denier case, maybe while you are looking up the word 'hypocrites' you might also want to check the meaning of the word 'irony'
Then we have Ottawa
"Claiming skeptical blogs are funded by "big oil" sounds like conspiracy theory jibberish."
Well I guess you could say that except for two problems deniers are the experts on creating conspiracy theories, except theirs have no evidence to back them.
For the claim that oil companies fund (or funded) deniers you have the public admission by at least one oil company that they did, so it is hardly a conspiracy theory.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...
I really couldn't care less who funds blog sites, what should matter is whether they're unbiased and accurate. The blogs you read clearly are not. They really will print anything that supports AGW denial--and I think you will too. Consider your question about some "NASA" scientist, you linked a blog that had a story about him, despite the fact that he made obvious scientific mistakes. When I asked you about this, you said
"...I spotted the mistakes too, but the fact that he doesn't believe in global warming is pertinent"
Apparently you thought it was more pertinent that he deny global warming than to get his science correct!
That's the problem with everyone in here that denies global warming, and with all the blogs that you read, none of you really care whether an argument is correct or not, if it supports your denial. Watts blog is garbage, as is the "notrickszone", "climatedepot", Goddard, Burt Rutan, etc. Anything that denies AGW is good; anything that supports it is ignored.
If the oil industry would be smart, they would fund Watts. However, most of their funding goes to greenie causes.
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
When I was born gas was around $0.20 a gallon. Now it is near $4.00. Why is that? Because of the greenies or because of normal people? Because of greenies is the answer. We have more known oil today than we did back when I was born, yet the price is astronomically higher today. I would venture to say that the Big Oil's profits are over $0.20 a gallon. Taxes are most certainly higher. So who benefits most from these higher prices, which go along with the greenie philosophy? Governments and Big Oil! So which information campaign do you think Big Oil will dump their money into? It only stands to reason.
It appears that watts is funded by heartland, which is funded, at least in part, by the fossil industry.
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=A...
So, the answer is, yes.
Ask them for their list of donars.
Jimmy
How about checking out what they say? Most of the denialist claims they refute are obvious logical fallacies.
"CO2 is plant food," "CO2 lagged temperatures," are non-sequiters. Although denialists usually state the second in the present tense, which is a lie.
Claiming skeptical blogs are funded by "big oil" sounds like conspiracy theory jibberish.
Hey, who funds pro-AGW websites? Perhaps "Big Government"? "Big Wind"? "Huge Solar"? "Large Finance"? "Corporate Media"? "Mainstream Environmentists"? The UN?
It's all about money. People here like pegminer are either employed by by large financial corporations or they are simply useful idiots.
Do AGW cultists consider their source blogs such as the deceiviously named "skeptical science" unbiased?
They probably think their sources are objective too. They are hypocrites
like 'Watts Up With That' are funded by fossil fuel corporations
