Ah, the shifting sands of culture.  Back in the 50's we would have been debating the scientific studies proving that smoking is not bad for you.  Funded by the tobacco lobbies themselves--how can you argue with that?  They certainly had plenty of money to fund the best, top-notch research.   I wonder who funds the studies showing that cars do not cause global warming?   You do the math.

I can guess. Can you guess one of the major corporate sponsors behind AGW research?

GE, who seems to be making a killing selling wind turbines these days. There are corporate interests on BOTH sides, but AGW alarmists seem to ignore one side entirely.

You mean how Al Gore personally profits from all of this, due to his investments in various green companies? The more alarmist society becomes, the richer he gets. No conflict of interest there, right?

The *real* reason dinosaurs died out.

You can't tell, but those are spliffs.

Gary Larson retired far too early.

I really didn't want to get involved with this discussion but I guess I just can't help myself.

Yes there are corporate interests on *both* sides. But the question is what is the magnitude of those interests?

In reality you're comparing pennies to dollars.

It's tough to get the sum totality of numbers but you can get at enough of them to get an idea of the kind of scale that we're talking about.

For example GE totally dominates the world market in wind turbines installing one of every two new wind turbines in the U.S.

Also from http://www.gepower.com/about/press/en/2009_press/050409d.htm.

"GE Energy is one of the world’s leading suppliers of power generation and energy delivery technologies, with 2008 revenue of $29.3 billion. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, GE Energy works in all areas of the energy industry including coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy; renewable resources such as water, wind, solar and biogas; and other alternative fuels."

In other words GE Energy's total *revenue*, of which wind turbine and other "alternative" energy equipment is only a *fraction*, totals $29.3 billion and because of GE's dominance in the world market this probably represents about half of such revenue in the world.

Contrast that to just *one* oil company ExxonMobil whose 2008 *profits*, not revenue, totalled $45.2 billion. It should be pretty clear that while ExxonMobil is large, it doesn't dominate the world oil market anywhere near the level that GE dominates the wind turbine market. And then of course there's the entirety of the coal industry to consider as well.

So OK I'll grant that you have a point that there is financial motivation on both sides of this argument however can you honestly deny that the oil/coal interests don't totally swamp out something as inconsequential as wind turbines?

You can even go ahead and add the slightly less than $2 billion a year in federal funding that goes to support climate research and you'll still end up with *far* more financial motivation on the side of AGW deniers then there is on AGW "alarmists" as you call them.

Like I said it's comparing pennies to dollars. Can you honestly deny this?

(\B):vulcan:(\B)  I agree that it is a hoax.  The climate is always in flux due to countless, naturally occurring factors.  Politicians and some companies are making millions off of this and some even get a Nobel prize for it.  They're laughing at us.  They want us to change how we live our lives while they won't change their own ways.  They tell us that our carbon emissions are killing the planet, while a volcano emits thousands of times more CO2, CO, SuO2 etc into the atmosphere than we've produced since the industrial revolution.  It's a hoax.  The fact that they've convinced people to abort their own to "save the earth" by eliminating the future carbon footprint is a testament to the stupidity of masses.  Sure, a person is smart, but masses are stupid, reactionary beasts.  When people band their heads together, it’s rare that anything but ignorance is multiplied.  It's human nature.  A good example is the old fashioned rumor.  For each of us, it's that rare relationship that provides the opposite.  The very fact that they use the term: "consensus" tells us everything we need to know.  There's no consensus in science.  It's a bunch of human beings who call them selves "scientists" who are asked about it, and being affraid of political backlash and loss of grant money or prestige, they fall onto the band-wagon, (just like everybody else).  You can't tell me they're all researching it.

and 30 years ago, the eco-jerks were busting the world's collective balls about the "fact" that the planet was GOING INTO A NEW ICE AGE.

Books were written, people paniced, but nothing happened; we're not freezing over...Yet agian back in the day, the babyboomers didn't give a rat's ass about the enviromment....basically we're paying for the previous generation, with the telling us what we can/can't do.

Now, 30 years later, THE PLANET WILL BURN ITSELF!! STOP WASTING AND SAVE MOTHER NATURE!

No really, between two treehugging sessions, can you please check your info and make sure it follows itself adn not alwasy contradict itself?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling.

"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s."

I repeat. "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support" unlike the current "overwhelming scientific consensus" that maintains AGW is a real and present danger.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_global_warming.

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions."

Again I repeat. There is "no scientific body of national or international standing [that] has maintained a dissenting opinion." There may indeed be individual scientists (qualified or not with demonstrable ExxonMobil connections or not) that may deny aspects of AGW but there is not one single "scientific body of national or international standing" that denies AGW. That is what I call *overwheming*.

Certainly the latest activity has cause *some* legitimate questions to be asked, but for myself I will withhold judgement until such time as these things can be reviewed by competent scientists in the field and the results are known. Until then I have to go with the overwhelming consensus as I see it.

So, there was a cooling trend for ~25-30 years, then a warming trend for the next 25-30 years, and now a cooling trend again.

Yup, certainly cause for panic.

Citing a Wikipedia article on Global Warming? Not only is Wikipedia not a valid source, but it is a biased oligarchy, where all "undesired" opinions are censored out.

Seconded. Wikipedia is never acceptable for scholarly purposes and should only be cited in casual argument when the article in question describes a non-controversial topic.

It was obvious that this shit was a hoax from the beginning. Of course it's good to limit the amount of pollutants into the air but Al Gore and his 'scientist' declared that humans were the cause of global warming before there was actually any research done. Hell, according to Al Gore we expell pollution, not just our industry. Anyways, I thought it obvious from the beginning that if there was any significant warming then it wasn't from humans but our sun.

This is the kind of statement meant to scare people:

"Rising temperatures over decades have prompted scientific concern, and the last decade has been the hottest in thousands of years, according to climate records."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CCLC8O0&show_article=1

Are there really climate records dating back thousands of years?

The can determine global temperatures through ice in antartica with reliable precision.

Personally, I don't believe in global warming

Seriously, I think we are killing ourselves.

Are you familiar with ice cores and climate trending? Ice core data shows meaningful weather changes across millenia, not within a century. Ice cores have demonstrated fluctuations within small periods and major climate changes within larger periods. We need a few hundred more years to conclude anything based on comparisons to historical weather data.

Funny how you did not mention that CNN/ABC/NBC/ and CBS are bias too. They have stop being sources of news and are not nothing but the propagada wing for the Democrats.

You spell worse than an illegal Mexican immigrant and your grammar is crap. Just thought you should know.

Thank you I try.

This is all very troublesome because the science is lost to politics. Neither side is apolitical, and researchers often have strong political bias. Thus, much of the science is explored with a conclusion already in mind, which is a cardinal sin for any true scientist. A conclusion should not determine the results of a study, but rather, a hypothesis should be tested using results, followed by a conclusion that asserts or refutes the hypothesis.

Wow, lots of attention here on this topic.

To those who think I only read part of the article... I have read the entire article, all the links, and have done my own research ever since the global warming farce has come to popular belief.  I have done my research, and that is why it is a relief that this dishonesty is finally coming out. 

Computer models can be set up to be biased, just like polls can.

And do not site sources like Wikipedia or any other user edited site - they can be influenced and biased to a degree of downright lies.

This is my point! 

Science is now being polluted to the point of fraud.  It must be delt with or most science will not be credible in the near future.  This is quite sereous.

And what about the opposite side?  All these "scientists" get there grant money from who?  the government.... hmmm....

No math needed, just some common sense.