SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sea Otter who wrote (10005)2/22/2012 11:27:10 AM
From: TimF1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 85487
 
If a city or state spends money to handle the effects of climate change - such as how will we get water, or energy - that is what they are suppose to do.

No a city getting involved here is largely wasting its money on politics. It wasn't "spending to handle the effects of change", (or at least not just doing that).

And even if it was somehow what the city is supposed to do, lets assume for the sake of argument that its all ok, even expected, the fact that a single city spent more than the biggest of the supposedly evil oil companies, that are supposedly distorting the image of the problem by spending so much money to convince others that there isn't a problem, shows the weakness of that hole line of argument from the global warming alarmists, and from those who want to control corporate speech.

And San Francisco is just a small part of it

Australian science writer Jo Nova estimates that since 1989 the U.S. government has spent $79 billion on global warming-friendly climate research. Nova notes that the "figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, [or universities] and is not adjusted for inflation," and yet even this partial sum is 3,500 times the $23 million spent by Exxon in the same period. Global warming alarmists however continue to accuse skeptics of being duped by disinformation from well-funded carbon polluters, while they seem incapable of recognizing the far greater funding that supports their own efforts.

americanthinker.com

Beyond that Exxon-Mobil's money has (at least recently) been spent in the other direction (along the same lines of San Francisco's, or the federal government's spending)

---

Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 21, 2002

Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming.

Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford

BP Deal at UC Berkeley: Corporate Research, Profits and Global Warming

On February 1, Robert Birgeneau, Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, announced an agreement between BP (formerly British Petroleum) and the University of California at Berkeley to establish an Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) on the Berkeley campus. Under the agreement BP will provide the university with $500 million over 10 years. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, this is “by far the largest alliance ever between industry and academia.”

BP Deal at UC Berkeley

Alarmists see Koch’s minuscule funding to skeptics as being evidence of corruption, while Exxon and BP’s huge contributions to alarmists are all good.

real-science.com

H/T to Brumar who posted the links at Subject 57143
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext