Umm, the whole idea of climate change predates your so-called "renewables" by about a century. Who was paying for that? And why?
While it is technically true that people theorized it many years ago the big money is a fairly recent development.
The "why" is something you seem to be avoiding. We can trace large amounts of money from Exxon, the Kochs and others supporting climate deniers. Who, by your claims, seem to be working both sides of the street. Care to try to explain that?
Care to try to explain WHAT? If I had a lot of money I would be spending it to get the facts out on the global warming fiasco, too. With the millions/billions of taxpayer and private dollars being spent to promote the Warmist agenda, some balance is useful. Kochs and Exxon have essential business interests as well as American interests. Of course they promote their views.
I believe this Charles Koch quote, a recent one, summarizes his position well. And I would say it summarizes mine, as well, so I really take no issue with the Kochs.
"Well, I mean I believe it's been warming some. There's a big debate on that, because it depends on whether you use satellite measurements, balloon, or you use ground ones that have been adjusted. But there has been warming. The CO2 goes up, the CO2 has probably contributed to that. But they say it's going to be catastrophic. There is no evidence to that. They have these models that show it, but the models don't work ... To be scientific, it has to be testable and refutable. And so I mean, it has elements of science in it, and then of conjecture, ideology and politics. So do we want to create a catastrophe today in the economy because of some speculation based on models that don't work? Those are my questions. But believe me, I spent my whole life studying science and the philosophy of science, and our whole company is committed to science. We have all sorts of scientific developments. But I want it to be real science, not politicized science."
"As to your claims of the legitimacy of the science, I didn't realize you had the background to actually critique it. Somehow I don't see how a bean counter is really qualified to do so."
As I've previously explained the statistics are the heart of the science and I do have a fairly strong statistics background. And of course, I have a reasonable understand of math and science as well.
And I do have considerable knowledge of fraud, and I know it when I see it. This went from uproved theory to fraud in 1998/99, and the fraud has continued ever since. |
