Re: [Paddlewise] Following the money, Exxon Exposed

They cancelled my conspiracy meeting because I don't have a PhD and am not
getting grant money. Unless someone is willing to grant me some money I'm
outta luck. I can open up a PayPal account.


> Hmm...to hide the decline??? Please tell me how these actions fit into
> scientific method. If the data is unassailable, what is the danger of
> providing it to skeptics?
>

I dunno. Ask him. Maybe they're sick of being harassed for this "data" to
the point of not being able to do their own work. These guys are not the
only ones doing the research and collecting the data, of course. I suspect
that they are getting the data from other sources, in fact. I posted one
source to Mike Euritt that was quoted in a news media (USA Today, I think).
I just stumbled across it, of course.

Go read it. It was compiled by two guys who are semi-skeptics and they
directly contradict Mike's allegation that the entire globe cooled in 2009.
According to them only the central USA and Canada cooled in 2009; the rest
of the world warmed by .41C.

I doubt that much of the data is secret... but I suspect you would not
believe the data from any source regardless. The skeptics have turned this
into a political war; you can hardly blame these guys for being secretive.


> But in the end, you're absolutely right: if we can't question the computer
> modeling, if we can't question whether the scores of BILLIONS of government
> dollars might color research, if we're supposed to ignore the destruction of
> data, then we have to accept AGW as a given.
>

But which government? I keep hearing about "government money" but neither
you nor Mike nor Paul have ever given me any evidence to show why you think
ALL these governments are involved. Mike says that only when non-government
and non-grant scientists audit the data can we be certain; who is left? Only
scientists employed by Corporations? Do you trust Dow Chemical scientists
more than NASA scientists? Why wouldn't NASA color results one way under
Bush and another way under Clinton? Is there any evidence of this? Why would
a researcher in NZ be under the same gun as a researcher in the Caucasus?

Corporations are motivated by profit; they make no secret of this. So it
seems that supporting research that results in profit might be a high
priority. When ExxonMobil subsidizes a book that is pretty obviously a tool
to confuse the issue I'm not surprised. They have a profit motive. What
would motivate both liberal and conservative governments of so many separate
countries to stifle research that does not support AGW over 35 years?

I just watched a television presentation on the Science Channel that showed
photos of Alaska glaciers over a long period of time and they are clearly
declining. Are these doctored? Is everyone involved in this coverup?

So Mark... if you do nothing else please address this. What evidence is
there - other than "it's obvious" - to show that there is an agreement among
governments to stifle research results that do not agree with AGW.
Corporations deny AGW because it fits their priority... it will impact their
profits. This makes sense. Government support AGW for.... what reason? More
taxes? Why would the Bush administration do that?

This is the key to the credibility of your argument.


Craig
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************