How much money would the Koch Brothers have to give to the Heartland Institute to get you to deny global warming was real?
So many times here we hear that people don't believe in so-called "global warming" because the Koch Brothers are giving money to the Heartland Institute. (what ever that is) How much money would they have to give for you to become a denier as well?
- Favorite Answer
I can't be bought. Which is more than I can say for Al gore, Phil Jones, Jimmy Hansen, Michael Mann and a host of greenies on this site.
Science is science and if you go outside that you will get caught. Those who are caught turn green with envy when they see the honesty and integrity of true scientists. Gore just turns his bank account more green.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Well Jello, you jsut don't understand.
You see, the Koch Brothers are pure evil. They are literally the devil incarnate. ANYTHING they give to is evil. So if they are giving money to something you have to know it is evil.
OH, except they gave to UNCF, and MIT for cancer research and many hospitals and 250 colleges and many other things.
Otherwise they are evil.
You see Jello, you just don't understand things. You see freedom of speech is a GREAT thing and everyone should have the right to say whatever they want AS LONG as it matches with the liberal agenda. Because free speech by conservatives is poison.
You see this is how it works. If you have a scientist say something then it is TRUE and if you don't agree, you are a denier of science. BUT if the scientist says something that is not part of the liberal playbook, then he is also a denier of science.
Now I can't believe I am still having to explain this to you, as it should be completely obvious.
Let me explain more. You see, science used to be a slow process because you would actually have to follow the scientific method of testing and making sure reality matches your theories. Now we have new science. You develop your theories and models and state they are right because if they fit the liberal agenda they are. THEN if reality comes out wrong, then you simply adjust your models and say they always worked.
When that fails, you simply adjust reality. Like AGW causes crop failures. Now nevermind the bumper crops and that crop production is increasing faster than population. You see because of the ethanol mandate, the food prices are going up. So obviously AGW is causing the food prices to go up.
Still don't get it? You are hopeless.
No No No. Listen to these brilliant people. AGW is happening is it catastrophic and you are being fooled. You want evidence??? Well the Koch brothers have spent a few million to get you to deny the truth, but the warmers have billions spent a year. You see the millions is BAD money, but the billions is good money.
Now you keep asking for "evidence" and "statistical analysis" and "proof", what you need to do is accept that you have fallen short of the glory of Mother Gaia with your evil CO2 emitting ways. But the government will save us all by taxing us. How could you possibly need more evidence?
Edit for Gary F,
Gary F is of course right. The science has always been the same. Science has always been about "consensus" and decalring models accurate before they are tested and making "corrections" to make your model right and declaring them right all along.
Thank you for the corection Gary F, I forgot we did our 1984-like change on how science is conducted.
I used to be ignorant like you, but I was shown the errors of my ways by the great and wonderful pegminer.
You see when I earlier stated that Hansen received a million dollars in one year, pegminer agreed that he indeed had received a million dollars in one year, but I was lying when I said he did.
When I stated that the exponential warming predicted by the model is ridiculous, he showed me that i was lying by calling it exponential. Sure it can be modeled by an exponential, sure it is rapidly increasing as per the english definition of exponential. Still I was lying. I was lying because I didn't accept the truth of the great Al Goracle into my heart and mind.
You too can have your carbon sins washed clean as snow by repenting and allowing the gov't to tax us. You can even acheive sainthood if you buy some carbon credits and drive a prius.
- JimZLv 77 years ago
Charles Koch funds and supports libertarian and free-market organizations such as the Cato Institute
They have donated more than $196 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations. In 2008, the three main Koch family foundations contributed to 34 political and policy organizations, three of which they founded, and several of which they direct.
Although these organizations are enough to cause most alarmists head to spin like Regan in the Exorcist, IMO they are forces for good.
George Soros, the leftist god
"The Man Who Broke the Bank of England" because of his short sale of US$10 billion worth of pounds, giving him a profit of $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crisis.
Is there really any comparison between them? One a force for good another a force against humanity.
They demonize someone like Michelle Bachmann who is a beautiful woman, earned her law degree, fought and won a seat in Congress, had foster kids, set up program for girls with eating disorders, etc yet she is demonized by leftists as if she is Satan along with Sarah Palin who has similar views.
- KanoLv 77 years ago
Gary F. Quote "Most climate scientists could make more money - and make more news - if they chose to lie" THEY DO.
Valid criticism of AGW, the IPCC in the midst of a temperature pause, upgrade their prediction of man being the cause from 90% to 95% (how is that scientific)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
Most climate scientists could make more money - and make more news - if they chose to lie and pretended to be Deniers. Because they are more knowledgeable, better informed, and more accomplished in skeptical inquiry than Deniers (who - despite all of their efforts - are so stupid that have never come up with a single scientifically valid criticism of AGW), climate scientists actually know how to attack science.
Deniers claim that Michael Mann has used climate science to become rich and famous; however, whatever financial rewards he may have received do not equal a fraction of a percent of how much money he could make if he announced that he had "see the light" and become a "climate science skeptic."
Raisin Caine --
>>Now we have new science. You develop your theories and models and state they are right because if they fit the liberal agenda they are.<<
The science is the same - as is the scientific illiteracy and ignorance of Deniers. The scientific consensus for AGW followed the quanity, quality, and scientific validity of the evidence.
Even the much-hated Michael Mann did not publish a research paper identifying human-influenced warming until 1996.
His early research focused on identifying natural variability in climate and, in fact, published a paper the same year (1994) as Schlesinger and Ramankutty identifying what has come to be known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
The ignorance and dishonesty of Deniers is shown no better than in their recent love fest with the AMO and their pretending to have found in it another anti-AGW smoking gun - although they too stupid to realize that Michael Mann was one the scientists who discovered it.
You are not capable of knowing if scientists were lying - and that makes you the liar.
>> the IPCC in the midst of a temperature pause, upgrade their prediction of man being the cause from 90% to 95% (how is that scientific)<<
It is scientific because that is what the "scientific evidence" says. It is hysterical the way Deniers either mindlessly parrot-speak the words 'complexity' and "natural variability", but base their every argument against AGW on a childishly simplistic and unscientific understanding of the physical universe.
Deniers yap and yap about a 'pause' contradicting AGW theory - a claim that could only be true if the climate system was simplistically linear and there was no "natural variability." The pause only contradicts global warming if they both have the same cause - and that argument is empirically contradicted by the observed non-uniform geographical spatial variability in temperature.
Deniers claiming that the pause disproves global warming is the as claiming that the earth is not rotating because you cannot see it or feel it,
- Hey DookLv 77 years ago
"So many times here we hear that people don't believe in so-called "global warming" because the Koch Brothers are giving money to the Heartland Institute."
I've been here over three years, I don't remember hearing it even once. I have heard a lot of nonsense being made up by anti-science posters, however.
Many many millions are spent concocting phony science about how Global Warming is a MYTH. And it's been money well spent for the Billionaires like Kochs.
Right wing morons eagerly and obediently repeat the lies endlessly. The lies make a stupid person feels like he really KNOWS stuff.
Personally I'd want MONEY to deny Global Warming - but most angry, stupid right wing drunks will sell their soul much more cheaply. They don't get any money for parroting their favorite lie.
- 7 years ago
global warming is not real, i didn't get a dime for it.