Does anyone believe setting up a student scholarship is the same as being funded directly by Exxon?
Question by Dana1981: Does anyone believe setting up a student scholarship is the same as being funded directly by Exxon?
The newest ClimateGate “dirt” is that the University of East Anglia partnered with Shell to set up a scholarship program. *Gasp!* Quite obviously, the scientists working at UEA didn’t see a dime of this money.
This is being compared to the level of conflict of interest posed by right-wing think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute which has been directly funded by ExxonMobil, and whose “scientists” rely on these sorts of “donations” for their salaries.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
Are these relationships with oil companies even remotely comparable?
Best answer:
Answer by New Deal Democrat
Who controls Royal Dutch Shell? The Anglo-Dutch oligarchy.
Who created the AGW fraud? The Anglo-Dutch oligarchy.
So yes, they are directly comparable.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
August 5th, 2011 at 5:27 am
As is always the case, the story from the skeptics mouths is a distorted version of reality.
Shell has it’s one climatic research division, they frequently send their scientists to the UEA (home of the CRU) to attend seminars and for training. Consequently there is a close working relationship between Shell and the CRU.
There are several other emails amongst the hacked data which reference Shell. The skeptics conveniently do not reference these because it would put things into perspective (something they are seemingly incapable of doing), here’s some other emails concerning Shell…
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=57
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=156
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=177
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=183
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=185
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=215
The lengths that the skeptics will go to is now getting beyond belief. At one point their arguments did at least have a grain of sense to them but of late it’s been nothing put lies, deceit, misrepresentation and falsification.
They’ve all but abandoned trying to counter the science behind global warming and are now having to resort to personal attack and underhand tactics. I can’t for the life of me imagine why this would be.
– - – - – - – - – - –
EDIT: TO !ANSWERS (Below)
The oil companies are required by law to publish their accounts, they’re littered with payments made to skeptic publications, websites, front organisations and the like. Have a guess how many payments you’ll find made to organisations that promote global warming (a clue, it’s a nice round number and is less than 1)
August 5th, 2011 at 6:25 am
So that’s all they’ve got left out of the emails to use? A scholarship program? They’ve been staring at this stuff for a week and they haven’t found anything substantive–except that everyone agrees that Stephen McIntyre is a jerk that’s not really interested in the science.
August 5th, 2011 at 6:48 am
It’s getting colder.
Get over it.
You lost.
Move on.
August 5th, 2011 at 6:52 am
Quoting exxonsecrets for proof of oil money is like quoting the bible as proof that there is a god.
These people think that if exxon gives a small percentage of the operating budget to an organization, and then this organization pays the transportation to a scientists to attend a conference, then this scientists is tainted by big oil money.
Alternative energy groups are major sponsors of climate change conferences. These conference are also tainted by alternative energy money.
So using your criteria (not mine), yes CRU is tainted by big oil money.
August 5th, 2011 at 7:28 am
its pretty hard to tell but you wont recieve information 98 percent true on public sites people wont tell you need to be behind closed doors with a educated person on the subject and matter than you might come out with 98 99 often the truth is mislead or mistaken so its hard for a gareenteed 100 percent%%%
August 5th, 2011 at 8:22 am
Dana, you are a study in inconsistency. You blithely accuse researchers funded by Exxon-Mobil of a willingness to falsify their data, analysis, or conclusions to benefit Exxon-Mobil. Yet you take particular umbrage at the suggestion that AGW proponents would behave similarly to benefit themselves. GlimateGate provides ample evidence that the latter not only occurs but is common.
As for Shell funding scholarships, I am happy they do so. However, for them to end up funding scholarships at UEA is somewhat like the Moral Majority funding internships at Planned Parenthood. Surprising on many levels.
August 5th, 2011 at 8:58 am
if you global warming terrorists get your way, it really won’t matter what you think. You will be too poor to afford a computer or even a postage stamp.
I would remind you also, that marxists usually murder educated middle class people first. The poor , uneducated, and a few elites are spared. Everyone else ends up with a bullet in their neck.
Best case scenerio, if global warming terrorists get their way, is that you and everyone else ends up with the standard of living of someone from africa or mongolia.
August 5th, 2011 at 9:42 am
For all intents and purposes, people are beholden to those they recieve their money from, be it Exxon, global warming supporters or grandma.
You’re reaching. Time to find a new cause, because yours is dead.