Skip to comments.Global Warming Activists Don’t Like When Someone Follows The Money
Posted on 11/04/2015 9:17:33 AM PST by george76
Al Gore .. has levied his global warming activism from a net worth of $700,000 in 2000 into an estimated net worth of $172.5 million by 2015. He is not alone in his financial endeavor.
Funding of science, in this particular case, climate change science, is dominated by the federal government. We assert that this will cause recipients of [government] grants to publish findings that are in-line with government policy preferences (i.e., do not bite the hand that feeds you
Studies that receive financial support from the public sector do not have to disclose it as a conflict of interest, even when that support is in the millions of dollars. Recent studies that the Environmental Protection Agency is using to support the scientific case for its Clean Power Plan saw the EPA itself give $31.2 million, $9.5 million, and $3.65 million in public funds to lead authors according to EPA public disclosures.
The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of his study was predetermined, saying "in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls."
Universities typically received about 50 percent of the money that their researchers get in public funds if their research finds positive results, making them deeply dependent upon federal funding and likely to encourage studies which will come to conclusions that the government wants.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Criminal behavior at worst. Reprehensible, vile, disgusting lies at best.
Why do politicians who believe in climate change and strict regulations want China to produce products for USA when China has the worst pollution?
Politicians concerned with climate change & regulations don’t care that light bulbs from China have mercury in them & China has worst pollution. Doesn’t China’s air affect the whole earth? That bit of nonchalance speaks volumes.
Point being if they believe it is real they would have this thought but somehow it doesn’t appear they do. That is the nonchalance I speak of. Why would one exercise trade with a country that is harming the environment if one is adamant about laying down rules to prevent that.
Follow the money.
Sheds a little more light on the name “GREENpeace”. A lot of us know which ‘green’ they’re really concerned about. And it ain’t my rose bush.
It appears my tagline is the perfect explanation for almost anything liberals feel strongly about.
in my opinion, the supposed research funding is actually propaganda funding to spread the word and promote the climate dogma premising the government religion of climate change prophecy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.