note that WWF+Greenpeace+(earth friend?) is worth 1Billion per year, plus benevolent and free journalists. You can add to that all the green-business, renewable energies, EU and UN research funding focused now on that (to a point it is ridiculous)...
I won't even be surprised if the guardian was not relaying unverified data, lying and exaggerating, knowing that no opposition could talk in public. I don't see the 100milion in the ridiculously underfunded critics I see. Florida sugar industry is better funded. I agree there are clear errors in many climatoskeptics claims. however there are clear frauds, lies, overs confidence, manipulation of peer review, terrorism against dissenters, vested interest, trillions of investment, on warming side. guess why they don't start the temperature in 1800 ? because it will be clear it is warming (yest it, denialist are wrong) as usual since 200 years, with regular pause, like in the 40s, or now. the situation is complicated, and like on cold fusion we should be careful when there are trillion of business, billion of research, ideology not far from religion, over funded NGO, call to burn and ban the dissenters as fraudsters. What happen to report41 and Oriani, happened many time because of IPCC no-dissenting-allowed policy, enforced again by nature&Science, and proven by Climategate, which as an IT expert I'm convinced is an internal leak by a Snowden/Banning of climate. I follow Judith Curry who was consensual until she realized she have broken her ethic for the good of "the team". Her position is moderate, it is that this claims are over confident, and that very few can be said. today the mainstream climatologist (not the public evangelist, who like the Pope will be the last to admit facts) start to push that - the climate sensibility was exaggerated by a factor 2 (already much lower than what doomers say to media) - the models are all wrong, definitively wrong - they underestimate factors that the skeptics were pushing since long (a little too much I agree, but they face facine equally dishonest bias by mainstream). - there are better solution that the one that have been pushed since long all that domain is rotten. rotten like big physics, like politics, like NGO, like big science, like big funding, like greenenergy fashion, like media... they may be right, but by accident. the oil companies fund the IPCC and greenpeace (call that Stockholm syndrom, racket or submission to the real power). if billionaires fund anti-IPCC association, it is because companies can only fund IPCC-friend of be accused of crime against humanity. "Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality 1. *Illusions of invulnerability* creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking. 2. *Unquestioned belief* in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. Type II: Closed-mindedness 1. *Rationalizing<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)> warnings* that might challenge the group's assumptions. 2. *Stereotyping <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype>* those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid. Type III: Pressures toward uniformity 1. *Self-censorship <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship>* of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. 2. *Illusions of unanimity* among group members, silence is viewed as agreement. 3. *Direct pressure* to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty" 4. *Mind guards*— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision-making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking[11]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#cite_note-Kamau-11> 1. Incomplete survey of alternatives 2. Incomplete survey of objectives 3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice 4. Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives 5. Poor information search 6. Selection bias <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias> in collecting information 7. Failure to work out contingency plans." if you follow the controversy you see exactly that. ask Judith Curry, she describe all for that from inside. what Climategate express is nothing else. add some public claims to put the last nail on the coffin anyway, LENR solve all. 2013/9/10 John Berry <[email protected]> > First I saw this, how attractive to think that maybe global warming isn't > happening... > > > http://www.naturalnews.com/041981_global_warming_computer_models_cooling.html > > But that seemed like a fantasy, and I saw: > > http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions > > How do these global warming deniers exist? See: > > http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network > > As for what should happen to the people who fund such propaganda, well I > think the French did a bit of it in their revolution. >
