Climate Skeptic Pat Michaels Admits On CNN Forty Percent of His Funding Comes From Oil Industry

Notorious climate skeptic Pat Michaels of the CATO Institute finally admitted openly on CNN this weekend that 40 percent of his funding comes from - wait for it - Big Oil.  

Michaels' admission that he receives around 40 percent - his guess - of his funding from Big Oil is important, because he is quoted widely in the media for his skepticism about manmade climate change.  As the ExxonSecrets profile of Pat Michaels sums up well, he is "possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist."



Story Link -
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-skeptic-pat-michaels-admits-cnn-forty-percent-his-funding-comes-oil-industry
==============
I wonder how many other so called sceptics are funded by BIG-Oil, to 40% or more?

WHat do the Chinese think of AGW? They think it's a plot against them and other poor countries:

Carbon, whose neck is strangled?

“Carbon tax” and “carbon emissions reductions” will provide you with the answer.

Europe and America have already entered the post-industrialized age. Heavy pollution, and heavy reliance on coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, labour intensive industries, have mostly been passed on to the Developing Countries.

The Developed Countries’ “Carbon tax” and “carbon emissions reductions”, have become two of the most effective weapons with which to oppress Developing Countries. After donning the “moral overcoat”, they start to attack the Developing Countries.

The wishful thinking of the Developed Countries is to sustain the current international situation, they can not let the poor countries destroy their luxiourious lifestyle.

Up to this point, countries such as Europe and the USA have used “carbon tax” and “carbon emissions reductions” to claim the moral high ground, and are putting an enormous amount of pressure on China and other Developing Countries.

Most behind the “carbon tax” is the USA, this cannot be separated from America’s trade organizations. America has the largest trade deficit in the world, primarily imported low value added goods, like oil, coal, and some manufactured goods that it is heavily reliant on, its primary exports are high-tech products. These products’ reliance on oil, coal and related substances, is comparatively low. The American tertiary sector has been in surplus for a long time. If the “carbon tax” was imposed, Developing Countries’ products would lose competitiveness in the American marketplace. This is the best excuse possible for America to implement protectionism, which will also help America reduce the impact of the recent economic crisis.

The primary mover behind “carbon emissions reductions” is the European Union, the region where new energy resources technology is leagues ahead of the other countries in the world. They have already prepared every kind of rulebook for the “Low Carbon Age”; this is an arranged set of factors , or trap, waiting for Developing Countries to meander in.


http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/rare-scribbling/locusts/low-carbon-plot/

Soren lorenson, good to see the credibility of the authorities you cite in support in your posts isn't getting any better. They are, however, becoming more amusing: this guy even thinks Europe is a country.

This probably belongs here. 

I think there is a huge gap between what professionals in any given field and what the public believes.

For example in advertising, how often do we see "Made from 100% natural ingredients" or something along those lines.

There is the implication that because something is 100% natural, it must be good for you, society or the environment.

So natural radiation from granite used to build houses is ok, whereas traces of radiation from nuclear power generation are not acceptable, even if they are 10 times less.

Ricin is a 100% pure natural plant extract. It's extracted from the castor oil plant. We could probably grow the castor oil plant totally organically without artificial fertilisers, but ricin would still be the most toxic substance known to man.

Maybe what I'm looking for is Utopia - a land where decisions were made on real risk rather than perceived risk - a place where we can dispense with the BS and just look at the naked unadulterated risk and make objective decisions based on that.

Until then, we'll continue to shun foods that have 3% fat in favour of foods that are 97% fat free.   

GOP plans attacks on the EPA and climate scientists

If Republicans win control of the House, they plan to go after the Obama administration's environmental policies and the researchers who have offered evidence on global warming, whom they accuse of manipulating data.

If the GOP wins control of the House next week, senior congressional Republicans plan to launch a blistering attack on the Obama administration's environmental policies, as well as on scientists who link air pollution to climate change.

The GOP's fire will be concentrated especially on the administration's efforts to use the Environmental Protection Agency's authority over air pollution to tighten emissions controls on coal, oil and other carbon fuels that scientists say contribute to global warming.

The attack, according to senior Republicans, will seek to portray the EPA as abusing its authority and damaging the economy with needless government regulations.

In addition, GOP leaders say, they will focus on what they see as distortions of scientific evidence regarding climate change and on Obama administration efforts to achieve by executive rule-making what it failed to win from Congress.

Even if Republicans should win majorities in both the House and Senate, they would face difficulties putting their views into legislative form, since Senate Democrats could use the threat of filibuster to block bills just as the GOP did on climate and other issues during the past year.

Also, Obama could use his veto power.

But the GOP's plans for wide-ranging and sustained investigations by congressional committees could put the EPA and administration environmental policymakers on the defensive and create political pressures that could cause Obama to pull back on environmental issues as the 2012 presidential election draws closer.
Link -
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-battle-ahead-20101030,0...
================
There is no need to wait until elections are won or lost!

If the truth is not already in the Public arena, on any issue, then it should be brought forward & rigorously tested, immediately.

In this instance, if there are real doubts about Climate Change, with substantive reasoning behind those doubts, then they should be tested, in appropriate arena's, not simply blocked by political numbers, in backroom deal!  

This is just more Political CRAP! Perhaps this thread should be moved to the "Politicians Suck" board?  

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 4:39pm:


I have no problems with that!

But, I suggest that neither major party is likely to put their hands up & agree. Politicians, particularly those from the major party's like to know the final outcomes of any enquiry, prior to the enquiry starting.

That's just not possible in this particular issues, so I can not see either the Libs & the Labs agreeing to an OPEN enquiry, be it Royal Commission or by any other name!

That said, do you think the Republicans would hold an enquiry?

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 8:53pm:


Probably about as likely as Lib/Lab/Greens holding one....

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2010 at 11:17am:


Muso, Muso, Muso!

You should know, there is no such thing as gravity!

Or, at least, that's what Popiticians, Bankers & the Establishment think.

Exponential Growth means that things MUST always go up, they can't come down?

Now that sounds like a fine fairy story?!

That's why we need prosperity. I've seen what happens to the environment where the economy has gone down the tubes.

Sub Saharan Africa has a waste management strategy and a wildlife conservation strategy.

The real waste management management strategy is - dump it anywhere, burnt it.... etc.

The wildlife conservation strategy is - If it's alive, kill it, smoke it  and sell it to passing motorists for as much as you can get.

The EPA response is to send a silly little girl straight out of University who will wring her hands a lot, come up with a prescriptive solution that makes things worse and not bother to follow it up because she's under resourced.

She might send her superior, and if there is overseas money involved, he'll try to get his cut, then ignore the problem.

These people who put forward Proposition 23 didn't have the guts to do what had to be done. They were girly men