This is an opinion piece.
It has already withstood proper scientific scrutiny. That’s how about works.
They want no evidence of anything that’s bad for business, truth be damned. People like you follow them blindly.
When they directed the Centers For Disease Control to remove any mention of science from their literature I raised an eyebrow. Who does that help?
wattsupwiththat . Who are these people? Turns out they are funded by the Heartland Institute, which is another Koch appendage. That they choose to name their organization to make it seem they are representative of “electrical consumers” is amusing.
Well, for complete novices, you first turn on your computer (you’ve done that if you’re reading this), click on the link (the printing in your comment in blue), wait a second or two and then look to the top of the screen and see the “About” button. You press it, READ IT and bingo, it tells you “Who are these people?”
Now I know there’s some difficult steps in there. If in doubt, ask your granddaughter or someone born this century. No actual brain is necessary.
Really? Your evidence is … where exactly? If they were, I’m sure the site wouldn’t be regularly requesting donations.
Amusing to idiots perhaps, but Anthony WATTS started the site and his name is obvious to all who can read. Did you miss that step?
Try answering with debate.
Aliens? Fighting global warming? One cow at a time?
Don’t tell me they’ve got hold of the Centres for Disease Control too?
This is a tragedy.
Here’s a link to an article. Might not like the source but it checks out.
Again, I suppose you have to read it.
“However, Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?, acknowledged Heartland was helping him with $90,000 for a new project. He added: “They do not regularly fund me nor (sic) my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind.””
That says Watts was personally given assistance for a scientific project, NOT what you said “Turns out they are funded by the Heartland Institute”, “they” being his website. His person and his website are different entities.
The project I think was his gathering of data about the siting of weather observation stations in the USA, a scientific endeavour that resulted in considerable change in the siting of sensors, reassessment by NOAA etc of the reliability of their sensor systems and downgrading much of the existing network as below acceptable standard. I would have thought that was a good thing to assist authorities accurately record weather.
And the date of 2012 indicates something to me. Quite a drought in funding since.
Please address the other issues I raised.
Whether I agree with the fact that global warming is fact or not is really immaterial to me. Yes, I accept that 90% of the scientists agree it is an issue. For me I am about saving money, I am not rich. If I can get free electricity from the sun or wind for a relatively small investment I will do it. If I can save money by buying a more fuel efficient vehicle I will do that. I will put the savings in my pocket. I have no desire to put my money in someone else pocket whether it is a oil company or electric utility. If my actions slow down the debatable global warming? It is nice that I accidentally saved the planet while saving myself a lot of money but that wasn’t my objective, just a benefit. One thing the fear of global warming has done is to make access to affordable alternatives for people like me cost effective. The entire debate is a win for me financially
I agree, but …
I have solar panels on my roof. I got them because they were subsidised by both my state and federal governments. It benefits me which is good, but it’s still stupid to persist with subsidies for solar panels because someone, somewhere pays the subsidies. There’s no freedom for them NOT to contribute to my subsidies. The subsidies come from doubling the price of electricity from the grid. Everyone pays those prices, industry and individuals, rich and poor, although more likely the poor because they can’t afford to buy solar panels, but can’t avoid electricity prices. Australian industries are packing up and moving to China. Great result.
After a cold winter in the UK, we hear of an additional 48,000 deaths. Some of those, probably many, are poor people who can’t afford to heat their homes. It’s just sick that our politicians sanctimoniously laud the virtues of
environmentalism and cutting CO2 but look the other way when confronted with the actual human cost of their policies.
This stuff doesn’t even pass the common sense test. In Australia we call it the pub test. Walk into the front bar in any pub and have a chat. The drinkers will tell you exactly what they think. They’re not Einsteins but they know how stuff like this affects them and their kids.
How can anyone justify (as I’ve mentioned way back up this topic) the IMF refusing to lend funds for coal fired power stations for desperately poor African nations but instead suggest a nice set of wind farms instead at multiples of the price and fractions of the reliability of output? How can the UK justify converting its largest coal fired power station which sat on its own coal mine, to burn wood pellets imported from US forests? Ask the lads in the pub about that logic. Ask the coal miners out of work how they felt. Ask the environmentalists and you’ll get a condescending smile, a pat on the head and a long explanation of everything from the evils of this to the wonderful sunlit uplands yet to be experienced when their Utopia is realised, with just a few millions of unnecessary people dropping dead by the wayside - an expected and unfortunate sacrifice to the greater good.
So, by all means, think only of yourself. I don’t.
Sunny day, nice wind, cold beer and 30C in late Autumn here (must be global warming) so I’m off to do some mucking around in boats. The boys at the bar there have been observing the rise and fall of the sea level a few paces away for many decades now and it’s still where it was.
That’s quire obvious, since you are posting it.
Ahh the Koch brothers, the true rulers of America is behind there too. Who could have guessed??
Was advice to you readers from me. If you feel it is relevant to you, you have my sympathy.
Is more likely George Soros, your lefty mate … now that the Clinton dynasty has slunk away … to await their date with the courts.
Some interesting links in this article regarding what some here regard as the settled science of the EPA. Might open your eyes to the largesse dispensed by the EPA to “scientists”. Puts the Koch brothers to shame!
Here’s an interesting interview link. I actually read volume one of his book. It is well researched and written by former climate change denier.
I have read a similar article somewhere else about him. First of all I’m doubtful he was ever a “climate denier” which is a term of disparagement and insult flung by the warmists at everyone who disagrees with them. It’s unlikely anyone from that side would use the term about himself. I think he threw the term in to big note himself with his desired audience.
Just as a single example, he has simplistic views on the Fukushima disaster essentially blaming everything on the nuclear accident. He fails to state that the tsunami was the thing that killed thousands, swept away towns and destroyed livelihoods and the nuclear meltdown hasn’t killed a single one. Yes it was a disaster, but not a condemnation of the entire nuclear power industry. We’ve learned much more about modern nuclear reactor safety and about tsunami defences too.
Perhaps an alternative view might be found here.