In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:
In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:
Me:
Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding
behind certain of the AWG detractors.
I wondered how long it would be before you brought that up. Quoting
you:
There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied.
How much funding are the CRU, Mann, & the IPCC getting? Now how much
funding do you think any of them would be getting without their
predictions of catastrophe? Certainly a lot less.
More or less than the $16 million ExxonMobil poured into denier
organizations?
Speaking of the IPCC, I wonder how many other pieces of enviro-group
fundraising propaganda will now be discovered in its reports?
Maybe this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...deny.html?_r=1
There you go again using loaded terminology. Many people don't share
your AGW True Religion, get over it.
Just a URL. Do you consider "enviro-group fundraising propaganda" or
"AGW True Religion" to be loaded terminology?
Let's see, the budgets for CRU, Mann, NOAA, NASA-GISS, and of course
let's not forget the IPCC, are I'm sure, much more than a paltry $16
million.
I'd call that a red herring to try to distract people from where the
real money is.
It's the easy money that's the problem.
Stephen