Has there ever been a more hypocritical ex-VEEP than Algore?

[akaoni 0]

Hey, didn't Al Gore invent the Internet?

 

That was debunked above, read the thread.

[RLLD 4,207]

Gore responds:

Find out more information on Carbon Offsets here.

 

 

 

I love it! "Sure, i spew columns of filth into the environment while I admonish others for doing the same thing, but hey...I am rich, and I can buy my way out of anything....." crassic

[surferskin 30]

so gore wants all to scale back our lifestyles...UNLESS we're rich enough to afford covering up our carbon footprint.

[HilltopperVike 0]

That was debunked above, read the thread.

 

No shiot?? It was talked about above?? No way!

 

Once again...We should all be thankful of Gore, he invented the Internet! :praystoal&tipper

[surferskin 30]

I love it! "Sure, i spew columns of filth into the environment while I admonish others for doing the same thing, but hey...I am rich, and I can buy my way out of anything....." crassic

[phillybear 366]

...of course it's a different story when research scientists work for big corporations with a vested interest in proving a point (i.e. profit). It's well known that scientists for Tobacco companies were paid big salaries to manipulate and falsify data relating to the harmful effects of tobacco.

 

This is probably true. However, they still make far less money that the people working for the corporations/lobbies that continue to falsify and manipulate data and generally fearmonger the public about harmful effects of second hand smoke. That is a big, big business right now.

 

Do you really think that scientists from Exxon, etc are any different? In the peer reviewed scientific community scientists are rewarded for good science with grants to support good science. In corporate research scientists are rewarded for producing results which satisfy the stockholders. Big difference.

 

The companies like Exxon are lying. The people who believe in Global Warming are lying. It's all about spin, trying to get money from any source possible.

 

It's always about money.

[akaoni 0]

This is probably true. However, they still make far less money that the people working for the corporations/lobbies that continue to falsify and manipulate data and generally fearmonger the public about harmful effects of second hand smoke. That is a big, big business right now.

The companies like Exxon are lying. The people who believe in Global Warming are lying. It's all about spin, trying to get money from any source possible.

 

It's always about money.

 

It is to some degree, but that's not how the peer reviewed and publicly funded scientific research works. Most climate research is done at in academic settings and is not funded by corporate or special interests. They have to submit a research plan to others and then have their plan double reviewed by specialists in their field. If it looks to be relavent and scientifically sound the study gets funded. That said, the researchers don't recieve any increase in pay because their grant gets funded. They may get to keep their job, but as I said, they don't just get a chunk of money they can do with as they please. I know, I work on a federally funded grant based research project. There's not a lot of money in this.

 

Now what is done with the science after the paper has been published, but the whole "global warming is big business" line is just spin to counter the relavent criticism of big corporate oil interests funding research with a specific result in mind. It's apples and oranges and any attempt to equate peer reviewed science with corporate funded science is just obfuscation. If you believe that peer reviewed scientific research is the same then those who are seeking to discredit climate science have done their job, which is to muddy the water and paint all research as the same.

[phillybear 366]

It is to some degree, but that's not how the peer reviewed and publicly funded scientific research works. Most climate research is done at in academic settings and is not funded by corporate or special interests. They have to submit a research plan to others and then have their plan double reviewed by specialists in their field. If it looks to be relavent and scientifically sound the study gets funded. That said, the researchers don't recieve any increase in pay because their grant gets funded. They may get to keep their job, but as I said, they don't just get a chunk of money they can do with as they please. I know, I work on a federally funded grant based research project. There's not a lot of money in this.

 

Now what is done with the science after the paper has been published, but the whole "global warming is big business" line is just spin to counter the relavent criticism of big corporate oil interests funding research with a specific result in mind. It's apples and oranges and any attempt to equate peer reviewed science with corporate funded science is just obfuscation. If you believe that peer reviewed scientific research is the same then those who are seeking to discredit climate science have done their job, which is to muddy the water and paint all research as the same.

 

I have been skeptical about the whole process for many, many years. Corporations have their motivations. Scientists, whether for job security, tenure, additional funding, fame, etc. have agendas too. Sorry, but there are very, very few people/entities with noble causes. Also,

 

BAN SCIENCE!!!

[Chiefs04 0]

It is to some degree, but that's not how the peer reviewed and publicly funded scientific research works. Most climate research is done at in academic settings and is not funded by corporate or special interests. They have to submit a research plan to others and then have their plan double reviewed by specialists in their field. If it looks to be relavent and scientifically sound the study gets funded. That said, the researchers don't recieve any increase in pay because their grant gets funded. They may get to keep their job, but as I said, they don't just get a chunk of money they can do with as they please. I know, I work on a federally funded grant based research project. There's not a lot of money in this.

 

Now what is done with the science after the paper has been published, but the whole "global warming is big business" line is just spin to counter the relavent criticism of big corporate oil interests funding research with a specific result in mind. It's apples and oranges and any attempt to equate peer reviewed science with corporate funded science is just obfuscation. If you believe that peer reviewed scientific research is the same then those who are seeking to discredit climate science have done their job, which is to muddy the water and paint all research as the same.

 

While you make a very good point that information needs to be provided before funding takes place, the interest is there while the information is being gathered. Corporate and special interests groups have their collective thumbs on the pulse of all this research and will initiate contact and generate funding interest long before published information. Especially if they "get wind" of information that will support their efforts. I see this all the time in the medical industry and the regulations, profit of industry, and "scientific nobelism", are almost identical to that of climate research and publication.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

All this bickering about funding of "scientists" has nothing to do with Algore getting caught with his 54 Short pants around his cankles on his energy usage.

 

Hipocrite to the max, and trying to buy his way out of it.