So why did you throw out that Greenpeace was a child of the UN? Right wing hysteria? And the WWF was only very indirectly the product of UN collaboration.<quoted text>
No the Rockefeller Foundation is not the same as the UN. WWF was created by the UN though and actually I was wrong about Greenpeace...they weren't created by the UN. UNESCO is a specialized agency of the UN. In 1948, the Director of UNESCO (Julian Huxley) established the UICN as the environmental arm of UNESCO and Huxley then created the WWF under UICN. There is nothing evil about debt for nature other than we the taxpayers are on the hook and these environmental groups get a lot of land for from countries all over the world, so you know, they can stop things like dams that might help those in poverty get electricity. But my point was in response to a link that stated these environmental organizations operate on a limited budget and I was just pointing out that they donít. They have lots of money.
This was my original question to this thread:ďJust wondering, can politicians, governments, and NGOs who promote AGW be corrupt and greedy or is that only limited to big oil and scientists who are skeptical of AGW?Ē
So what you are saying is that scientists who publish papers that have results showing man is not the main contributor to global warming, they are then puppet masters of the oil companies. So my question is how come that only works one way? Scientists canít be puppet masters of governments? Someone stated earlier that governments are broke, yet they continue funding climate science. Governments are looking at ways to fix the financial messes they have made. Having a crisis and taxing brings lots of money into the coffers. So if you can say that big oil is funding science to protect their interests, political leaders in our government also need to protect their interests to keep their power and bring in lots of cash.
As to your survey, yeah, I canít believe there are 3% of scientists who donít think the Earth has warmed in the last 100 years. And yes, probably 84% believe man has an impact. What the debate is over is how much man drives climate versus natural forces.
Naomi Oreskes did a study and everyone agrees, because you know, thatís how science works. Once everyone agrees, then you move on and discredit anyone who comes along and questions the settled, no-debate science.
In honor of Naomi and her "merchants of doubt" I will post this from Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt (an expert reviewer from the IPCC) who wrote a book last year called ďThe Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Wonít Happen.Ē He has this to say:
ďThe IPCC decision-makers are fighting tooth and nail against accepting the roles of the oceans, sun, and soot.Ē Accordingly, IPCC models are completely out of whack.ďThe facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results.Ē
And you somehow misunderstood that the oil and coal companies are the puppetmasters who control their own small group of scientists. Scientists who are continually proven wrong in their poor research and sloppy reasoning, not to mention what appears to be outright lying at times.
So, since you seem to have comprehension problems on top of your conspiracy-everywhere mindset, I don't see where you have much credibility, especially when you lack any hard proof.