This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Dr. Karl assures me (listening to the June 19 podcast) that the Global Warming Deniers are all being funded by Big Oil. Big Oil is doing the same thing as Big Tobacco and promoting "Doubt is our product".
Everything else he talks about science wise is well reasoned. He even points out that the Solar Panel system he installed at great expense WILL NOT pay for itself.
He qualifies his knowledge of all other things, but when it comes to Global Warming... IT's MAN'S FAULT -- no doubt whatsoever.
You know, John, with all that money you get from Big Oil, you'd think you could afford better digs on the web...
Oh wait, you have to appear like you are poor so that we don't think you are on the take? That probably came with the handbook they sent with the wad of cash didn't it?
Why is it that I start to suspect that the take is going the other way. I know that BP is spending 100's of Millions on AGW slanted research.
Reminds me of Duponts terror of CFLs being banned. "Please don't throw me in the briar patch. PLEASE, I will do anything as long as you don't throw me in the briar patch!"
I don't know who Dr Karl is, but I'm certainly familiar with his type.
I can give you the figure for US Government spending on AGW slanted research from this link:
"..I direct the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, which is organized under the President's Cabinet Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration, the setup that was established in the February 2002 announcement that Harlan referenced earlier.
We are a multi-agency R&D program that coordinates approximately $2.4 billion a year in investments in clean energy, carbon sequestration, measurement and monitoring systems, basic science, and the reduction of emissions from non-CO2 gases. In addition to that $2.4 billion in research and demonstration, we spend about $600 million annually on deployment of these technologies, particularly in the energy efficiency area, and there is another $817 million in estimated tax credits for activities, near-term activities in both energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Climate Change Technology Program is organized around six goals: reducing emissions via energy efficiency and infrastructure improvements; reducing emissions from energy supply; capturing and storing carbon dioxide; reducing emissions from non-CO2 gases; improving our measurement and monitoring capabilities for technology validation; and fortifying basic science to undergird all of those efforts."
I make that a total for the US Government spend of $3.8 billion per year including the tax credits. The link also states that US spending is greater than the total for the rest of the world combined. On top of that there is spending by private industry like BP, Richard Branson, etc.
On AGW proponent blogging facilities, I think all the main scientific-type proponents have a free blog. I believe RealClimate has free hosting and there are several AGW cheerleaders like Tim Lambert, Coby Beck and William Connolley (these three are actually all IT people with Connolley recently joining the IT industry) provided with a free blog on Seed Media's Scienceblogs. The AGW sceptics have to pay for their own blogs. The AGW sceptics are even still using 1990s internet technology like e-mail newsletters such as CCNet.
For those who don't know Dr. Karl
Apparently he is in the top 10 for popularity in Australia personality wise.
He's a great personality on the radio. I don't know if he is as good as Sagan, but for the most part he is a good influence in the science media sector.
I suspect that he thinks he ban be like Owl Gore and help save the world from itself. These bright people seemed to have missed their thermo class. Efficiency is all about using the minimum amount of energy to get the maximum output. If you start diverting funds to make nothing AKA transfering carbon credits around the globe, you are destroying efficiency.