https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-green-investors-pay-the-media-to-promote-climate-change/

The Associated Press revealed last year that it had scored $8 million to promote claims of global warming. The AP impartially described this massive conflict of interest as an illustration of “how philanthropy has swiftly become an important new
funding source for journalism”.

“This far-reaching initiative will transform how we cover the climate story,” its executive editor claimed. That is no doubt true. And an incredibly damaging admission.

It may never snow again.... (can I get a $Mil for this?).

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/6/23 6:11 PM, ScottW wrote:

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-green-investors-pay-the-media-to-promote-climate-change/

The Associated Press revealed last year that it had scored $8 million to promote claims of global warming.

Even accepting the claim at face value, there's this:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/04/inside-kochs-climate-denial-machine/

Who’s behind a multi-million dollar campaign to seed doubt about climate change? It’s not just Exxon and Chevron—it’s also Koch Industries, an
oil and gas giant that most people have never heard of, according to a
new report from Greenpeace. Koch’s extensive funding of anti-climate
work makes it the “financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition,” says Greenpeace.

The Kansas-based company and its affiliates and foundations spent almost
$25 million on “organizations of the ‘climate denial machine'” between 2005 and 2008, according to the report. Koch Industries and the Koch
family also spent $37.9 million between 2006 and 2009. “Although Koch intentionally stays out of the public eye, it is now playing a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global
warming,” the report concludes.

End quote.

And that's old.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, ...found that the amount of money flowing through third-party,
pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose
funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate
denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

End quote.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

MINe109 wrote:

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-green-investors-pay-the-media-to-promote-climate-change/
The Associated Press revealed last year that it had scored $8 million to promote claims of global warming.

Even accepting the claim at face value, there's this: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/04/inside-kochs-climate-denial-machine/

Who’s behind a multi-million dollar campaign to seed doubt about climate change?

scottw only likes Certified Shmoo-formation. Actual facts from reality are toxic to him. Your link will be Shmoo-smissed because Mother Jones is a "commie" or "pinko" publication that is inherently seditious.

Nice try, though.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:49:52 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

On 1/6/23 6:11 PM, ScottW wrote:

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-green-investors-pay-the-media-to-promote-climate-change/

The Associated Press revealed last year that it had scored $8 million to promote claims of global warming.

Even accepting the claim at face value, there's this:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/04/inside-kochs-climate-denial-machine/

Who’s behind a multi-million dollar campaign to seed doubt about climate change? It’s not just Exxon and Chevron—it’s also Koch Industries, an oil and gas giant that most people have never heard of, according to a
new report from Greenpeace. Koch’s extensive funding of anti-climate
work makes it the “financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition,” says Greenpeace.

So the media schmucks will even sell out to the devil.
Does that somehow make them better?

The Kansas-based company and its affiliates and foundations spent almost
$25 million on “organizations of the ‘climate denial machine'” between 2005 and 2008, according to the report. Koch Industries and the Koch
family also spent $37.9 million between 2006 and 2009. “Although Koch intentionally stays out of the public eye, it is now playing a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global
warming,” the report concludes.

End quote.

And then we have this....

Ca. Sierra snowpack is 189% of normal at this time of year....
some 8 years after the point we were told by the climate change alarmists
that snow in the Sierras would be no more.
The southern Sierras which should be the first to become void of snow are
219% of normal.

So who is really BSing who?

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/7/23 7:08 PM, ScottW wrote:

And then we have this....

Ca. Sierra snowpack is 189% of normal at this time of year....
some 8 years after the point we were told by the climate change alarmists that snow in the Sierras would be no more.
The southern Sierras which should be the first to become void of snow are 219% of normal.

So who is really BSing who?

That would be you BSing anyone who reads your posts. I can't imagine who
you think has said there will be no snow in the Sierra, southern or
otherwise, and certainly not in the foreseeable future. Perhaps you've misunderstood someone explaining global warming causes more extremes of weather: longer droughts punctuated by deluges.

So, cite your claim.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:16:03 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

On 1/7/23 7:08 PM, ScottW wrote:

And then we have this....

Ca. Sierra snowpack is 189% of normal at this time of year....
some 8 years after the point we were told by the climate change alarmists that snow in the Sierras would be no more.
The southern Sierras which should be the first to become void of snow are 219% of normal.

So who is really BSing who?

That would be you BSing anyone who reads your posts. I can't imagine who
you think has said there will be no snow in the Sierra, southern or otherwise, and certainly not in the foreseeable future. Perhaps you've misunderstood someone explaining global warming causes more extremes of weather: longer droughts punctuated by deluges.

So, cite your claim.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

Let me know if the sierra prediction failed to make the top 50 failed list.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/8/23 12:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:16:03 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

On 1/7/23 7:08 PM, ScottW wrote:

And then we have this....

Ca. Sierra snowpack is 189% of normal at this time of year....
some 8 years after the point we were told by the climate change alarmists >>> that snow in the Sierras would be no more.
The southern Sierras which should be the first to become void of snow are >>> 219% of normal.

So who is really BSing who?

That would be you BSing anyone who reads your posts. I can't imagine who
you think has said there will be no snow in the Sierra, southern or
otherwise, and certainly not in the foreseeable future. Perhaps you've
misunderstood someone explaining global warming causes more extremes of
weather: longer droughts punctuated by deluges.

So, cite your claim.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

Erlich! He's had an unwelcome recent return. No, he's not considered a reputable ecologist.

These are basically crap: outliers, cranks, alarmists. The "debunking"
is generally lame, such as the one complaining that Washington DC hasn't
yet had the number of 90 degree days predicted for 2050 if global
temperatures rise by six or seven degrees. As they haven't yet and it
isn't yet 2050, one can't call this a failed prediction.

And so forth for pretty much all of them.

Let me know if the sierra prediction failed to make the top 50 failed list.

Yes, the Sierra is not mentioned in this list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or
strength of those arguments. In essence, it is prioritizing quantity of
one's arguments at the expense of quality of said arguments.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/8/23 12:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

Someone gave this a proper reply a few years ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/d60ds2/wrong_again_50_years_of_failed_ecopocalyptic/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)