kurtster wrote:
Trump Aviation

 thisbody wrote: 
Yes, I use the legacy site primarily.

I do not regularly look in this thread. Nor did I backscroll.  Just became aware of this this morning.

 kurtster wrote:

None of which refutes that climate change is a real problem and carbon emissions contribute to that.

 thisbody wrote:

Has nothing to do with the legacy site.

 kurtster wrote:
Do you still log in under the legacy-site, Kurt? - I'm only asking, because there appear to be two different, active threads under this heading:
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change
https://radioparadise.com/comm... (this one) and
https://radioparadise.com/comm... (where I posted the same thing, linking the original Oxfam report)

Dang...

 kurtster wrote:
Bravo Kurt!

You're correct...the rich are responsible for an unimaginable percentage of carbon.  I'm impressed to see you posting a report link built on a publication that is about equality, with a foreword by Greta Thunberg. 

For the record... flying private is one of the great pleasures available to human beings.  Wars have been fought for much less.

Do as I say, not as I do.  You're being played.

Carbon emissions of richest 1% equal to those of poorest 66%, Oxfam report finds

The world’s richest 1% of people are responsible for around the same percentage of global carbon emissions as the 5 billion people who represent the 66% poorest, according to a report published Monday by Oxfam.

...

The report notes that personal consumption varies depending on factors such as location, use of renewable energy and transport — where the very wealthiest contribute significantly more due to the use of private jets and yachts.

Banning private jets and yachts will have a bigger impact on greenhouse gases than banning petroleum powered cars, stoves and furnaces, etc.

‘Shell knew’: oil giant's 1991 film warned of climate change danger
Public information film unseen for years shows Shell had clear grasp of global warming 26 years ago but has not acted accordingly since, say critics

---

Climate Science Denier Richard Lindzen's List of 300 "Scientists" Sent to Trump Is the Usual Parade of Non-Experts

Beware climate science deniers bearing gifts or, in the case before us right now, bearing open letters claiming to have hundreds of signatures from “eminent” scientists.

Last week, long-time climate science contrarian and retired MIT professor Richard Lindzen dusted off his contacts book one more time.

Lindzen, who is with the conservative think tank the Cato Institute, sent a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to pull the United States entirely from the United Nations international convention on climate change, known as the UNFCCC.

Trump has previously promised to pull the U.S. from the deal signed by almost 200 countries in Paris in late 2015 as part of that convention.

“In just a few weeks, more than 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals from around the world have signed the petition below,” wrote Lindzen.

Carbon dioxide, wrote the petitioners, “is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth” — a statement at odds with every major science academy around the world.

Media outlets including Fox News, The Hill, and Daily Caller took Lindzen’s word that the list did indeed have “eminent scientists” and “qualified individuals” without bothering to check, or even ask if this qualified as news.

Because in reality, Lindzen’s list is a rehash of previous “open letters” and petitions going back almost a decade, carrying many of the same names and making the same worn-out arguments that CO2 is good for the planet. (...)

Cf.

It’s about 50 degrees warmer than normal near the North Pole, yet again

Flood disasters more than double across Europe in 35 years
Insurance firm research reveals steep increase in flash floods and says rise is in line with climate change

Data shows 2016 likely to be warmest year yet

Fun in New York City as the sea rises.  This, from that controversial and scandalous magazine, Scientific American.

'This Is Really Extreme Science': Adrift in the Arctic Ice With a Shipload of Norwegians

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal. (...)

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

Snorting Koch and other psychopathic substances...

Fox News host: Climate scientists 'fabricated' temperature data | PunditFact

On climate change, "the temperature readings have been fabricated, and it's all blowing up in their (scientists') faces."

— Dana Perino on Monday, February 9th, 2015 in a broadcast of "The Five" on Fox News

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Well, yeah. They completely control the FDA.

Clarify: The government helps funds companies like Monsanto to involve universities in research of their products. Most of the money that comes into universities is from their research departments.

hippiechick wrote:
...because Monsanto is the government?

 kurtster wrote: 
ALL research is funded by the government or universities, which is usually still the government. Mizzou's Ag School just recently named a hall after Monsanto.

 steeler wrote: 
I must agree with miami.

I would be suspicious of research coming from any enterprise that has a direct relationship with the government.  Monsanto, General Electric, General Motors, Lockheed, etc.  I am to the point that I flat out refuse to accept just about any research originating from and within our government, including and especially the ACE, the FDA, LRB, GSA, OSHA, NIH and many others who primary purpose is to justify a bureaucracy.  My respect and trust is falling for NOAA, NASA, and the CDC.

Feel free to disregard the previous as hyperbole and consider this instead.  I just don't trust our government anymore and just about any comapny that has an equity or commodity listing on an exchange agency.  I don't respect research that says to turn about face ASAP or we are doomed to ... something or recommends the establishment of a finacial device to fix something as in the establishment of a carbon credit system exchange.  I immediately smell a rat.