On 2012-06-04 00:51:25 +0000, Pico Rico said:

> "gtr" > wrote in message news:2012060317460616209-xxx@yyyzzz...
>> On 2012-06-04 00:23:16 +0000, Pete C. said:
>>
>>> I on the other hand have spent a
>>> fair amount of time searching for that elusive supporting data, looking
>>> at NASA, NOAA and many other sites for hard data with sources, not just
>>> reports making claims and assumptions with no supporting data.
>>
>> I spent a fair amount of time researching how much time you spent
>> researching and came to the conclusion that your conclusions are hardly
>> as convincing as the 90% of the specialists working in the field.
>>
>> Not everybody who picks up a guitar and says "hell I can play better
>> than him", has evaluated things to my satisfaction.
>>
>>> Open your eyes and research it for yourself don't blindly follow some
>>> climate change preacher like the rest of the ignorant flock.
>>
>> One of the good things about the news, not the political opinion shows,
>> but the the kind called "journalism", is that their reports about the
>> actualities of the world are much more convincing than the material one
>> gets from political conduits. After all, everybody knows their job is
>> to contort information to support an ideology.
>>
>> "Follow the money" is a good way of parsing out difficult information.
>> I don't really think that environmental group's quest, which according
>> to Rush Limbaugh, Fox and others is to "control people" seems very
>> believable. Just like the view that "terrorists just hate us for our
>> freedom" or that "feminists hate men", or that hetero marriage needs
>> some kind of "protection". None of this really seems to wash. That's
>> when ideology needs to make use of propaganda, and propaganda needs
>> sheep. We got 'em!
>>
>> Myriad petroleum, mining and industrial concerns want to operate as
>> they always have, creating pollution as a side-effect, without being
>> financially limited or controlled in this. Now that makes sense to me
>> in a self-preserving, "follow the money" way of thinking.
>>
>> Can you give me a believable reason that the overwhelming majority of
>> related sciences would lie about scientific findings, year after year,
>> as a conspiracy across myriad organizations, continents, languages,
>> etc. What is their financial motive?
>
> funding.

Fair enough, now finish the sentence. In what way is their funding
related to their findings as negative to industry? If their findings
related some other kind of way to you think we would should down
meteorological science. And why would that be?

That is, how is their funding predicated on the conclusions they are reaching?