Originally Posted by Infinite_Wisdumb
It is true that many of these studies are somewhat one-sided due to the funding that is fueling them.
The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.
Who's lining who's pockets? It looks like the oil industry is being outspent, so what's the rub?
And if the enviro groups are spending 3:1 on PACs, how much are they spending to buy universities? Any post-grad university work I've seen is funded by a corporation or private fund. The paying group pays for the research on the field they are interested in, and will pull funding if they aren't getting what they need.
If the enviro groups are pumping money 3:1 towards universities like they are the PACs do you think there will be more papers written about the ills of global warming, or providing a realistic study?
Would Karmonos continue to fund scientists that decided that the money they were getting for researching breast cancer would be better spent on the next viagra? Hell no. How about the tobacco industry supporting researchers that showed that smoking was bad for you? Nope. So, do you think a university taking money from an enviro group (which is paying the Dr's stipends, and for his lab, and grad students, etc) is going to find anything other than global warming? Nope.