It's perfectly obvious who stands to gain from the deniers. The fossil fuel people. But who's hiring the 97% of climate scientists who are warning us of imminent disaster? Who's paying for their research? And why? Just to stir up trouble? What do they have to gain? Why are they not "impartial"?
The
people are paying for the research. You and me. Governments get their funding from taxes, and part of those taxes goes towards funding the climate Research centres.
The question is, how did all this start?
Pollution from fossil fuels (real pollution such as SO2, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate Carbon etc,) has been a problem since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Thick smog during wintery days, which prevented one from seeing anything in the distance, was a common occurrence in England when I was a child.
But this smog was not caused by CO2, but mainly particulate carbon. As emission controls improved, the smog ceased to be a problem. The haze I occasionally see in Australia is not due to particulate carbon from coal-fired power stations, but from bush fires, and also from petrol and diesel driven vehicles in the city.
I'm all in favour of electric vehicles, but I suspect that a major reason why they have not developed as quickly as they should have, is because they would have created a greater demand for electricity produced by conventional coal-fired plants.
If you have to recharge your car battery from electricity supplied by the grid through conventional processes of burning fossil fuels, then the benefits of the so-called clean electric car are diminished. The argument can be made that any reduction in pollution from the exhaust fumes of petrol-driven cars, by using electric cars, are counteracted by the increased emissions from conventional sources of electricity because of the increased demand for electricity.
This is another example of how the scare about CO2 retards progress.
I remember vividly when I was a child in England around 65 years ago, the glass bottles of milk were delivered each morning to the house by electric-driven vehicles. The use of the electric vehicles was presumably because they were quieter and would not disturb people still asleep.
And please, please, please don't try to tell us that they're doing it simply to ensure continued funding. They're not that venal. Not all of them.
That's probably true. Not all of them are that venal. Some, whilst doubting the claimed degree of significance attributed to CO2, might be of the view that the development of efficient renewables will eventually be of benefit to mankind, with regards to reductions of the 'real' pollutants, such as SO2, Nitrogen Oxides, particulate carbon, heavy metals and so on, and also protect us from a future catastrophe due to a crisis of diminishing fossil fuel reserves.
If someone enjoys their job, collecting data and examining tree rings in a beautiful landscape, taking photos with their DR-limited Canon camera
, and earning money to support their family, why should they become a whistle-blower and destroy their career?
