It is an observation formed from perusal of thousands of related articles/documents, no singular source. If you care to affirm or refute,... feel free.
So no attribution then? The difference being, those who finance research into confirming man made climate change do it for the love of mankind and the planet, those who finance denial do it for big business.
I won't even ask for links to that. LOL Climate research is huge business pro and lesser con. Of course governments the largest contributors by far, are strictly benevolent, no agenda(s), unless of course they're Republican/Conservative.
You needn't have bothered, I am far more than familiar, you neglected pro private agency funding LOL, you are talking millions vs: pro private agencies and governments billions. If you are truly interested:http://www.nationalr...ow-money-henry-payne
Pro funding doesn't interest you. The Guardian and Greenpeace would be considered just as apolitical? LOL..... If you are so resistant to information, why bother with discussion, it just brings to light alternative data to discredit you and displays your bias(es)........Thank you for the correction, I made the edit. I appreciate all grammatical input, and feel free for spelling as well. Spell check seems to be inclusive on this site, it's never 100% accurate.
All funding for "Climate Research" is aimed to predetermined conclusions. The problem in a nutshell.
Do you have a link for that?
It is an observation formed from perusal of thousands of related articles/documents, no singular source. If you care to affirm or refute,... feel free.
So no attribution then? The difference being, those who finance research into confirming man made climate change do it for the love of mankind and the planet, those who finance denial do it for big business.
I won't even ask for links to that. LOL Climate research is huge business pro and lesser con. Of course governments the largest contributors by far, are strictly benevolent, no agenda(s), unless of course they're Republican/Conservative.
My pleasure to provide them, even if you don't want them http://www.theguardi...l-thinktanks-network http://www.greenpeac...tch/koch-industries/
You needn't have bothered, I am far more than familiar, you neglected pro private agency funding LOL, you are talking millions vs: pro private agencies and governments billions. If you are truly interested:http://www.nationalr...ow-money-henry-payne
Oh yes, National Review, that well known independent apolitical source... It's you're, not your by the way ;)
Pro funding doesn't interest you. The Guardian and Greenpeace would be considered just as apolitical? LOL..... If you are so resistant to information, why bother with discussion, it just brings to light alternative data to discredit you and displays your bias(es)........Thank you for the correction, I made the edit. I appreciate all grammatical input, and feel free for spelling as well. Spell check seems to be inclusive on this site, it's never 100% accurate.