on 15-02-2013 12:07 PM
on 15-02-2013 04:30 PM
Desmogblog have been writing about this for quite a while, but seem heartened by the guardians articles http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/02/14/startling-graph-shows-donors-trust-new-dark-money-climate-denial-funding
on 15-02-2013 06:22 PM
All funding has to come from somewhere. I would rather hear both sides of a debate than be a Climate Change Nazi.
on 15-02-2013 08:22 PM
I would rather the money come from people who truly believe that the science is wrong , than people trying to protect their vast fortunes accumilated by industries that pollute.
Its akin to cigarette makers 'looking after their customers'.
There is a difference between an honest debate and using money to discredit and then 'redefine what is cliamate change'.
on 16-02-2013 11:36 PM
I would rather the money come from people who truly believe that the science is wrong , than people trying to protect their vast fortunes accumilated by industries that pollute.
Its akin to cigarette makers 'looking after their customers'.
There is a difference between an honest debate and using money to discredit and then 'redefine what is cliamate change'.
I agree
Thanks for the link Lakeland (I am speaking to you again now) lol
on 16-02-2013 11:44 PM
thought your mate macs the acquarium character would be into CS like greased lightnin', about black caviar's win. he given the ebay game away ?
on 16-02-2013 11:45 PM
on 16-02-2013 11:48 PM
on 17-02-2013 10:30 AM
http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/responsible-living/stories/should-we-bioengineer-superhumans-that-can-better-combat-climat
Liao also proposes genetically engineering future humans to be smaller in stature, to make them more energy-efficient. Another wild idea recommends genetically engineering superhumans with cat eyes, so that less lighting is needed to see at night. That's right: cat eyes!
I guess this is where the government should be spending it's climate change research money.
on 17-02-2013 10:55 AM
brain implants might be more successful