Nature: Political science in Durbin


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

The headline (from Nature) proves how little the Durban climate conference has to do with science: Bridging the gap: Political science in Durban.

This conference, as well as all past UN climate conferences, has always been about politics and money, not science. And the last line of the article even emphasizes the point:

More on all of that next week as negotiators work to avert disaster and identify a politically palatable path forward — and some money to make it all happen. [emphasis mine]

Share

One comment

  • Oh wow!! I totally agree. Man, I was so fired up I went and read the actual article, and saw even more damning evidence. Check out this line, from about halfway down.
    “Driving the discussion is the ever-mounting scientific evidence of global warming’s impacts.”
    Wait a minute, that’s the complete opposite of what you said! So, was this an innocent mistake on your part or deliberate misinformation?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *