$100s of millions of "dark money" funds climate denial movement

[michal1980]

Yes, the only reason I don't want to compare scientific research to lobbying is because...wait what?

You're an idiot. They aren't remotely close to the same thing. You're just once again trying to find a way to ignore science that tells you things you don't want to hear.

Your always trying to ignore money you dont like to county.

Theres billions in research that is funding global warming fear mongering, If you dont think that money buys influence your just plan stupid.

All those fear mongering global warming nutters, arent about to allow their funding to dry are they? They have to keep selling you more and more fear, so that they can continue getting more and more money.

But in your tinny mind, its big oil thats bad. Why? because they're 'big oil'.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

^ WTF did you post? It's riddled with poor English and make no sense as it's written.

 

[glenn1]

Yes, the only reason I don't want to compare scientific research to lobbying is because...wait what?

You're an idiot. They aren't remotely close to the same thing. You're just once again trying to find a way to ignore science that tells you things you don't want to hear.

Ah yes, climate change. The liberal version of the conservative "family values" pitch used to whip up the gullible faithful for votes and money but never intended to be actually implemented. Carry on with your two minutes hate against Emmanuel Goldstein, ahem the Koch Brothers.

 

[Atreus21]

That's like saying liberals accepted that cigarettes give you cancer because that was politically useful.

Sometimes reality is just reality.

The entire issue has been grossly politicized, and certainly not by just conservatives.

There's a whole universe of difference between measuring the affects of smoking on damaged lungs and predicting a future worldwide catastrophe.

I'd be more inclined to allay my suspicions if not for the frantic, panicked urgency of it all, not to mention the wild and ridiculous predictions. What ever happened, for example, to the 50 million "climate refugees" that the UN said in 2005 would be seeking solace by 2010? Then there are morons like Al Gore and Paul Ehrlich. Those guys are to climate what Al Sharpton is to race relations.

 

[manimal]

this thread reminds of me of idocracy.

 

[Ichinisan]

This thread sent me on a tangent...


Was the Medieval Warm Period warmer than today? Wiki (Yes, I know...) says the surface temperature of the North Atlantic was approximately 1°C warmer than today during the MWP 1,000 years ago. The MWP lasted about 300 years.

 

[halik]

Shocking to no-one; dirty energy companies have an enormous financial incentive to stop any sort of climate change initiative. You'd have to be an idiot to not see that.

I'm sure there are billions of dollar spent organizing a conspiracy between academics in science to produce research showing human activity causes changes in climate due to CO2 production, because said academics want to protect business models with billions of reven... err millions of ... errr $10k NIS grant that isn't contingent on conclusion of the research... errr how's that work again?

Idiocracy is about right, again you'd have to have room temperature IQ to not see the economics the lobbying.

 

[Genx87]

This thread sent me on a tangent...


Was the Medieval Warm Period warmer than today? Wiki (Yes, I know...) says the surface temperature of the North Atlantic was approximately 1°C warmer than today during the MWP 1,000 years ago. The MWP lasted about 300 years.

That was due to all those cars and factories from the Roman Empire.

 

[Paratus]

That was due to all those cars and factories from the Roman Empire.

What was the water temperature in the lower ocean?

How about the Southern Atlantic?
The Pacific?
Artic?

How about medieval global Air temperatures?
Land temperatures?

:hmm:

 

[halik]

What was the water temperature in the lower ocean?

How about the Southern Atlantic?
The Pacific?
Artic?

How about medieval global Air temperatures?
Land temperatures?

:hmm:

I would love to read your peer-reviewed research, assuming everyone here is full-time PhD academic, focusing on climate science? If not, the below applies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[sm625]

It was -12 when I got in my car this morning. It stayed -12 as I drive thru my neighborhood. When I got on the main road it went to -7. When I got on the highway it was -2. When I got off the highway and back onto the road, it was -7. When I drove down company's driveway it dropped back to -10. The point here is that local energy emissions increase over time and severely damage the historical data from all the temperature probes used to construct an image of global temperatures. It's all a bunch of bullcrap. Record temperatures every year? Bull crap. It's so obvious, but just like everything else you have millions of idiots who cant think well enough to even grasp what's going on. It's admitted and in plain sight that they blatantly butcher the raw data that comes out of those probes. The absurdity of all this is unbelievable. How stupid do people have to be to buy that crap? Pretty damn stupid it seems. So many stupid dumbed down morons begging to have their own frickin breath taxed so a few more banksters can get even richer and more powerful.

 

[glenn1]

So many stupid dumbed down morons begging to have their own frickin breath taxed so a few more banksters can get even richer and more powerful.

I'm sure that the investment banks will eat the costs of setting up carbon emissions exchanges and allow the trades to be made free of charge. All in the name of saving the earth and benefit of man of course, because what guys like Goldman Sachs are best known for is their charitable nature.

 

[CZroe]

I guess ZERO dollars must be spent on climate research that supports man-made climate change.

Even the neutral money corrupts, no matter how dark/bright it is, as results will be skewed toward alarmism to keep the money flowing. Once you understand that, this big reveal is no more worrisome than the people paying for evidence supporting man-made climate change.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah yes, climate change. The liberal version of the conservative "family values" pitch used to whip up the gullible faithful for votes and money but never intended to be actually implemented. Carry on with your two minutes hate against Emmanuel Goldstein, ahem the Koch Brothers.

It says an awful lot about you that you compare science to the 'family values' pitch.

You're not interested in the science because you're a culture warrior. You're absolutely enraged by liberals and so whatever they think/want you want to deny them because that will 'get' them.

As always, the question here is simply if you accept the overwhelming conclusions of science or not. I do, because I accept science even when it is ideologically inconvenient. (for example, it appears that large income inequality has little effect on growth after all) For you science is trustworthy when it confirms what you want to believe and is a liberal plot when it doesn't.

 

[fskimospy]

The entire issue has been grossly politicized, and certainly not by just conservatives.

There's a whole universe of difference between measuring the affects of smoking on damaged lungs and predicting a future worldwide catastrophe.

I'd be more inclined to allay my suspicions if not for the frantic, panicked urgency of it all, not to mention the wild and ridiculous predictions. What ever happened, for example, to the 50 million "climate refugees" that the UN said in 2005 would be seeking solace by 2010? Then there are morons like Al Gore and Paul Ehrlich. Those guys are to climate what Al Sharpton is to race relations.

I would just say follow what the science says. It doesn't matter what non-scientists say about it in order to determine if climate change is real or not, just a real accounting of the available evidence. If you do that in a fair and objective manner it is awfully hard not to recognize the utterly overwhelming evidence on one side.

As for the difference in measuring the effects of smoking on the lungs, the point was that the tactics of people who are interested in denying climate change today are identical to those who wanted to deny the link between smoking and illness. I thought we were wise to that sort of nonsense by now.

 

[Paratus]

I would love to read your peer-reviewed research, assuming everyone here is full-time PhD academic, focusing on climate science? If not, the below applies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

I'm actually not sure the point you are trying to get across. Ichisan has a legitamate question about the medieval warm period. GenX seemed to be saying that the climate science says only man can influence the climate which is of course false.

I was trying point out that the medieval warm period can't even be used to show a warmer earth by itself. One doesn't have to be a PHD in climate science to know that a single small area of the Earth does not equal the entire Earth. Which is the global part of global warming.

I try very hard not to fall into Dunning-Krueger myself. If you are saying others in this thread are showing that behavior, I'd agree.

 

[inachu]

It's not just big oil, it's the logging industry, the paper industry, the natural gas companies. Everybody who pollutes the air has an interest in convincing the world that their pollution has no effect on the environment.

http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/ has shown they are the most green because they really do replant tree VS some countries that just cut and burn and do not replant.

 

[Matt1970]

Your always trying to ignore money you dont like to county.

Theres billions in research that is funding global warming fear mongering, If you dont think that money buys influence your just plan stupid.

All those fear mongering global warming nutters, arent about to allow their funding to dry are they? They have to keep selling you more and more fear, so that they can continue getting more and more money.

But in your tinny mind, its big oil thats bad. Why? because they're 'big oil'.

Learn proper English, especially if you are going to accuse others of being stupid and having a "tinny" mind.

 

[glenn1]

It says an awful lot about you that you compare science to the 'family values' pitch.

You're not interested in the science because you're a culture warrior. You're absolutely enraged by liberals and so whatever they think/want you want to deny them because that will 'get' them.

As always, the question here is simply if you accept the overwhelming conclusions of science or not. I do, because I accept science even when it is ideologically inconvenient. (for example, it appears that large income inequality has little effect on growth after all) For you science is trustworthy when it confirms what you want to believe and is a liberal plot when it doesn't.

Great, then some more laws in your state limiting emissions and continuing to make your electricity rates among the very highest in the nation. You still have some headroom since you're only about 50% above national average and 20% above Northeast state averages. Maybe you can force more poor people to stop heating their homes altogether and save those carbon emissions also.

 

[fskimospy]

Great, then some more laws in your state limiting emissions and continuing to make your electricity rates among the very highest in the nation. You still have some headroom since you're only about 50% above national average and 20% above Northeast state averages. Maybe you can force more poor people to stop heating their homes altogether and save those carbon emissions also.

Hahaha. I couldn't ask for a more perfect response.

When asked to consider the science and not your perceived political enemies your response was to rage about how shitty New York is. You're literally doing exactly what I said you would.

 

[shira]

Hahaha. I couldn't ask for a more perfect response.

When asked to consider the science and not your perceived political enemies your response was to rage about how shitty New York is. You're literally doing exactly what I said you would.

Not only that. When told to just "follow the scientific consensus," he argues - in effect - that people should disagree with the consensus on climate change because it could lead to higher energy costs in some areas.

In other words "View the world through the prism of short-term self interest."

 

[werepossum]

I love the way that people are styled as "climate deniers" if they don't agree that the climate began with the Industrial Revolution.

 

[fskimospy]

I love the way that people are styled as "climate deniers" if they don't agree that the climate began with the Industrial Revolution.

Good news: that's not why people are labeled climate change deniers.

 

[sandorski]

This thread sent me on a tangent...


Was the Medieval Warm Period warmer than today? Wiki (Yes, I know...) says the surface temperature of the North Atlantic was approximately 1°C warmer than today during the MWP 1,000 years ago. The MWP lasted about 300 years.

It was not a Global Event.

 

[glenn1]

Hahaha. I couldn't ask for a more perfect response.

When asked to consider the science and not your perceived political enemies your response was to rage about how shitty New York is. You're literally doing exactly what I said you would.

Fine, argue the science I don't care. I'll agree to whatever scientific theory you want, and your political policy you create from it will still be wrong. I see you're starting to borrow from the playbook of the right and how they argue, "let's talk about the science of fetal pain instead of whether my abortion restrictions are constitutional."