Bankrupt US Coal Producer Was Funding Climate Change Denial (theintercept.com) 256
The bankruptcy of one of America's largest coal producers revealed that the company was helping to fund "think tanks that have attacked the link between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change, as well as to several conservative advocacy groups that have attempted to undermine policies intended to shift the economy toward renewable energy," reports the Intercept.
The document shows that Cloud Peak Energy helped fund the Institute of Energy Research, a Washington, D.C.-based group that has dismissed the "so-called scientific consensus" on climate change and regularly criticizes investments in renewable energy as a "waste" of resources. Several of the groups that receive funding from Cloud Peak Energy have used aggressive tactics to attempt to discredit environmentalists.
The Center for Consumer Freedom, one of the groups listed in the coal company's filing, is part of a sprawling network of front groups set up by a lobbyist named Rick Berman geared toward attacking green groups such as the Sierra Club and Food & Water Watch as dangerous radicals. Other organizations quietly bankrolled by Cloud Peak Energy have directly shaped state policy... The Montana Policy Institute -- a local libertarian think tank that promotes a discredited claim that world temperatures are falling, not rising, and questions whether humans cause climate change -- also received funding from the firm....
Four years ago, falling coal prices led to a series of bankruptcies of the largest coal companies in America. The filings, first reported by The Intercept, similarly revealed that the coal industry had financed a range of activists and organizations dedicated to spreading doubt about the science underpinning climate change...
In 2016, Greg Zimmerman, an environmental activist, stumbled upon a presentation titled "Survival Is Victory: Lessons From the Tobacco Wars." The slide deck was the creation of Richard Reavey, a vice president for government and public affairs at Cloud Peak Energy, and a former executive at Phillip Morris. Reavey argued that fossil fuel firms, particularly coal, should emulate the tactics of big tobacco, which similarly spent decades battling scientists and regulators over claims that its product harmed public health. In the New York Times coverage of the episode, Reavey told the paper that his firm "has never fought climate change -- never fought it, never denied it or funded anyone who does." The bankruptcy filing from last week, however, suggests otherwise.
The Center for Consumer Freedom, one of the groups listed in the coal company's filing, is part of a sprawling network of front groups set up by a lobbyist named Rick Berman geared toward attacking green groups such as the Sierra Club and Food & Water Watch as dangerous radicals. Other organizations quietly bankrolled by Cloud Peak Energy have directly shaped state policy... The Montana Policy Institute -- a local libertarian think tank that promotes a discredited claim that world temperatures are falling, not rising, and questions whether humans cause climate change -- also received funding from the firm....
Four years ago, falling coal prices led to a series of bankruptcies of the largest coal companies in America. The filings, first reported by The Intercept, similarly revealed that the coal industry had financed a range of activists and organizations dedicated to spreading doubt about the science underpinning climate change...
In 2016, Greg Zimmerman, an environmental activist, stumbled upon a presentation titled "Survival Is Victory: Lessons From the Tobacco Wars." The slide deck was the creation of Richard Reavey, a vice president for government and public affairs at Cloud Peak Energy, and a former executive at Phillip Morris. Reavey argued that fossil fuel firms, particularly coal, should emulate the tactics of big tobacco, which similarly spent decades battling scientists and regulators over claims that its product harmed public health. In the New York Times coverage of the episode, Reavey told the paper that his firm "has never fought climate change -- never fought it, never denied it or funded anyone who does." The bankruptcy filing from last week, however, suggests otherwise.
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Because why wouldn't they.
Their entire business was about fucking up the climate, of course they'd fund climate change deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
Science wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Science wins. At always does because science doesn't care about your superstitions, petty believes, or profit motives.
Re:Science wins (Score:5, Interesting)
Science wins. At always does because science doesn't care about your superstitions, petty believes, or profit motives.
Except that Christianity by itself managed to set us back by somewhere around 1500 years -- pretty impressive for its mere 2000 years history. (Of course, this assumes no other such ideology would happen in the meantime, which is a tall bet.) The moment they gained power, they started mass burning of libraries and people. Same with arts: most of vaunted art pieces from that period are basically church decorations. It started somewhere before Constantine, and has no definitive end: there were some attempts by the Renaissance but the Church still ruled firmly -- and even today, in Poland we have two hours per week of "religion" (aka. Roman Christianity) lessons from elementary grade one till the end of high school.
Islam is even worse. There was some science allowed around 12c, but that was despite Islam not thanks to it. That thaw soon ended, and the mullahs cracked down hard.
Then there's a lot of other antiscientific quasi-religions, such as Communism (Lysenko), third-wave "feminism", National Socialism ("jewish science"), Juche, and many lesser ones.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Then there's a lot of other antiscientific quasi-religions, such as Communism (Lysenko), third-wave "feminism", National Socialism ("jewish science"), Juche, and many lesser ones.
Let's be fair and not forget quasi-religions such as capitalism, free market fundamentalism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, ... , etc. Just as anti-scientific in their own way and every bit as harmful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. During the time since Christianity has dominated western civilization, modern science, modern math, modern chemistry was born. The greatest scientists were largely Christian, many of them borderline fanatics on the topic. We went from grubbing along on the edge of starvation, as we had for the vast majority of prehistory, to having so much food and wealth that our biggest issue is obesity. We almost all live in incomprehensible luxury and safety. We went from Ox carts to steam engines to cars to a
Re: Science wins (Score:5, Informative)
Your lack of historical knowledge is astounding!
Science boomed during the greco-roman period. Then came Christianity. We entered the Dark Ages as it spread.
Science in the west only recovered a millennium and a half later when brave scientists willing to literally risk death to publish confronted the religious tyranny.
As far as them being Christian, are you daft? They claimed to be absolutely devout in order to publish without perishing.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, modern historians think the term "Dark Ages" is incorrect and no longer use it [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Science wins (Score:4, Informative)
a little humour here https://news.yahoo.com/most-am... [yahoo.com]
Re:Science wins (Score:4, Informative)
Christianity set science back by 1500 years?! WTF are you smoking?
Almost all we know of science from the eras of the Greeks, Romans, or Egyptians we know BECAUSE of Christianity! If it weren't for those monks recording all the knowledge, copying and preserving it from the non-Christians, all of that would have been lost.
Not to mention that for almost a thousand years, any developments in science came about almost exclusively because of the priestly class. Have you perhaps never heard of Gregor Mendel, father of genetics? How about Copernicus? I'd say his contributions were significant. Steno, for geology? Grimaldi, for physics? Ockham - of logic and metascience?
You ignorance and prejudice is astounding. Maybe you didn't like Catholic school growing up, but to flat out lie about the history of science, and of all the contributions of Christian scientists is just parading your bigotry. It's disgusting.
Re:Science wins (Score:4, Interesting)
Christianity set science back by 1500 years?! WTF are you smoking?
Almost all we know of science from the eras of the Greeks, Romans, or Egyptians we know BECAUSE of Christianity! If it weren't for those monks recording all the knowledge, copying and preserving it from the non-Christians, all of that would have been lost.
You should read The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixey. The Christian scribes failed to pass on vast amount (something like 98%) of the literature of the ancient world. Basically giving them credit for "preserving knowledge" is just giving them credit for not allowing all of it to be destroyed.
But the Christians monks did not pass on much science or math at all in their manuscripts.
Anyone at all familiar with the history of mathematics and science knows that at the dawn on the Renaissance everyone in Europe who knew about science and math was studying Arabic, not Latin texts. We have out mathematics that survived from the ancient world (and then was extended) by the Arabs, not the Christians. That's why we write with Arabic numerals.
The greatest scientific work of the ancient world was the work on astronomy and celestial models and mathematics by Claudios Ptolemy which is know as the Almagest. Why is it called that? Because Almagest is the Medieval Latin rendering of Al-Majisti or "Greatest Work" in Arabic.
Without the Islamic scholars to preserve it, the scientific and mathematical achievements of antiquity would have been snuffed by those monks.
The claim that "Almost all we know of science from the eras of the Greeks, Romans, or Egyptians we know BECAUSE of Christianity" is flatly and utterly false.
Re: (Score:2)
Christianity set science back by 1500 years?! WTF are you smoking?
I believe it is a quote from the song "Fuck the Damn Creationists" by MC Hawking, circa 1997.
"Stephen Jay Gould should put his foot right up your ass" is the follow-up. Not anything about smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
So was the Soviet Union Communist or not? Because they did pretty well on the science front.
Also, feminism a "quasi-religion" and anti-science, LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you're not a historian? Most of this contradicts what I learned in (secular) university history classes.
Re:Science wins (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it was really cool, prejudiced against all religions at the same time but then is it still bigoted when it is equally applied. Personally belief over reason, is pretty much gullibly foolish over sanity. Don't believe anything, always choose reason, even a blind guess is still better than an empty belief.
US corporations, lie, cheat and steal, it is quite simply how they deal. No matter how many die, as long as share price is up this quarter fuck humanity. This insane psychopathic capitalism simply has to stop.
I'll be US corporations start becoming religious, trying to hide behind the bible, you can expect the PR bullshit as all the other bullshit fails.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, he's amazingly wrong. Almost all the books we have from Greek or Roman times survived explicitly because of Catholic monks. Almost all early universities were originally places of religious learning. Almost all researchers into any topic were priests.
If you have even a slight understanding of the times, you'd understand why: free time. But instead of thinking a little (much less reading any history) you and the original bigot decided to act like idiots, and prove yourself ignorant buffoons.
Re: (Score:2)
Science does't always win (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For your claim you give ONE example but that example is wrong.
No his example is not wrong. His statement was "There was a time when the Arabic countries were the highest seat of learning" and so it was. That is why the number are called Arabic, because as they learned from the Hindu mathematicians, adopted them, developed the system further, and spread their use throughout the Islamic world. This was a "seat of learning" does. Trigonometry and algebra were both considerably advanced by the Muslim World, as was astronomy.
I notice that Islamophobic Christianists here pl
Re: (Score:3)
That's a nice sentiment, and I'd like to believe it, but I can't.
Science isn't about truth, it's about evidence. Insofar as you choose to be guided by what (at the present time) seems to have the best evidence, sure, science "wins" by that criterion. But in the realm of politics, *feelings* trump evidence. As long as people choose to be guided by their *feelings* of what is true, then PR "wins" over evidence in the policy arena.
This is why there's so much bullshit all around. The fate of civilization may
Science wins (eventually) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Science wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Science didn't cause global warming. People did that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
People lived without causing global warming for 800,000 years. Within 200 years of using science to industrialize we completely change the entire atmosphere. We wouldn't have been able to do that if it wasn't for science.
Re:Science wins (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all true but it's still us who did it. Science is a tool to find out about the world, not a tool to bring global warming about.
Re: Science wins (Score:2)
It did both.
Re: Science wins (Score:4, Interesting)
It did both.
The you should go live with the Amish. Then again, horse farts have a lot of methane in them.
Re: (Score:3)
Methane from horse farts are already a part of the carbon cycle. Only fossil fuels ADD greenhouse gases.
Re: (Score:2)
And you sound like someone who can't refute my argument to you resort to childish insult.
I made a joke, my good man. Carry on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Horse are not ruminants, they are monogastric. They don't produce much methane.
https://articles.extension.org/pages/44740/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-horse-compared-to-an-automobile
1. It was a joke
2. I've been around horses since my late teens and owned one for 27 years. They most definitely do pass gas. And I surely wouldn't try lighting what they produce.
But Horses and cows are not really part of the picture. Neither are trees, they sequester it while they live, and once dead, start releasing it. (very simplified) The Animal Warming group is just vegans with a vengeance.
They guy with the anger problem is right that they are just a natural part of the world. The 800 Terawatt
Re: (Score:2)
"The current level of radiative forcing, according to the IPCC AR4, is 1.6 watts per square meter (with a range of uncertainty from 0.6 to 2.4)."
How much does it change with co2 and what's the error bars on that?
Its in the MIT citation
Re:Science wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Within 200 years of using science to industrialize we completely change the entire atmosphere.
We didn't completely change the atmosphere. The amount of actual change is less than .01% of the composition. It just turns out that CO2 has an outsized effect, considering how little of it is in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Quite true. And going back over 120 years years [google.com], the potential downsides of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere have been spoken about by...scientists. The present concern about global warming ("climate change" became the preferred name, once many of the ramifications were worked out) date
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then how do you explain every Christmas in my childhood having been white, yet there wasn't a single white Christmas for at least a decade nowadays where I live?
That's just a single series of observations from one location, but ordinary people don't understand statistics. They do understand "War on Christmas".
Re: (Score:2)
All of this "science" is based off of ice cores samples.
No, there are a large variety of data sources.
Re:Science wins (Score:5, Funny)
Modern Science only cares about how funds them....
You tell'em Billy Bob! We all know that climate scientists write funding requests that say, "I will write a paper about how human caused global warming is true (*wink*). The End."
And the National Science Foundation, NOAA or the "Environmental Lobby" will just write a check without a specific amount and the scientists will fill in what they want and go buy fast cars, hookers and blow and have a wonderful time. Because those organizations have all the money and just fling it around because there is no oversight. Why even the Republicans on the oversight committees just shrug their shoulders because there would be no political gain on their part for exposing such funding shenanigans. None!
Now when a true and honest scientist needs money for his study that is skeptical of global warming, they go to the fossil fuel industry, who lacking any ability for large funding for things like this, would be very hesitant to fund such a thing and also because they are SAINTS! Profits be DAMNED! They would sacrifice their business, their multi-million dollar paychecks, and all of the shareholders' capital if it meant that truth is their business is harming the planet, human health, and most all, the AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!
Goddman these Librul pansies who want clean air, a climate that our way of life is based upon, and just a cleaner environment. Don't they know that the American Way of Life is to live in polluted filth!
Diesel, Coal dust and ash, and CO2 makes one a TRUE American!
Re: (Score:3)
There's got to be a Futurama reference [youtube.com] in there somewhere, but I can't quite make it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the groups who are taking "prophet motives" to the extreme as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At this point yes, there's more than enough evidence that humans are causing climate change and that climate change is a major problem to justify not funding the other view point. Or do you think we need to still be funding phrenologists and astrologers as well?
There comes a point where funding both sides of an issue no longer makes any sense and barring the case where the observed reality no longer fits with the climate change theories, there's not much reason to spend money trying to find alternate possib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not happening to any degree more than in other branches of science, except in your foetid imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
News? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly news. You have to be pretty damn stupid to not see that the climate change denial is funded by coal and oil.
Like, we are talking Trump supporter levels of stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's good news because now there is one less source of anti-science profit-protecting bullshit.
If they had not been such morons they could have spent all that money pivoting the business to something sustainable.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to be pretty damn stupid to not see that the climate change denial is funded by coal and oil
Well obviously. However, this is more than just seeing it, this is a paper trail that negates their denials and squarely ties them to climate denial. Lacking this kind of stuff basically boils it down to the usual hand waving that these actors do. "I don't fund climate denying and you can't prove it." And unfortunately for some, they'll buy whatever BS these companies pander since there's no "hard evidence" otherwise.
their is another thing there's no denying (Score:2)
Profit is Morality (Score:2)
None of these articles should be posted without including the Conservative Golden Rule:
"Profit is Morality".
In the Conservative morality long as they are making money all actions and choices are moral. Profit is morality.
Re: (Score:2)
None of these articles should be posted without including the Conservative Golden Rule:
"Profit is Morality".
Dead wrong. They value accrued wealth way more than mere profit. Everybody who works has profits. Very few accrue wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
How many conservatives in church-attending country want their children locked in cages hundreds of miles away with no documentation of who they are and abused by men with assault weapons?
Re: (Score:2)
Non one WANTS that to happen. But I'd bet they'd all understand it happening if their children illegally entered, say, Canada where children can be held indefinitely, separated from their parents [globaldete...roject.org]. Or pretty much any other nation. Most would understand that if you break the law - you pay the penalty. Render under Caesar's that which is Caesar's, and all...
It seems to be the liberals that insist we must ignore our laws - and in fact, the way most of our more "enlightened" first world allies behave - and j
Cancer (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, those cells in your body that replicate indiscriminately, monopolize all the resources, dump their metabolic waste product in the rest of the body to deal with.
In defense of cancer cells, they don't know what they're doing. They don't know that their behavior will lead inevitably to the demise of their host, and to their own demise. They don't know that they're digging their own graves. They're just cells.
But these sociopaths, they know exactly what they're doing, and what consequences their actions will have. And still, they do it.
That little phrase in the movie "The Age Of Stupid" always stuck in my head:
"We will not have been the first species on Earth to self-destruct, but we will have been the first one to do it knowingly "
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a rats ass if they know what they're doing, or whatever the blah blah, I'm ready to vote for the chemo treatment either way.
A telling detail (Score:5, Informative)
So this guy moved from Philip Morris over to Big Coal? Was tobacco just not evil enough for him?
Raise your hand (Score:2)
"Bankrupt US Coal Producer Was Funding Climate Change Denial"
Raise your hand if you're shocked, or even surprised.
We've seen this before (Score:4, Informative)
...when Big Tobacco, in order to protect their profits, funded research questioning the link between smoking and lung cancer. It set us back decades in the fight against cancer, and Big Oil is doing the same now.
Follow the money!
Re: (Score:3)
Big coal is doing it now. Big oil has done it in the past and is rapidly trying to play the good guy since their game is up, all the while being sued (at least some of big oil is).
Hell Big oil's own shareholders are actively pushing climate agendas now. Coal is still in the dark ages in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power does not require rare-earth elements at all.
I doubt he funded just climate change denial. (Score:2)
Fraud (Score:2)
Assholes Yell Louder When Nerds Increase in Number (Score:2)
And, in other news... (Score:2)
"Bankrupt US Coal Producer Was Funding Climate Change Denial"
Is there similar outrage when solar panel producers fund climate change research?
Re:Legal requirement (Score:5, Informative)
It is a myth that companies are legally required to to increase shareholder value at the expense of all other goals.. There's one [wikipedia.org] state supreme court case that agrees with this view, and several [wikipedia.org] others [wikipedia.org] that disagree. This idea is just an unsupported assertion by Milton Friedman in 1970. The executives and shareholders of a company are fully allowed to pursue other goals besides profit [hbr.org]. There is no duty to keep a stock's price rising at all costs.
Re:Legal requirement (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling [findlaw.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
In the book, Friedman writes: "There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."[3]
You engage in open and free competition without fraud, and without breaking the law. "Profits at any cost" runs counter to this. And yes, increasing profits for the company can include looking at activities and actions that may reduce profits for the next several years, but in the long run greatly increase corporate profitability.
Re:Orwell 1984: "Climate Change Denial" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Orwell 1984: "Climate Change Denial" (Score:5, Insightful)
Evidence: models don't match the data [drroyspencer.com].
Bahahahahaha. Okay. So you have one guy who isn't backed by anyone saying the models are wrong. So EVERYONE else must be wrong according to you. I'm pretty sure I can find one doctor on this planet that says smoking is good for you. Also this destroys the notion that there is not dissent. He dissented. So what?
On a side note let's look at Roy Spencer [wikipedia.org] the advocate for Intelligent Design?
I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."
and
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
So you have an ultra-religious scientist who claims God has created everything including the climate and man isn't responsible for any of it. Why should we listen to him? It would be one thing if he merely dissented. Saying "God did it" discredits him instantly.
Re:Orwell 1984: "Climate Change Denial" (Score:5, Informative)
He's only the guy who runs NASA's weather satellites [wikipedia.org] monitoring climate
No he does not. From your own link: a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
Nowhere does he "only the guy who runs NASA's weather satellites [wikipedia.org] monitoring climate" That is a lie.
All satellite and radiosonde data shows the models are wrong.
Again, wrong. Spencer claims they are wrong based on his models. His assertions have been found to be flawed. [skepticalscience.com].
So why do we believe in them? I get it, his message isn't what you want, so you challenge him on things that do not matter in relation to empirical data about climate.
Listen very carefully: He has already said that "God did it." At that point it isn't science. He's already disqualified anything else he says. As I already said, he can dissent. Saying "God did it" is not dissent. It is not science. Again why should we listen to him about his religion?
So how do you explain the fact that the actual data doesn't match the models? Which is wrong - the data or the model?
And did you ever consider the possibility that Spencer was wrong. His arguments [skepticalscience.com] have not compared well to what actual science is. Other criticisms of his work [wordpress.com] including the use of shoddy statistics. One major problem [shumwaysmith.com] of Spencer's model is that it requires the Earth to have been at -1 to -6 trillion degrees C starting in the year 993: "It turns out you need to set the starting temperature to negative six trillion degrees in 993, in order to match Spencer's model for the 20th century. 6 trillion degrees. Wow. Now that's global warming!" By reference, absolute zero is -273C.
The editor (Wagner) who published one of his papers, resigned because of this.
" And, in Wagner's opinion, [Spencer's] papers that contain methodological errors or erroneous conclusions are supposed to be caught by peer review and shouldn't be published. Since one was published on his watch, he's resigning."
Basically Spencer's work is just wrong. It requires the acceptance of shoddy statistics; it requires the Earth to start at -6 Trillion C over a thousand years ago for his model to work. So you brought one scientist whose research was so flawed that someone else resigned after publishing his paper. Are you sure that's what you want to try to overturn work by thousands of other scientists?
Do you have more junk to present?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, he's the guy in charge of NASA's weather satellite, at least when it comes to the science side.
That's not what you wrote. You wrote: "He's only the guy who runs NASA's weather satellites monitoring climate".
First of all NASA has many, many satellites including 3 AMSR ones. Second, AMSR are not the only satellites that are used to monitor climate change. At best he is the team leader on the science side for 1 of them which mean he doesn't run that satellite. At best your statement is an exaggeration. At worst it's a lie.
Simple question: if data and models are in conflict, which do you believe?
Multiple sources have established that there isn't conflict because Spencer's work
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, wait, you thought NASA had... a weather satellite?
Fuck an A, man. You don't even understand the grammar and syntax of the discussion, how the fuck are you going to understand the science and tell the world who is right and who is wrong?
You're... below average. Get a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
"Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming",[32][33] which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."
Re: (Score:2)
And? Does that invalidate the data collected by NASA's satellite? The data that shows the models are wrong?
I've pointed out in another post that Spencer's work was flawed and how it was flawed. If you keep posting that the models are wrong, then you are just lying at this point. The data does not show that.
What does believe in a god or not matter in terms of actual science?
The problem isn't what one believes. The problem is saying that the reason is the "work of God" isn't scientific.
Do you discount everything that Einstein said because he was religious?
Did Einstein every say that blackholes are the result of God and not gravity? Do you even see the distinction?
Again, the data from the satellites disagrees with the models. Which do you believe - data or models?
No they do not. You are lying.
Re: Orwell 1984: "Climate Change Denial" (Score:4, Insightful)
You are being deliberately disingenuous to push your agenda that you are being victimized. The fact of the matter is, it isn't Slashdot that is modding, it is the same people who comment. Meta-moderation keeps things honest. Anyone who *wants* to see your -1 ramblings can do so just the same as any other level they wish to see.
But let's be honest... almost no one does want to read your dribble. It is paranoid lunacy.
Re: (Score:3)
You think downmods on Slashdot are proof of a conspiracy against climate change skeptics? That is a new level of stupidity, even for this place
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, did you ever read any George Orwell? I mean, "reality has a liberal bias" is not one that I recognise.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it should be modified for trolls to "Your Reality exists in your mind and nowhere else."
Re: (Score:2)
Your post appears to have nothing to do with mine. And you can't spell leeches. Which is really not a hard word. You're confusing it with the process by which all signs of intelligence have been washed away from your grey matter by the solvent of bigotry. (That's what's called a metaphor, a word that's spelled with a "ph" even though it's a "f" sound! Who'd ever have thought, eh?)
PS: as a bonus demonstration of your stupidity, even if you'd spelled leeches appropriately, it makes no sense as an attack metap
Re: (Score:2)
If reality actually were "liberal", then why does the political left always need to constantly resort to so much outrage, protest and violence in order to force their "progessive" views on society?
It takes a lot of work to overcome tribal resistance.
If reality truly were "liberal", then it should already conform to left wing ideologies, without left wingers needing to expend huge amounts of time and work like they seem to end up needing to do.
It does, but is always led astray by tribal resistance.
I began hearing about speculations of where global climate was going in the 80's or so. Even whether the glacial cycle was taking us back to an ice age. So, lots of different people, groups (of people), institutions (of people), and governments (of, well, you know) increased and enhanced instrumentation to improve hypotheses and theories.
Back then, discussion was pretty much dry and scientific. Which
Re: Orwell 1984: "Climate Change Denial" (Score:2)
my and my technical mates worked a lot of long hours to make it a non-event.
The eternal paradox of alarmism. If you don't sound the alarm catastrophe strikes. If you sound the alarm and prevent catastrophe, people accuse you of unnecessary alarmism. People hold up Y2K as a chicken little situation, but it would have been far worse if we hadn't allocated our efforts and resources to prevent the sky from falling.
We see that too in the bailouts and stimulus which warded off a great depression. "we didn't need bailouts because the economy recovered!"
Re: Orwell 1984: "Climate Change Denial" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There aren't as many climate scientists as you are implying.
I didn't say climate scientists. I said scientists. [nasa.gov] And there are thousands of American scientists alone.
Lumping in all kinds of other sorts of scientists to get your "thousands" isn't really good practice
Why not? Some of these disciplines like scientists in the American Meteorological Society and the The Geological Society of America have provided direct evidence. Certainly they would be experts in the evidence they provided.
Metallurgists and chemists have no special expertise regarding the climate.
And no one said that they did. That's a strawman argument. What have said is in the areas of their expertise they recognize the data and the conclusions that draw from them.
You may as well be touting the fact that thousands of hairdressers and telephone sanitizers have notable opinions about climate change.
Do haird
Re: (Score:2)
You have 11.75 years left before the world is destroyed. â"AOC.
That's not what she said. I see you dishonesty is you MO.
New York will be under water within 10 years. â"Al High Priest Gore way the fuck more than 10 years ago. Billionaire from AGW High Priest, btw.
Citation needed.
Re:Do you even know what "citation" means? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not a citation. I take you've never actually written a paper that requires a citation.
And what would it change, if it were cited? Even if on another page. Nothing, as this shows clearly.
Are you trying to excuse the fact you don't have a citation. Normally when I ask for one it's because the person doesn't actually have one. For example, I can say that Abraham Lincoln said that killer robots would doom society. Do I have a citation for that? No. You'll have to trust me that I didn't just make that up.
You'd just call it "not reputable" until it fits your agenda and "firm" beliefs.
No what I would do is pick apart. For example the AOC quote. It is not what she said. People have been forwarding that lie that she said when she didn't. When I ask for citation I point out EXACTLY what she said. They can either accept that they were lied to or that can "believe" she said it when their own citation says otherwise.
At best, you'd define "reputable" as any site following a certain design pattern that looks like research papers look, with maybe some same droppings of institutions of people you previously read anecdotes about how they are great, when you looked for something to confirm your beliefs. Aka the "argument from authority" fallacy. For which there hilariously is a Wikipedia article too! Talk about cognitive dissonance!
Strawman argument: So what you are arguing is that you will never believe what anyone else says. Isn't that more close to religion than science.
I agree that he is wrong, by the way. At least in my relative world view. But that is not why you rejected it. And that is the problem with this, frankly clueless wannabe scientist meme.
I didn't reject it. I asked for evidence. Many times. In almost all cases, no one has presented the evidence. What "evidence" that is brought actually proves the person wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you think suggesting downmods on Slashdot is proof that "alarmists" are a religious cult is *less stupid* than suggesting it's proof of a conspiracy against climate change skeptics? And the tone of your comment implies you think you were making some sort of witty comeback, too! It's like a two year old being proud of going potty while failing to understand that he's just shat on the carpet.
Re: Orwell 1984: "Climate Change Denial" (Score:5, Informative)
Even comments that aren't "denying" climate change, but that are merely asking questions regarding the scientific techniques being employed, often end up at -1.
Such as? Most of the "questions" come loaded with conclusions that there must be a conspiracy as opposed to the poster simply not knowing about what they are posting.
This sort of suppression of discussion, which borders on censorship, is not compatible at all with the scientific method.
Marking something something as -1 isn't even close to censorship. Your comment still exists and anyone can read it. Please learn what censorship is. Censorship isn't you crying that your comments are not popular.
Anyone engaging in science should be appalled when open discussion is actively discouraged and punished.
As I said before, you want to overturn science, provide evidence. Science is not determined by "discussions". Science is determined by evidence. The fact that you don't know that leads me to conclude that you don't understand science.
Anyone engaging in such suppression, even if in the form of downmodding a /. comment, is inherently not engaging in science, but rather a form of religion.
Science is about evidence, not moderation or posting in a forum. Your understanding of science is quite poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship isn't you crying that your comments are not popular.
If you're being given a platform for free but not actively being paid then its censorship these days apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
-1 has lots of potential reasons, not just "They tuk er jerbs!"
Also, those comments don't go away. You're at -1 when I'm replying to your drivel. It is at -1 because it is drivel. You were never suppressed. Merely dribbling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Orwell 1984: "Climate Change Denial" (Score:2)
Science is NOT POLITICAL, it never was or is. Why do you think it's political? BECAUSE THEY PAID PEOPLE TO LIE AND TELL YOU SO! They're money was very effective I must say because morons fell for it hook-line-sinker.
This is one of many polluting industries that fund climate denialists politicians and run TV disinformation campaigns on a massive scale.
I love when climate denialists actually do provide a source because when you verify the source, it's an organization that gets half it's funding from energy co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly acceptable to question "settled science" ... with evidence. The literal impossibility of CO2 increasing in the atmosphere was settled science in 1957, until Roger Revelle and Hans Seuss published a paper that year entitled "Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between the Atmosphere and the Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades."
"Settled science" doesn't settle *ultimate truth*. It settles *burden of proof*.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes the old "legal == moral" argument. Funny how morals can change at the stroke of a pen, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
as long as they pay for cleaning up the damage
And how much exactly would that be?
AGW climate models are in such a sorry state that using them to support an economic formula for the damage is a long way off. You can argue all you want about the theory behind greenhouse gas heat trapping. But unless you can actually use the numbers to do a legally required cost/benefit analysis and environmental impact study, they are meaningless. And no fair pulling numbers out of your ass. Last week, NPR interviewed a climate researcher who posited that the Syrian ref
Re: (Score:3)
The Big Oil has always been blamed for this. Now Coal??
They have the most to lose if the concern is carbon pollution from burning the fossil fuel is what gets penalized.
Most fossil fuels is some molecular combination of carbon and (optionally) hydrogen. The bulk of the energy comes from burning the hydrogen to water vapor, with the carbon serving as a convenient scaffold for storing the hydrogen compactly and relatively safely until use. Burning the carbon to carbon dioxide provides some energy, but subst
Re: (Score:2)
"I haven't seen the evidence, therefore it does not exist!" --You
Protip: at least notice the difference between positive claims which can have evidence, and negative claims that are the lack of evidence.