Slashdot Mirror
Ex-NASA Employees Accuse Agency of 'Extreme Position' On Climate Change
grumpyman writes "A coalition of 49 ex-NASA employees, including seven Apollo astronauts, have accused the U.S. space agency of sullying its reputation by taking the 'extreme position' of concluding that carbon dioxide is a major cause of climate change. Is the claim in this letter opinion or fact?"
The 49-person letter was organized by Leighton Steward, chairman of Plants Need CO2, a non-profit with ties to the coal industry.
To this site and promptly commit suicide? From that site:
Earth and its inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.
More CO2 means:
More Plant Growth
Plants need less water
More food per acre
More robust habitats and ecosystems
CO2 is Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer. Without it - No Life On Earth!
A site with a banner that says "Warmer is better than colder." and "CO2 is Green." and "Climate Change is the Norm." really just makes my head hurt. The arguments presented on this site seem to imply that policy is to completely remove all CO2 from Earth. That is not true. It also grasps at hilarious straws:
In addition to increasing the quantity of food available for human consumption, the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is also increasing the quality of the foods we eat. It significantly increases the quantity and potency of the many beneficial substances found in their tissues (such as the vitamin C concentration of citrus fruit), which ultimately make their way onto our dinner tables and into many of the medicines we take, improving our health and helping us better contend with the multitude of diseases and other maladies that regularly afflict us. In just one species of spider lily, for example, enriching the air with CO2 has led to the production of higher concentrations of several substances that have been demonstrated to be effective in fighting a number of human maladies, including leukemia, ovary sarcoma, melanoma, and brain, colon, lung and renal cancers, as well as Japanese encephalitis and yellow, dengue, Punta Tora and Rift Valley fevers.
Climate warming increases the quality of your food! Burn all the shit you want, folks! Hey, if CFCs make the planet warmer and this site says "warmer is better than colder" shouldn't we be purposefully releasing those things up into the ozone?
My work here is dung.
Roughly half of Americans deny global warming; not restricted to blue-collar workers.
Film at 11.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Just for reference, the disputed and now famous Hansen climate study (NASA/GISS) from 1981 that exactly predicts CO2 effects on the mean temperature today.
NDAA, immunity for unconstitutional wiretaps, flagrantly violating the war powers act, executing more raids on legal Cannabis dispensaries, etc.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
At what point does the deliberate dissemination of lies for profit become a criminal act? If I know my car is not roadworthy, yet advertise it as safe and reliable, isn't the buyer entitled to redress? And doesn't the level of redress increase depending on how damaging my fraud was?
The truth of the matter is, these backers of the denialist movement simply don't want action to be taken. Were they to say what they really think: "Yes, it's true that our actions are causing harm, and that harm will in the future escalate to great harm for humans and other species, but you know what? Screw 'em. And Screw you too! We just want to make money"
Would we reconsider how lenient we've been toward them?
And what of their loyal disciples - referring, of course, to the cadre of radio hosts, opinionists, political operatives, and their loyal disciples, the foot soldiers of the denialist campaign (such as those who astroturf here)? Their point of view is much more visceral: "of course climate change is real and it is damaging, but I DON'T WANT TO KNOW so STOP TALKING ABOUT IT" - this is a gut feel view because the fact of climate change contradicts some fundamental worldview, and nobody wants to feel uncomfortable.
The point is not that people are mistaken, or inclined to be sceptical, but rather, that they choose to view what is objective as subjective. To avoid any measuring of the subjective view "I don't want to" against the objective fact: "climate change is real, and action must be taken to avoid serious harm in the future", rhetoric is employed. At some point, that rhetoric becomes deception. At that point, the person is liable. So a discussion on the point of and extent of liability and therefore who is liable is very relevant and not at all extreme.