Slashdot Mirror
Billionaires Secretly Fund Vast Climate Denial Network
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Suzanne Goldenberg reports that conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120 million to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, helping build a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarizing 'wedge issue' for hardcore conservatives. 'We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise,' says Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust. Ball's organization assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes with a guarantee of complete anonymity for donors who wished to remain hidden. The money flowed to Washington think tanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore. 'The funding of the denial machine is becoming increasingly invisible to public scrutiny. It's also growing. Budgets for all these different groups are growing,' says Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, which compiled the data on funding of the anti-climate groups using tax records. 'These groups are increasingly getting money from sources that are anonymous or untraceable.'"
Make lobbying equal to bribery and throw the fuckheads in jail for life.
'We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise,' says Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust.
And don't forget the disinformation. We can't have all that freedom with an informed public.
Was there somebody who didn't know this was going on? Petrochemical plutocrats were obviously behind this. In many cases they didn't even bother to hide.
Let me get this strait, conservative billionaires are funding groups that are trying to discredit groups funded by liberal billionaires and this is news?
Disclaimer: I have no doubts that climate change is happening and CO2 plays some role in that change.
The secret billionaires are just trying to even the playing field against those fat cat scientists who are rolling in their trillions from government grants. Exxon is David against the NSF Goliath, man.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
So the network can be put through social network analysis to produce interesting facts. That data can be crunched, so who is going to crunch it?
...don't demonize them as neo-Holocaust deniers. One-hundred twenty million, but is their side true? Address the facts, don't engage in ad hominem attacks.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Let them purchase as much free speech as they like.
And let others exercise *their* free speech calling them out on how they choose to exercise it and what they choose to say- which is exactly what's being done here.
That said, when it's being exercised in such a non-transparent and intentionally misleading manner, I'd question whether it actually *is* even "free speech" in the first place.
I just finished reading the excellent novel "The Sheep Look Up", written in 1972 by John Brunner. I was amazed at the many parallels between the novel's dystopian vision and today's environmental issues. Even though some of the novel's environmental issues were mitigated (at least in the West) by education and regulation (DDT, leaded gasoline, smog, etc), many continue to this day. One thing that struck me particularly was the collusion of big business in denying that environmental issues exist and the draconian measures they went to to discredit and silence their critics. Also striking was government's powerlessness to act in the face of lobbying and bullying by big business.
A recommended read, as appropriate today as it was 40 years ago.
This just in.... billionaires think the minimum wage is just fine where it is. Film at 11.
Life needs more saving throws.
This. Combine it with the downmod system that gets misused to hide opinions some self-appointed people on the left disagree with, and presto!
A mechanically-enforced echo chamber for an online "social tribal community".
Who watches these watchmen who get bent out of shape at those who manipulate the media, except when it is themselves?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Address the facts, don't engage in ad hominem attacks.
Skeptics are not the problem. Skeptics address the facts and the data - and they are becoming more and more rare because the data is damning. It's the people electing and directing public policy. The real problem are the folks with "opinions" spoon fed to them by the lying, incompetent, and irresponsible media - ALL the MEDIA - but especially Fox News.
Listen to talk radio or watch Fox News sometime. I constanlty hear people (my neighbors) parrot what they say. They personally attack Al Gore and equate global warming with him. Actual facts or scientific data NEVER come up or if they do, it's a liberal conspiracy to tax more and for wealth transfer.
Ad Hominem attacks are perfectly "logical" to those people - actually to people in general (how many times have you seen people being called "fanboys", "scientologists", or whatever for having an unpopular opinion here!)
Add in the emotional hit of Liberal vs. Conservatives and BINGO you have a completely irrational response to an issue.
That's funny, whenever I do this sort of thing, the police keep calling it "fraud".
Wrong. Where corporations are concerned, in exchange for the limited liability and other special rights granted, which are not natural rights in the slightest, we as a society can demand accountability fr the money they spend and the lies they promote.
.
If a wealthy INDIVIDUAL wants to go buy propaganda shilling for their self interest against the rest of us, I can't stop that. The thing is, it's pretty hard to use money like that without being found out--that's its own check on excess. That we allow the funneling of cash through groups whose sole purpose is to hide it is called money laundering in any other context and should not be permitted here.
This is also yet another reason, as if we need more, why corporate entities should not be permitted to spend any money or resources at all on politics. They are creations of law. They have no natural right to exist, and that the Supreme Court throws out ANY restrictions on their political behavior given that is just a sad example of how far we've fallen.
Here's the problem. There have been thousands of societies that at one point had the sort of "Liberty and Freedom" that you are talking about, where there was little or no government to "nanny" people. Do you know what happened to all of those societies? Power centralized, and freedom went away.
The thing that historically has made our country great is specifically the government. We fill the power vacuum with a democratically elected government so that some rich cabal of people can't take power and use it so their "freedom" is maximized and yours is minimized. The problem is obviously that if you let said cabals get enough influence, with mass media and the internet being what they are, they gain a new route to that tyranny anyway: buy enough public opinion and you can directly manipulate a democracy.
So every single person in this country should give much more than a rat's ass when stories like this come up, because they directly relate to people trying to break the system that has protected your liberty and freedom for hundreds of years. And this isn't really about parties. I think that the conservative movement in this country has some properties that make this sort of action happen more frequently from their direction, but we should be vigilant against similar manipulation from anybody.
I agree that Liberty and Freedom are what makes this country great. But right now, you are defending the Koch brothers' freedom to try to steal your freedom from you.
There's this game that "skeptics" of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change like to play.
They assume that climatologists have come to their conclusions (that the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions and human activity is partly responsible) because the scientists (they say) "were paid by people and governments to come to that conclusion".
While us "warmists" have been providing the scientific evidence; the "skeptics", on the other hand, argue politics "follow the MONEY!!!" (they say)
The problem is that when you do take their advice and the money leads to conservative billionaires, the Heartland Institute, Exxon Mobil (Fossil Fuel industries), and others who have a financial and political interest in denying the science of Climate Change:
All of a sudden the "skeptics" want us to forget about following the money!
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Of course it is true.
It is fine that everyone can have their say. It is fine that everyone can hear what they have to say, but the only thing that should change is the use of a persons brain.
I am sure everyone has their excuses as to why truth and facts do not matter to them, but denial comes at a cost. It surprises me that so many people care so little about their offspring or family line.
we as a society can demand accountability
Please don't use weasel words. You shouldn't say "we as a society" when you really mean "the government", and you shouldn't say "demand accountability" when you really mean "censor speech".
There are some of us who believe that "no" mean "no" in the following sentence: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you feel otherwise, and think that freedom expression is not a fundamental right, but rather a privilege that can be withdrawn in some cases, then you are entitled to your opinion (for now), but you should be honest about what you are advocating.
It can be true with mutators like positive or negative bias applied.
This is reported by an environment journalist. And while it may be entirely true that the money is explicitly used to attack global warming. There's no mention whatsoever of the money used to attack global warming skepticism that is channeled to the other side of the pond from sources like Al Gore and other people that are investors in greentech.
This is why I hate the climate debate. It ceased to be science a long time ago, it's all about politics nowdays. Trying to objectively categorise it is the same as being as being a presidential candidate that claims to be 45% democrat and 55% republican: You'll get flakk from both sides and votes from none.
It's not fine. If they're knowingly lying in order to deceive others into taking actions that benefit the liar, that is textbook fraud.
There has never been "free speech" as you think it is. You can't say whatever you want, whenever you want, for any reason.
No, I don't think it follows that strenuous denial of a thing is tantamount to secret tacit acceptance. That's like saying Richard Dawkins is secretly a theist because he's so vocal about not being one.
The real reason to question the sincerity of the denial by these billionaires is the stated aim: "We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise." They don't exist to promote science. They don't exist to even promote facts. They exist to promote a goal, and if facts and science interfere with said goal, they are to be cast aside. I consider myself to be mostly conservative and somewhat libertarian, but it seems that liberty minded people have trouble dealing with anything that is a global problem. A problem of such scope necessarily requires top down policy that is anathema to people who don't want to see any policy much less one with global aims. Because the solution to a global problem is unpalatable the response of such people is to deny the problem. It doesn't really matter that the issue is global warming. It may as well be an extinction level asteroid headed for central Africa. It's problematic nature would be denied until it can no longer be denied with one's own eyes (a point we appear to be reaching with global warming).
IMHO, more graft and corruption on the pro-manmade climate change side.
Luckily for me, there is actual data to examine, so I can safely ignore your humble opinion.
Unluckily for me, there are millions of tools just like you who are perfectly happy to eyeball it and trust their gut reaction when there is perfectly good data around to examine, and you all get to vote, too.
TFA was a bait piece and looks like everyone so far has fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Opening paragraph from TFA:
"Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120 million to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned."
There are only two supporting quotes detailing the specific allegations against these groups:
"...those conservative donors have been pushing funds towards organizations working to discredit climate science or block climate action."
"By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118 million distributed to 102 think tanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations."
Both statements make the same point. Both contain an OR clause, and both OR clauses are worded to include even those who agree 100% with the science but disagree about the chosen regulatory solution. TFA is stuffed to the gills with emotional hot-button rhetoric. Looks like even otherwise clear-headed rational thinkers are susceptible to well-crafted leading statements.
The reported $120 million is total funding, not what is spent on "climate."
Greenpeace annual spending (year ended 12/31/2010) -- $35 million
Al Gore's Climate Reality Project had revenues of $16 million and spent $25 million in 2010.
WWF, formerly The World Wildlife Fund, spent $243 million in 2012.
The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
There's a lot of money floating around, most of it being spent by "warmers."
The article is misleading. Donations were giving anonymously to conservative think tanks. Many conservative think tanks are skeptical of human impact on climate change. These donations were not given directly the cause of deny climate change. This article seems to exist for the purpose to incite controversy where there is very little. Based on the comments on this site, I think it has been successful.
Yes great, but the untraceable money thing has me troubled. When politics includes money, it's not quite "free speech." It's influenced speech at the very least and is likely worse.
Even more disturbing is that when large amounts of money from unknown sources is in the hands of the pedestrian public, the presumption is that it is money from illegal activity and is typically confiscated without proof or process. But when it's in politics (in the hands of non-pedestrians) it's handled very differently. If this doesn't spell out the differences between classes, nothing else will.
So, $120 million to over 100 groups over the course of eight years? Really? That works out to less than $15k per group, per year? WHOA!!! Call the media!
Oh wait, I see the problems... first someone is bitching about people exercising free speech in what they donate to. Second, they are worried that the donors may receive tax breaks for their donations. Third because conservatives do something like this MUST mean that liberals WOULD NEVER do anything of the ilk...
I'm going to get more coffee and go back to bed...
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
"No" doesn't mean "No" as the rather tired example of yelling fire in crowded theatres clearly establishes.
Perhaps you should research the history of that phrase. It was used by Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case of Schenck vs the United States. Charles Schenck was a draft protester during WWI. The government arrested him, and the case went to the Supreme Court. Holmes wrote the majority opinion, and ruled that since the government could banning shouting fire in the theater, then hey, it could ban other speech too! So Schenck went to prison. Using "shouting fire" as a justification for limiting speech is not only a slippery slope, it is a slope we have slid down before.
There are also libel/slander laws passed by congress that limit free speech
Libel/slander laws do not limit speech. They can only be applied after the fact. So you can be held responsible for what you say or write, but you cannot be restrained from saying it in the first place.
It is fine that everyone can have their say.
The real problem we're facing is that the 'say' you get with billions in corporate money is worth more than the 'say' you and I get as individuals.
You can have your say, I can have mine, but when ExxonMobile speaks they blanket the airwaves.
The Koch family billions also go to business schools, provided they let them make faculty appointments. How many faculty appointments have you made recently?
Corporations use our own money against us and have a bigger say in government and policy.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The climate will keep changing regardless.
For the first time? You think that the rich industrialists have never before paid to oppose science? Well, you might want to think about the link between cancer and smoking.
Now, why is it you're so keen to play the part of a useful idiot?
You speak as though you are positive there is parity in the amount of funding and lack of transparency. I have not seen data to either support or refute that hypothesis so it seems like pure conjecture. I am aware of individual funders such as Al Gore and George Soros but two famous sources doesn't mean there is parity.
One can't prove a negative, someone will always say that you just haven't found it yet. But proving the positive is possible so if someone can, please do.
Note that a major goal of the groups discussed in the article is to generate a sense of false equivalency in public opinion such that nothing is ever done.
When Anthony Watts was outed as a Heartland Institute shill, right before the eyes of those who believe the Global Conspiracy of Climate Scientists and Politicians in Collusion with Big Green for Government Money, there was a collective "meh" from the denialists and Watts suffered no loss of credibility in their eyes. They probably strongly suspect it already and it just doesn't bother them. Heck they probably strongly suspect that climate denialism is total bullshit but would rather tell science to go fuck itself than do anything that goes against conservatism.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You don't have to silence anybody to solve the problem. The Koch brothers can say whatever they want. There is a whole lot of room between letting some random billionaire tell people that global warming is a hoax and letting that same billionaire secretly fund organizations designed entirely to trick people into thinking there is a global conspiracy of people who go to school to become climatologists in order that they can destroy our freedoms for some extra grant money. I bet we can draw a line someplace in between. I'd personally start by taking away the word "secretly" and demanding that the whole process be more transparent so that people can more easily see the conflicts of interest. Unless you can show me the part of the first amendment that guarantees the right to anonymous donations to propaganda organizations?
I am just going to say this every time climate change is discussed from now on:
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the earth and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
While politics and media commentary rule the blogs and airspace, Science get shredded into worthless dribble. Climate Science needs to be taken seriously and not turned into media spectacle. The problem is, the real stuff can be quite boring and mostly looked over. Stories about carbon levels, thermal convection and greenhouse gasses are not read by the majority of readers. Most of the media today is sensationalized and pumped with soundbites to increase readership. Just about every attempt by Al Gore to pass along data his group has collected is countered with disinformation. You never see an attempt to deflate some missed data and provide what the other group thinks is more realistic, We only see a polar opposite approach the just discredits each view and the public takes these battles to the office and public places. Even with all this funding the real Science does tend to get heard by the people that need to hear it. I've noticed over the years how changes have taken place that are more indirect approaches to reduce climate change. Many businesses are reducing consumption of power, most say it's to increase profits by reducing waste. Recycling programs have been around for at least four decades now but it's just starting to catch on due to waste elimination costs. Meanwhile these same corporations are funneling money into the disinformation channels. The real question becomes, why are we wasting money on propaganda when that money would better to be spent in fixing the problems.
"So, private citizens exercise their right to free speech and say something that differs from the "scientific consensus" preferred by the current administration and the press."
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'--Isaac Asimov
Except the research is still ongoing and there is very little debate on whether AGW is happening or not.
Or do you think nature gives a crap about a political and ideological debate?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The article is spot on. Do you think that these organisations are funded because of the word conservative in them? Heartland and co. whine about the "liberal" conspiracy to warp the public's mind, yet that is exactly what they do with crackpot science on the like of climate, evolution, and smoking. Rich billionaires fund them, because they help get sheeple to the polls in order to pressure congress critters into protecting them from economic disappointment. This is crony capitalism in action.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
ShanghaiBill somehow got modded to +4 Insightful for blathering:
we as a society can demand accountability
Please don't use weasel words. You shouldn't say "we as a society" when you really mean "the government", and you shouldn't say "demand accountability" when you really mean "censor speech".
Exactly how is requiring groups who engage in lobbying and who presume to weigh in on scientific debate to reveal their actual sources of funding censoring speech in any meaningful sense of the phrase? The overwhelming majority of climate scientists who publish papers that conclude our climate is, in fact, changing (and that the change is largely or exclusively due to human-generated greenhouse gases) and the institutions for which they work make their sources of funding public. Why shouldn't the government require deniers - especially those specifically engaged in high-pressure lobbying of elected officials on the subject - to reveal where their financing comes from? Because they have some supposed divine right to anonymity?
Somehow the phrase "fair and balanced" springs instantly to mind ... and not in a good way.
Check out my novel.
But the vast majority of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica is on land, not floating, and does not currently affect the sea level, since it is on land! - as it melts and runs into the ocean it will though (Try filling that glass to 3/4 full with water, note level, add ice cube, let it melt, note level...)
> Even if all the "in-land" glaciers melted, the amount of water that will make it to the ocean would be negligible.
Ice volumes:
Antarctica - 7 million (cubic miles) [Erickson, Jon. "Glacial Geology."1996, 161.]= 2.9 × 10^16 cubic meters
Greenland - 2.8 * 10^6 cubic kilometers [Greenland." World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, 1999: 325.] = 2,8 × 10^15 cubic meters
Since Greenland ice is an order of magnitude smaller, let's ignore it for now.
Ocean surface area:
360 000 000 square kilometers [Lutgens, Frederick. Essentials of Geology. New York: MacMillan, 1992: 269.]= 3.6 × 10^14 square meters
Let's (conservatively) call the melted volume of the ice 85% of the ice volume and spread it over the oceans: 2.9 × 10^16 * 0.85 / 3.6 × 10^14 =~68 meters. Negligible, huh?
All of them graduated from MIT with engineering degrees in the 1960s. One brother- David- focuses on science and education charities. He has funded the New York Science Museum Hall of Evolution - probably the best dinosaur exhibit in the world. He also funds the very liberal Aspen Institute in Colorado.
Perhsps they are moderating some of the over-zealousness of the climate change supporters. Its almost as silly to have them find GW under every rock as it is for anti-climate change peope to deny every observation.
And now, all the data is in the public, but there is a profound lack of climate models contradicting the ones used by the IPCC. As ever, there are some differences about the details, and a lot of people delightful point out that there are models predicting 4.2 degree temperature increase and others predicting only 2.5 degree. But that's basicly complaining about the wet paint not being completely even on the building. It doesn't break the building down.
So please tell me: Now, that all raw data the IPCC is basing the climate model on, is out in the public, why are there no competing models out there? Maybe, just maybe, it's because the raw data actually points to an AGW? And futhermore: Why is it that only the U.S., Russia and China seem not happy with the results of the IPCC, and the population of all other countries seem to agree that the models are quite correct, and actually describing what they are seeing?
Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the respective ideologies in all three countries, for which the mere existance of an AGW is dangerous, and thus all the prophets of the ideologies try everthing to make even the aknowledgment about facts unhappen by crying wolf and starting ad hominem attacks (you know, "characteristics of a cult" - purely an ad hominem attack without any argument supporting it) against people actually knowing what they are doing?
So basicly: Put up, e.g. provide better models based on the raw data (which is aviable since 2006), or shut up!
They may cry that they are not the same fringe, but from the outside, they all look alike. Just ignore them.
What exactly is 'Climate Denial'? Denying that climate exists? For people claiming the moral and scientific upper hand here we aren't very good at framing the issue. I thought the issue was over the 'man made' element of it all. The fact that one thinks the other side of that debate is wrong isn't really a very good excuse to completely misrepresent their argument. A little integrity would go a long way to validate one's position: if you're not capable of fairly state the opposing side's claims, how are you going to refute them?
Mind the frickin' laser...
Exactly how is requiring groups who engage in lobbying and who presume to weigh in on scientific debate to reveal their actual sources of funding censoring speech in any meaningful sense of the phrase?
Many people believe that the right to speak anonymously is fundamentally important. This right has been defended by the EFF and ACLU. You might also want to read the American Civil Liberties Union's viewpoint on Citizen's United. It is tempting to reach for a censor's pen, rather than rebutting an argument. But remember, once our rights are gone, they are gone for all of us.
The overwhelming majority ...
The right to express an opinion should not be based on the popularity of that opinion. It is all the more important to defend the expression of dissenting opinions when they are unpopular or go against the consensus.
Funding for climate orthodoxy 10 times more? You must be including the cost of building and launching satellites, the cost of thousands of weather stations, over 3,000 Argo floats and all the other instrumentation used to study climate, the cost of gathering and collating all of that data, the cost of supercomputer time to help analyze it, etc, etc, etc. That's all basic science that you can't really attribute to one side or the other. You can argue that we're doing too much or too little of it but it needs to be done at some level. I guess you can argue that it's biased toward one side but I think the diversity of scientists and scientific institutions around the world make that extremely unlikely.
Unless you know something I don't there was one paper recently with 4 or 5 authors that found a climate sensitivity below 2. It is a useful addition to the literature but by itself doesn't overturn all of the other work that's been done. There are a number of methodologies for determining climate sensitivity and it's not clear which if any are best. It's an area that continues to receive a lot of attention.
You can't just go on and do something until you know the causes and then the workable remedies involved.
That's true. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know how much we're emitting, we know how fast it's coming out of the atmosphere, and we know about how much warming it is causing. So in the case of CO2, we know that we much either emit less or fix more. We are not doing even that, at least, not nearly as effectively as we could be. As long as we're dicking around with bullshit like cap and trade rather than something meaningful like tax and reforest or hell maybe even enforce existing regulations then that argument is pure fucking bullshit.
Just doing "something" is very likely to cause only harm since the "something" will be politically, rather than scientifically, motivated.
It's true that it's not enough to just do anything. However, we know lots of ways to mitigate our CO2 problem, and we're really not doing any of them. And please don't claim that CO2 is not a problem, or that we don't know the extent of the problem, because that is bullshit. CO2 is not the only example, but it is not only a significant problem but also a common example, so I find it appropriate to use it. Besides reforestation (which would also solve the problem of deforestation, which we know to cause significant climate effects which we find to be undesirable) there's other schemes like converting to biofuel. In the USA we have more than enough unused land to grow enough algae to replace 100% of our transportation fuel with biofuel, and it can be done with dirty water or with salt water. But instead, we permit Big Oil to tell us what we shall do. We have more than enough unemployed to use human cultivation and zero-tilth organic agriculture to produce more and healthier food, but we permit Monsanto tell us what to do. We are, in short, not taking control of our own destiny because we permit people to tell us not to do anything even when we do have solutions.
No one needs to come up with all of the solutions. But more of us need to get on board with actually doing something about the problems we know how to solve, and bastards like the ones behind the so-called research we're discussing today are deliberately standing between The People and that goal.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Shanghai Bill insisted:
Exactly how is requiring groups who engage in lobbying and who presume to weigh in on scientific debate to reveal their actual sources of funding censoring speech in any meaningful sense of the phrase?
Many people believe that the right to speak anonymously is fundamentally important. This right has been defended by the EFF and ACLU. You might also want to read the American Civil Liberties Union's viewpoint on Citizen's United. It is tempting to reach for a censor's pen, rather than rebutting an argument. But remember, once our rights are gone, they are gone for all of us.
Again, in what way does requiring those who claim to be scientists disputing scientific consensus on a scientific basis to reveal the sources of their funding represents ANY infringement on their free speech?
The short answer is: it doesn't. The long answer is: the fact that the sources of funding for climate scientists who argue for anthropogenic global warming have ALL, ALWAYS been public knowledge, but the sources of funding for the scientists in denial have, in general, been kept purposefully opaque tends, quite rightly, to call into question the motive for their opposition to the consensus - while in no way denying them the right to hold, argue, and publish those opinions. Sure, they're free (under current law) to keep those sources secret - but, since the scientist-deniers' own identities are (necessarily) public knowledge, the presumption HAS to be that they're keeping the sources of their funding secret in order to conceal that their opinions are paid for by the very parties who stand most to benefit from their arguments contra the overwhelming scientific consensus.
In other words: they're trying to hide the fact that they're paid whores of the fossil fuel industry.
The overwhelming majority ...
The right to express an opinion should not be based on the popularity of that opinion. It is all the more important to defend the expression of dissenting opinions when they are unpopular or go against the consensus.
Again, no one's questioning their right to express their opinion. Not me, not anyone.
What's being questioned is their integrity - and it is completely legitimate to do so, so long as they refuse to reveal who's paying them to disagree.
Check out my novel.
"This is why I hate the climate debate. It ceased to be science a long time ago, it's all about politics nowdays. "
There is no debate. Among scientists the basic theory is not in dispute and hasn't been for many years.
The only "debate" consists of republicans dissing famous activists, and commissioning fraudulent convoluted obfuscations that come across to their less discriminating constituents as scientific dissent.
Notice the AC divided volume (3 dimensions) by area (2 dimensions) leaving 1 dimension for the answer. It's good math and the answer comports with scientists estimates of ~60 meters once complications such as the ocean spreading out and the fact that some Antarctic ice is under sea level even though it is sitting on ground are taken into account.
Considering how many scholars lately have come out of the closet and declared that the IPCC position is all but insupportable and climate sensitivity is nowhere near 3.5 degrees per doubling of CO2.
Oh, go on.
How many?
Scholars of what, exactly.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The reality is simply that some people realize dealing with GW is going to require changes in their lives that they won't enjooy, and its easier to deny it all by sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling "LA LA LA, I can't hear you, LA LA LA". Its pathetic.
When these debates happen, I would love to find this glue between one side and the other that is a great (but hypothetical) solution. Dealing with AGW does not necessarily require people to enjoy their lives less than they did before. If everyone replaced their car with a car that gets 10 times as efficient gas mileage, then they have the same lifestyle.
What "climate change fanatics", as their opposition calls them, wants, is for society to move in the direction of getting these technologies to help mitigate AGW. It's not for making everyone's life miserable - or "changes in their lives that they won't enjoy".
Sure, granted, some tree-hugging granola hippy in Berkley wants some doosh bag Texan to stop driving his Hummer - but that's an emotional tribal response. The real, scientific, and what I believe to be correct way to tackle this problem is to create solutions to the greenhouse gas problem that climate scientists warn about. And that's what pisses me off about these stupid political debates about AGW - it's about some guy in California and some guy in Texas in a pissing match, or an ideological argument, instead of saying "here are some problems we know about - let's make some solutions". And there ARE solutions!!
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
ShanghaiBill persisted in missing the point, thusly:
You have a right to question their integrity. You do not have a right to silence them. Integrity is not, and should not be, a pre-condition for Constitutional rights to apply. Scumbags have rights too.
Again: exactly which part of NOBODY IS ATTEMPTING TO SILENCE THE DENIERS was unclear to you?
The issue is whether THEIR SOURCES OF FUNDING SHOULD BE REVEALED.
My own, personal opinion is that they should.
Check out my novel.
Let me amend. There is little scientific debate.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How about the government just STOP subsidizing everything?
I assume that you believe in the idea of human activity being a major driver in the climate?
If the government hadn't spent the last 100 years subsidizing the automobile and petroleum industries (and killing the railroads), this "global warming" effect caused by humans would be much less significant. If government wasn't and had not been using military power to secure foreign oil production and delivery(another subsidy), petroleum prices would naturally be much higher, thus driving private capital into alternatives.
When you don't have Big Brother trying to micro-manage personal behavior and picking winners and losers in the economy, capitalism DOES work.
The last thing we need is more government to fix problems caused by government.
There are two separate questions / issues / debates, and a big problem is that they have been getting mixed together and confused. One question is whether Global Warming is real and being caused by humans. The other question is what, if anything, we should do about it.
The first one is a scientific question, The second one is an economic and political question.
The first question is a matter of basic physics. Solar energy comes in through the atmosphere in the form of sunlight, hits the ground, and is re-radiated as infra-red radiation. The natural gasses of the atmosphere trap that infra-red radiation. It traps the energy, traps the heat, warming the planet. The "greenhouse gasses effect". The natural level of water and CO2 and methane and other gasses, the natural greenhouse effect, already warms the planet by 50 degrees. 50 degrees. It is trivial undeniable physics that increasing the amount of such gasses in the atmosphere will increase the heat-trapping effect. The only complicated part is calculating a number for the size of the effect, the hard part is predicting the future size of the effect, and it is most particularly difficult to predict the secondary effects it will trigger. The basic effect is simple enough to prove in a few sentences here. The more complicated parts, the calculations of the current size of the effect and the future course of the effect are the subject of science papers by expert professionals, and the scientific community has a reasonably good handle on those more complicated parts.
The scientific question, is this effect real and are humans causing it, is not a reasonable rational debate. Among scientists, there is only a tiny fringe who deny it, most of whom are directly employed by the coal/oil industry, a tiny fringe who are doing essentially zero scientific work and producing essentially zero science papers challenging it, and what they do say and do is considered to be biased or easily refuted crackpottery by almost 100% of the expert in the field. "Many" people deny the moon landing, but "many" does not constitute a genuine scientific controversy, not when that "many" constitutes a tiny percentage, not when they are failing to produce any scientific work considered even remotely respectable by the general scientific community. Every field has crackpots, the mere existence of crackpots (or industry funded disinformation junk science) does not make it valid to claim something is scientifically controversial.
The second question, what if anything, we should do about it, is not a scientific question. That is a social, economic, and political question. That is an area where there can be reasonable and rational disagreement, reasonable and rational discussion, reasonable and rational debate.
However you cannot have a reasonable and rational discussion on that subject with someone who is ranting that the entire scientific community is engaging in some evil comicbook conspiracy to enslave the planet. You cannot engage in reasonable rational discussion with a conspiracy theorist who has list touch with reality, who interprets all facts and evidence as a hoax, and who interprets every discussion on the subject as some bizarre Illuminati scheme to conquer the world.
If you are discussing the the NASA budget and future missions, and some people start ranting that the moon landing was a hoax, then the only way to proceed with a reasonable rational discussion is to carry on the discussion without them You either physically throw the luny denialists out of the room, or you metaphorically throw them out of the room by simply ignoring them.
The best option is of course if you can still rationally reach the denialists, manage to give them enough good information that they snap themselves out of it and enable them to reasonably rationally participate on the second question. There's no hoax, no Illuminati, it's not about conquering the world or "control". If we try to do something about it it will be very costly and disruptive, if we do *nothing* about it it
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Oh my, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#.22You_can.27t_prove_a_negative.22
The phrase "You can't prove a negative" is a quip that is meant to express the more formally correct "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It does not mean that any statement with "no" or "wrong" cannot be argued in favor of; that would be silly because all statements can be expressed as the negative of another statement. What it does mean is that, if there would be no data on anthropogenic climate change, then that absence of data can not be taken for evidence that anthropogenic climate change does not exist (and neither that it does exist). However, there happens to exist quite a large body of data, and it happens to speak in favor of anthropogenic global warming. So the only thing the climate change denialists can do is pound the evidence ("prove us wrong" indeed). That's what they are trying to do, but from a scientific point of view, they've never been able to make a dent. The public opinion point of view is a different matter; as you just demonstrated, ignorant people can be told just about anything. Scientifically spoken, there is no controversy.