"What we are discussing is the accusation that the tens of thousands of scientists who are trying to alert the public to the global warming problem are part of some huge hoax, intended to get money for themselves."
No, we're not. I don't give a fuck what you thought YOU were discussing, but that was not what I was discussing, and YOU responded to ME.
Follow it back. This thread is in response to the following statement: "And if you follow the trail of alarmists' funding, it leads back to sources with a vested interest in alarmism. Duh."
You are taking the position in this discussion that global warming is a hoax spread by scientists who are motivated by money, that climate research scientists are paid more than corporate scientists, that DExxon's money is for the good of the public, and that scientists are engaged in a hoax.
No wonder you are getting upset and abusive in response to the direction the discussion must necessarily take, when your arguments are presented to an educated and informed audience.
What we are discussing is the accusation that the tens of thousands of scientists who are trying to alert the public to the global warming problem are part of some huge hoax, intended to get money for themselves.
On the other side of the argument is vastly-profitable Exxon, pumping millions and millions of dollars into a propaganda campaign to convince the public that global warming is a hoax and they should keep burning more and more oil.
You are saying that it is the tens of thousands of scientists who are only doing it for them money.
There aren't "sides" in the climate change debate. There are scientists, and then there is the massively funded obfuscation effort from the oil and coal industries.
It's the same as the old "debate" over whether cigarettes cause cancer.
"And if the problem were not as bad as we thought, or is non-existent, how much money would those scientists get then?"
About the same, doing something else.
"Research Scientists have an average salary in the US of 83,0000."
Well thanks for making my point. This is MUCH LOWER than corporate research scientists are paid.
My question, what kind of person tries to obfuscate the facts about global warming by trying to smear the researchers, saying they are only in it for the money?
I mean, aside from those who are paid by Exxon, etc. And since so may are paid by Exxon, etc., what kind of dupe shows up at a place like Slashdot and makes those arguments for free?
"And at some $50 billion spent on climate research over the last two decades, that's one hell of a lot of motivation to keep the panic at full boil, is it not now?"
Are you saying here that people are profiting from spreading the news about global warming? You are talking about RESEARCH GRANTS for studying a problem that threatens the planet.
On the one hand you have giant corporations making huge profits paying millions of dollars to cloud the issues. On the other hand you have dedicated scientists getting research grants to study the problem.
You are on a site that is dedicated to science, so the people HERE understand that research grants provide relatively LOW SALARIES. Working for corporations provides big money. Working for universities provides small money. You are equating the salaries and the motivations.
People who want to make big money go to work for big corporations. People who want to dedicate themselves to science and helping society go to work for universities and you are trying to smear these people by saying they are in it for the MONEY? You really should be ashamed of yourself!
This comment brings up the issue of whether people are being PAID to leave comments at sites like Slashdot. I don't know if the person leaving the comment is paid, but the site referenced is a PAID site, financed by the coal and oil industries.
With so much money being thrown around by the oil and coal industries, why would a person leave a comment like this for free?
And any websites that say different shouldn't be on the web.
We need net neutrality mandated by law. Period. Telecoms are ALREADY censoring union websites, for example. What is to stop them from censoring websites with political opinions that disagree with the corporate position?
Dude, Exxon announced last week that global warming IS for real and they're going to stop paying the global warming skeptics. So there's no point in repeating this stuff anymore. If you were getting a check for this stuff it's not going to keep coming -- and if you weren't, and were going around repeating this stuff when the people spreading it were only saying it for the money, you've been made a complete fool of.
This is just factually untrue. The Fairness Doctrine required stations to present a diversity of opinion. Repealing it has led to only a corporate-approved opinion being presented.
You used to hear labor news, for example. Now you do not.
The Fairness Doctrine is not about government control of the media - it is about requiring them to present a diversity of viewpoints. So it's not just Rush on the radio, and not just "business news" on the news.
We are a democracy - that means the government s THE PEOPLE. So your wording should instead be "giving the people control" over what is presented. Instead of the big corporations.
It is called providing the public with a diversity of information and opinion sources instead of only the viewpoint of the moneyed interests. This is considered necessary for a democracy to function. Democracy is not about who has the most money, it is about ALL of the people being represented. Currently we only hear the opinions of the wealthy corporatists - exactly what was predicted.
For example, when is the last time you were able to hear the opinions of a labor leader, explaining the benefits of joining a union?
That's a cute use of language. Putting the PUBLIC back in charge of regulating OUR resources and information sources is changed here to "putting the politicians in charge of it."
If it isn't the public telling the corporations what to do, then it is the corporations telling the public what to do.
You are either FOR democracy or you are AGAINST it.
"it is very much in the interests of the telecoms to not censor anything"
Is it "very much not in their interests" to censor sites working to unionize telecom workers? Is it "very much not in their interests" to censor sites working for candidates who they oppose?
Question - have you seen any representatives of unions on TV explaining why it is beneficial to join unions, since they deregulated and killed the Fairness Doctrine?
"I see no reason to enforce "Net Neutrality" through any law, especially since we've seen what happens when the government regulates any action -- less freedom, not more."
Right. After the government (us, the people) stopped regulating broadcast TV and Radio you've had "less freedom" to ever hear anyone explain the benefits of joining a union, for example.
Seriously, when is the last time anyone from a union was allowed on TV or radio, since Reagan killed the "Fairness Doctrine"? Have you even once since then?
Here is a Net Neutrality question. If an article appears on Slashdot that criticizes Comcast or ATT or one of the other carriers, or calls for unionization of the telco industry... do you think you'll be able read Slashdot that day?
Seriously, why would a corporation allow that to be sent out on the Internet if they can just block it with no repercussions?
A few weeks ago I blogged that my wife won't ever buy form iTunes again. She said,
"I will never buy another album online again. I feel ripped off. All I got are some lines on my iTunes. When I buy a CD I have the CD and I can do what I want with it. I don't want to look at pictures of albums someone is trying to get me to buy. I don't want anything where people are trying to get me to buy something and I don't want to pay another subscription fee. I want to see and feel the music I have."
But THEN:
My wife is in a belly-dance troupe and they rehearse at our house. Each week she burns a CD of the night's dance music and puts in into the little stereo in the rehearsal room because the speakers are loud enough for the dance practice, and the buttons for replay, advance, etc. are easy to use. But last night the computer refused to make the CD. It said she had already burned seven CDs with a certain tune on them. She had purchased the album containing that tune at iTunes. 'Rented' might be a better term than purchased, I guess. Or maybe I should say that she was alowed to listen to it a few times, for her money.
Do I need to add that now she is even less thrilled with the idea of getting her music online?
I love this stuff. People come out and say things that everyone can see are just nonsense and they think if they repeat it over and over people will believe it. "The media' is concentrated into a few corporate hands. A defense contractor owns NBC. ABC owned by a company that threw every liberal talk show host off its radio networks. Rush Limbaugh is the main source of news for much of the country because the company that owns almost every radio station won't put any alternate views on the air. One major network of stations runs Swift Boat stuff just before the last election. Etc...
Slashdot Mirror
"taxation is a limit on freedom"
So is cleaning your room. Go eat your vegetables.
God, I can't stand libertarians.
You are taking the position in this discussion that global warming is a hoax spread by scientists who are motivated by money, that climate research scientists are paid more than corporate scientists, that DExxon's money is for the good of the public, and that scientists are engaged in a hoax.
No wonder you are getting upset and abusive in response to the direction the discussion must necessarily take, when your arguments are presented to an educated and informed audience.
What we are discussing is the accusation that the tens of thousands of scientists who are trying to alert the public to the global warming problem are part of some huge hoax, intended to get money for themselves.
On the other side of the argument is vastly-profitable Exxon, pumping millions and millions of dollars into a propaganda campaign to convince the public that global warming is a hoax and they should keep burning more and more oil.
You are saying that it is the tens of thousands of scientists who are only doing it for them money.
Yes, $83,000 is a low salary for someone with a doctorate. Researchers get low salaries.
Corporate scientists get much, much better pay.
The global warming deniers are being paid in the hundreds of thousands. One anti-global-warming article pays $10,000
"both sides of the debate"
There aren't "sides" in the climate change debate. There are scientists, and then there is the massively funded obfuscation effort from the oil and coal industries.
It's the same as the old "debate" over whether cigarettes cause cancer.
Newsbusters is funded by Exxon. Did you know that?
"And if the problem were not as bad as we thought, or is non-existent, how much money would those scientists get then?"
... are you paid, or a dupe?
About the same, doing something else.
"Research Scientists have an average salary in the US of 83,0000."
Well thanks for making my point. This is MUCH LOWER than corporate research scientists are paid.
My question, what kind of person tries to obfuscate the facts about global warming by trying to smear the researchers, saying they are only in it for the money?
I mean, aside from those who are paid by Exxon, etc. And since so may are paid by Exxon, etc., what kind of dupe shows up at a place like Slashdot and makes those arguments for free?
So
"And at some $50 billion spent on climate research over the last two decades, that's one hell of a lot of motivation to keep the panic at full boil, is it not now?"
Are you saying here that people are profiting from spreading the news about global warming? You are talking about RESEARCH GRANTS for studying a problem that threatens the planet.
On the one hand you have giant corporations making huge profits paying millions of dollars to cloud the issues. On the other hand you have dedicated scientists getting research grants to study the problem.
You are on a site that is dedicated to science, so the people HERE understand that research grants provide relatively LOW SALARIES. Working for corporations provides big money. Working for universities provides small money. You are equating the salaries and the motivations.
People who want to make big money go to work for big corporations. People who want to dedicate themselves to science and helping society go to work for universities and you are trying to smear these people by saying they are in it for the MONEY? You really should be ashamed of yourself!
This comment brings up the issue of whether people are being PAID to leave comments at sites like Slashdot. I don't know if the person leaving the comment is paid, but the site referenced is a PAID site, financed by the coal and oil industries.
With so much money being thrown around by the oil and coal industries, why would a person leave a comment like this for free?
Yes, the market will regular everything.
And any websites that say different shouldn't be on the web.
We need net neutrality mandated by law. Period. Telecoms are ALREADY censoring union websites, for example. What is to stop them from censoring websites with political opinions that disagree with the corporate position?
"Get it from the government, expect to answer to politicians"
Answer to the public, actually.
Dude, Exxon announced last week that global warming IS for real and they're going to stop paying the global warming skeptics. So there's no point in repeating this stuff anymore. If you were getting a check for this stuff it's not going to keep coming -- and if you weren't, and were going around repeating this stuff when the people spreading it were only saying it for the money, you've been made a complete fool of.
This is just factually untrue. The Fairness Doctrine required stations to present a diversity of opinion. Repealing it has led to only a corporate-approved opinion being presented.
You used to hear labor news, for example. Now you do not.
The Fairness Doctrine is not about government control of the media - it is about requiring them to present a diversity of viewpoints. So it's not just Rush on the radio, and not just "business news" on the news.
We are a democracy - that means the government s THE PEOPLE. So your wording should instead be "giving the people control" over what is presented. Instead of the big corporations.
It is called providing the public with a diversity of information and opinion sources instead of only the viewpoint of the moneyed interests. This is considered necessary for a democracy to function. Democracy is not about who has the most money, it is about ALL of the people being represented. Currently we only hear the opinions of the wealthy corporatists - exactly what was predicted.
For example, when is the last time you were able to hear the opinions of a labor leader, explaining the benefits of joining a union?
"putting the politicians in charge of it"
That's a cute use of language. Putting the PUBLIC back in charge of regulating OUR resources and information sources is changed here to "putting the politicians in charge of it."
If it isn't the public telling the corporations what to do, then it is the corporations telling the public what to do.
You are either FOR democracy or you are AGAINST it.
Your logic appears to be "Some scientists were wrong once, therefore all scientists are always wrong about everything - especially global warming."
But actually, it's a myth that scientists in the 1970s predicted an ice age
It's also the reason companies like GM are moving jobs to Canada.
"it is very much in the interests of the telecoms to not censor anything"
Is it "very much not in their interests" to censor sites working to unionize telecom workers? Is it "very much not in their interests" to censor sites working for candidates who they oppose?
Question - have you seen any representatives of unions on TV explaining why it is beneficial to join unions, since they deregulated and killed the Fairness Doctrine?
"I see no reason to enforce "Net Neutrality" through any law, especially since we've seen what happens when the government regulates any action -- less freedom, not more."
Right. After the government (us, the people) stopped regulating broadcast TV and Radio you've had "less freedom" to ever hear anyone explain the benefits of joining a union, for example.
Seriously, when is the last time anyone from a union was allowed on TV or radio, since Reagan killed the "Fairness Doctrine"? Have you even once since then?
Here is a Net Neutrality question. If an article appears on Slashdot that criticizes Comcast or ATT or one of the other carriers, or calls for unionization of the telco industry... do you think you'll be able read Slashdot that day?
Seriously, why would a corporation allow that to be sent out on the Internet if they can just block it with no repercussions?
Someone made a prediction once that was wrong, therefore when top scientists make issues warnings they are wrong.
My wife is in a belly-dance troupe and they rehearse at our house. Each week she burns a CD of the night's dance music and puts in into the little stereo in the rehearsal room because the speakers are loud enough for the dance practice, and the buttons for replay, advance, etc. are easy to use. But last night the computer refused to make the CD. It said she had already burned seven CDs with a certain tune on them. She had purchased the album containing that tune at iTunes. 'Rented' might be a better term than purchased, I guess. Or maybe I should say that she was alowed to listen to it a few times, for her money.
Do I need to add that now she is even less thrilled with the idea of getting her music online?
"Where would we put it?"
As compared to where we are putting the waste from burning fossil fuels -- which is straight into the air?
"the Democrats - with a solid lock on the media"
I love this stuff. People come out and say things that everyone can see are just nonsense and they think if they repeat it over and over people will believe it. "The media' is concentrated into a few corporate hands. A defense contractor owns NBC. ABC owned by a company that threw every liberal talk show host off its radio networks. Rush Limbaugh is the main source of news for much of the country because the company that owns almost every radio station won't put any alternate views on the air. One major network of stations runs Swift Boat stuff just before the last election. Etc...