So you are then willing to concede that grant funding from conservative groups and oil companies is legitimate?
Grant funding for what? I repeat: there's a difference between grant funding for scientific research, and paying for propaganda.
No, there is nothing legitimate about oil companies funding the Heartland Institute in order to pay a University Professor to spout propaganda on the TV and other media.
If there was an example you could give of conservative or oil companies giving money for genuine scientific research, then provided it checks out as what you describe it as, there would be nothing wrong with it.
But it's hypothetical unless and until you can give that example. For now all we have is conservatives and oil companies paying lobbyists for propaganda. That we have evidence for.
Or are you just another hypocrite?
I tell you what's hypocritical. Someone who whines repeatedly about ad hominem, and then uses it himself to try and get the answer he wants.
Doesn't it seem that active climate-change denial and science opposition is a US-based phenomenon, being used for political and financial gain? Is this the "invisible hand" at work?
It's mostly a US phenomenon. But we have a bit of it in the UK too, with the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph both being denialist organs. The owners of these newspapers are 3 ennobled tax-dodging billionaires.
The most prominent UK individual denialist is Christopher "Viscount" Monckton, who claims to be a member of the House of Lords. But the House of Lords says he isn't.
However, the conclusions of cause and what action should be taken, if any, have not been so clearly established.
The Republican 8 Phase Denial Plan 1) There's no such thing as global warming. 2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant. 3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it. 4) Man causes significant global warming, but it's not economically possible to tackle it. 5) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it. 6) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier? 7) ???? 8) Profit.
I've no idea if you personally are a Republican, but there's a bunch or corporations, lackies of corporations, libertarians and lobbyists all using the the same playbook.
Read the docs. Very few are anonymous within the Heartland institute, though they presumably intended to be anonymous to the outside world. With this leak they are no longer anonymous.
Piss off a donor by letting an anonymous donation become public knowledge and he's not likely to donate again.
There aren't that many scientists denying AGW. Scientists from any field, of the order of 100. But climate scientists like Singer: a handful. And Singer isn't the only one on Heartland's payroll. He's just the one I chose to pull out.
Now, can you imagine the hay what would be made if anyone got evidence that Hansen from NASA was being paid by lobbyists to provide propaganda for AGW? That's a rough equivalent.
Cirby on the leaked Heartland Institute documents:
The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?" Pretty weak stuff, overall.
Cirby in 2009 about the leaked CRU documents:
It's even better - the source cited in the story above is the CRU (funny how "University of East Anglia" started being the source when everyone found out that CRU was more than a bit corrupt) - the same people who just got busted with all of that leaked data and incriminating emails just this week.
No, its not fact at all. Yes, SOME may have been paid to be deniers, but some were simply questioning the"science" (see what I did there?) behind AGW, as they still do.
Fred Singer is one of the top 3 denialists in the world. We now know he's paid $60,000 per annum to do propaganda. Not research. Propaganda.
As for getting paid, wasn't all that long ago that a respected researcher could get drummed out of the academy for denying agw
The other side (the ones you say that have nothing but "denial") says the data, models, and research is not comprehensive enough to support the grandiose claims being made,
Yes, that's denial.
and they have their own data, models, research,
No they don't.
and conclusions which conflict with the AGW proponents.
Conclusions, sure they've got loads of those. But that wasn't in the list of the previous poster, you added that. Anyone can have conclusions. But the denialist ones have no credibility. Especially now.
Now if this were *real* science, one side or the other would be able to unequivocally silence the other with incontrivertable facts.
Smoking and evolution. No amount of real science would quieten the rump end of the denial lobbyists. So your "conclusion" is pretty easy to disprove.
What turns me off from the whole AGW camp is their smug elitism
Right. So your real problem is not science at all, it's politics. You don't like the people on the side of science, so you're happy take the side of those that deny science.
In that case, we should be looking at the process used to award government grants to people who propose studies with the goal of proving man-made global warming while denying funds to those who are trying to disprove man-made global warming.
Given that we're talking science, do you have any evidence that that is happening?
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I expect most scientists to be working on finding out what the truth is, whichever direction that goes. I need some evidence from you that that isn't the case.
There's a funding topic that seems relevant to slashdot. Microsoft are one of the contributors. Whilst Microsoft are a scummy company I can't see AGW denial is particularly in their interests. Is this perhaps some employee donation matching scheme, or some other mechanism where an employees personal views have resulted in a donation to Heartland?
The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?"
With just 5 minutes scanning the documents, I saw that. And also the fact that Fred Singer is paid $60,000 per annum to "regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message." Now that's quite a bonus given that his employer is the University of Virginia. This isn't paying a professor to do research, this is paying a professor to do propaganda.
This is the real smoking gun. There are a handful of scientists worldwide that deny the AGW consensus. The question is why? The assumption used to be that they were handsomely paid to do it. That is now fact.
You're like a gorilla that just had a banana taken off him.
You need Wikipedia to help you know what hate speech is because you come from one of the only countries in the civilised world where it's not illegal. I don't need to look it up any more than I need to look up theft, speeding, fraud or any other common law.
None of those thing you listed would fall foul of hate speech legislation anywhere in Europe, and you just make yourself look like a dumb American* when you try to teach European law to a European, from a position of having just consulted Google.
(* I just put that in for another example of something that you probably think is hate speech, but isn't.)
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like this:
It would be if it were actually true. But it's not.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120130_CowardsPart2.pdf
So you are then willing to concede that grant funding from conservative groups and oil companies is legitimate?
Grant funding for what? I repeat: there's a difference between grant funding for scientific research, and paying for propaganda.
No, there is nothing legitimate about oil companies funding the Heartland Institute in order to pay a University Professor to spout propaganda on the TV and other media.
If there was an example you could give of conservative or oil companies giving money for genuine scientific research, then provided it checks out as what you describe it as, there would be nothing wrong with it.
But it's hypothetical unless and until you can give that example. For now all we have is conservatives and oil companies paying lobbyists for propaganda. That we have evidence for.
Or are you just another hypocrite?
I tell you what's hypocritical. Someone who whines repeatedly about ad hominem, and then uses it himself to try and get the answer he wants.
Where's the evidence? In the books. I already told you an audit is needed, and that it will never happen.
So this is just religion on your part. You want to believe it. All the people in your peer group believe it. But there's no evidence for it.
Do you think saying "ad hominem" every time someone catches out your false arguments actually helps your case?
Doesn't it seem that active climate-change denial and science opposition is a US-based phenomenon, being used for political and financial gain? Is this the "invisible hand" at work?
It's mostly a US phenomenon. But we have a bit of it in the UK too, with the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph both being denialist organs. The owners of these newspapers are 3 ennobled tax-dodging billionaires.
The most prominent UK individual denialist is Christopher "Viscount" Monckton, who claims to be a member of the House of Lords. But the House of Lords says he isn't.
Where's your evidence?
And no, research grants are not evidence of funding of propaganda.
However, the conclusions of cause and what action should be taken, if any, have not been so clearly established.
The Republican 8 Phase Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man causes significant global warming, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
5) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
6) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
7) ????
8) Profit.
I've no idea if you personally are a Republican, but there's a bunch or corporations, lackies of corporations, libertarians and lobbyists all using the the same playbook.
With, what, 74 out of 77 of Active Climatologists in agreement with AGW
WTF? You think there are only 77 active climatologists in the world?
You do realize that you employed absolutely nothing but ad hominem in your post, right?
I realize that you're accusing me of that. It's not true though.
Who are we not supposed to take seriously again?
Was that disguised attempt at ad hominem I see? Be careful of the hypocrisy there.
We have statistical evidence of race discrimination.
Where's the statistical evidence of what you're alleging?
Or do you work for a body that allocates grant money, and so know first hand what's happening?
Because what you appear to be doing is repeating a meme that you read on a denialist blog. And it is therefore worthless.
I on the other hand have evidence that one of the most prominent denialists that actually work in the field gets paid by lobbyists to do propaganda,
Evidence vs empty memes. Par for the course for this debate.
Read the docs. Very few are anonymous within the Heartland institute, though they presumably intended to be anonymous to the outside world. With this leak they are no longer anonymous.
Piss off a donor by letting an anonymous donation become public knowledge and he's not likely to donate again.
Scientists paid to do propaganda for AGW? I've never come across any instance of that.
You can't compare grants into climate research (available to any scientist, no matter which side) with paid propaganda for the AGW denial lobby.
Well not unless AGW denial is a religion for you and you'll therefore twist the real world to suit your beliefs.
There aren't that many scientists denying AGW. Scientists from any field, of the order of 100. But climate scientists like Singer: a handful. And Singer isn't the only one on Heartland's payroll. He's just the one I chose to pull out.
Now, can you imagine the hay what would be made if anyone got evidence that Hansen from NASA was being paid by lobbyists to provide propaganda for AGW? That's a rough equivalent.
So, it's bullshit.
Cirby on the leaked Heartland Institute documents:
The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?"
Pretty weak stuff, overall.
Cirby in 2009 about the leaked CRU documents:
It's even better - the source cited in the story above is the CRU (funny how "University of East Anglia" started being the source when everyone found out that CRU was more than a bit corrupt) - the same people who just got busted with all of that leaked data and incriminating emails just this week.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1453158&cid=30193346
Hypocrite.
No, its not fact at all. Yes, SOME may have been paid to be deniers, but some were simply questioning the"science" (see what I did there?) behind AGW, as they still do.
Fred Singer is one of the top 3 denialists in the world. We now know he's paid $60,000 per annum to do propaganda. Not research. Propaganda.
As for getting paid, wasn't all that long ago that a respected researcher could get drummed out of the academy for denying agw
Be specific.
The other side (the ones you say that have nothing but "denial") says the data, models, and research is not comprehensive enough to support the grandiose claims being made,
Yes, that's denial.
and they have their own data, models, research,
No they don't.
and conclusions which conflict with the AGW proponents.
Conclusions, sure they've got loads of those. But that wasn't in the list of the previous poster, you added that. Anyone can have conclusions. But the denialist ones have no credibility. Especially now.
Now if this were *real* science, one side or the other would be able to unequivocally silence the other with incontrivertable facts.
Smoking and evolution. No amount of real science would quieten the rump end of the denial lobbyists. So your "conclusion" is pretty easy to disprove.
What turns me off from the whole AGW camp is their smug elitism
Right. So your real problem is not science at all, it's politics. You don't like the people on the side of science, so you're happy take the side of those that deny science.
FTFY.
Definition of FTFY: You've proved your case. I have nothing. So I'll just edit the text so it says the opposite of what it originally did.
That's certainly the way things are going. The police are more and more of a corporate army.
In that case, we should be looking at the process used to award government grants to people who propose studies with the goal of proving man-made global warming while denying funds to those who are trying to disprove man-made global warming.
Given that we're talking science, do you have any evidence that that is happening?
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I expect most scientists to be working on finding out what the truth is, whichever direction that goes. I need some evidence from you that that isn't the case.
One of the many benefits of this leak is that quite a lot of their donors will stop donating.
There's a funding topic that seems relevant to slashdot. Microsoft are one of the contributors. Whilst Microsoft are a scummy company I can't see AGW denial is particularly in their interests. Is this perhaps some employee donation matching scheme, or some other mechanism where an employees personal views have resulted in a donation to Heartland?
This leak is full of evidence to support his position.
Yeah, but what about before 3? Have you never heard of the medieval small numbers period?
The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?"
With just 5 minutes scanning the documents, I saw that. And also the fact that Fred Singer is paid $60,000 per annum to "regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message." Now that's quite a bonus given that his employer is the University of Virginia. This isn't paying a professor to do research, this is paying a professor to do propaganda.
This is the real smoking gun. There are a handful of scientists worldwide that deny the AGW consensus. The question is why? The assumption used to be that they were handsomely paid to do it. That is now fact.
You're like a gorilla that just had a banana taken off him.
You need Wikipedia to help you know what hate speech is because you come from one of the only countries in the civilised world where it's not illegal. I don't need to look it up any more than I need to look up theft, speeding, fraud or any other common law.
None of those thing you listed would fall foul of hate speech legislation anywhere in Europe, and you just make yourself look like a dumb American* when you try to teach European law to a European, from a position of having just consulted Google.
(* I just put that in for another example of something that you probably think is hate speech, but isn't.)