4 ms·

"The energy companies denying anthropomorphic climate change have much larger budgets and a vested interest in convincing everyone everything is fine, there's n

"The energy companies denying anthropomorphic climate change have much larger budgets and a vested interest in convincing everyone everything is fine, there's no need to change anything, so they can continue on with their current business model." It's pretty telling that these companies have spent well over 100 million in recent years for propaganda, and a grand total of ONE grant of 200K for scientific research. And when that grant concluded global warming is real and anthropogenic, that was the end of industry funded research. Now it's nothing but propaganda.

aetherson 11y ago
Doesn't that kind of imply to you that energy companies or whoever have not systematically infiltrated science, as the author of this article says that green organizations have? I feel like this thread goes: Original author: "Green movements with deep pockets have infiltrated science!" Poster: "Yeah, but energy companies have even deeper pockets [so it's okay if people with obvious financial incentives to believe that climate change deserves drastic action are given gatekeeper positions in science.]" Another poster: "Yeah, and check it out! The deep-pocketed energy companies don't even get involved with science!" ...
- ocschwar 11y ago
  It implies to me that nothing's infiltrated science except scientists. It shows to me that the fossil fuel lobby knows AGW is real, knows that if they hire any scientists to look at the issue, those scientists will once again confirm that AGW is real, and so they prefer to fund denialism. That's the thing: you can have debates and disagreements, but physical reality does take sides. [update] You're a citizen. You can read the scientific papers on AGW regardless of whether they're used by the IPCC for their own papers. Might I suggest you do that?
  - MCRed 11y ago
    What about the reports from the UN IPCC That misrepresented the claims of scientists named in the reports? (To the Scientists protests.) In fact, IPCC reports-- which are not science but political propaganda-- are the sum total of "science" that AGW proponents rely on when making their political claims (And their claim that "Science" agrees with them, which they think justifies calling anyone who disagrees with the hypothesis by the epithet of "denier")
    - Daishiman 11y ago
      What reports? The scientists publishing the data are very much involved in the IPCC.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- x0x0 11y ago
  Wei-Hock Soon, one of the few (formerly) half-reputable scientists the energy industry could find that pretended anthropogenic climate change isn't real recently was found to have: - "forgotten" $1.2m in payments on disclosure forms (oops-a-daisy); - referred to his papers as "deliverables" in correspondence with the energy companies
  - MCRed 11y ago
    For every such example you can come up with, there are a dozen examples of scientists you guys consider to be pro AGW who have made similar errors. For instance, this comes nothing close to impeaching his work like ClimateGate did for Mann. (And yet proponents still use the Mann data.) Notice that your argument is not science, but demonization. Meanwhile every projection and prediction your side has made has failed to come to pass. And this has been going on for 20+ years!
    - ocschwar 11y ago
      " For instance, this comes nothing close to impeaching his work like ClimateGate did for Mann" You obviously have no idea what it is that Mann does, let alone how mining his email for a quote that can be misrepresented had one nothing to discredit him.
    - Daishiman 11y ago
      Ah, yes, Mann, the dude whose work was reviewed by multiple indepent panels and groups and consider it to be sound science. If you're going to attack someone based on stupid soundbites, you should at least use the ones that are up to date.
  - Zuider 11y ago
    I have flagged this comment as libel. It is one thing to argue a position you believe, it is quite another to smear another's character. This kind of fact-twisting is on the level of the apocryphal Smathers campaign speech: "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert [pervert]? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism [necrophilia] with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian [lesbian] in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy [???]." http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=101;t=000379;p=0 http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to...
MCRed 11y ago
" these companies have spent well over 100 million in recent years for propaganda, and a grand total of ONE grant of 200K for scientific research." Prove it. Prove they have spent that much on "propaganda" and that they have spent no more than 200k for research. Now prove that the government has spent more on research, and that ALL of that research was of the "free inquiry" type (Eg: without a required outcome predetermined. Remember government has pressured scientists to reach certain conclusions, and journals have set out a particular hypothesis as fact for all articles, etc. Suppression of scientific inquiry is at a shocking level these days.) Also, please tell me how much has been spent on propaganda by proponents of AGW. I know just a few of Obama's and Gore's efforts alone were more than 200M (Obama spends 200M on a week long trip oversease-- every time he's gone overseas to promote the global warming theory he's spent more in propaganda than you claim the whole industry opposing him has.)
- ocschwar 11y ago
  "Prove they have spent that much on "propaganda" and that they have spent no more than 200k for research." The 200K went to Richard Muller at Berkeley. I challenge you to find any other money. As for the $100M, here's $80M from one source, (freres Koch). The remaining $20M takes a bit more googling. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/ http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-an... [update] I love how I'm being challenged to prove a negative. If you can find any grant besides the Berkeley BEST grant, you will have disproved it. Go ahead and try. And BTW, I have no downvotes. I've been "too fasted" myself.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    Nope, you made the claim. You need to back it up. Also, mister just-created-a-throwaway account, thanks for the down votes from you and your cronies. It says a lot more than anything you've provided on this thread.

aetherson 11y ago

Doesn't that kind of imply to you that energy companies or whoever have not systematically infiltrated science, as the author of this article says that green organizations have? I feel like this thread goes: Original author: "Green movements with deep pockets have infiltrated science!" Poster: "Yeah, but energy companies have even deeper pockets [so it's okay if people with obvious financial incentives to believe that climate change deserves drastic action are given gatekeeper positions in science.]" Another poster: "Yeah, and check it out! The deep-pocketed energy companies don't even get involved with science!" ...

ocschwar 11y ago
It implies to me that nothing's infiltrated science except scientists. It shows to me that the fossil fuel lobby knows AGW is real, knows that if they hire any scientists to look at the issue, those scientists will once again confirm that AGW is real, and so they prefer to fund denialism. That's the thing: you can have debates and disagreements, but physical reality does take sides. [update] You're a citizen. You can read the scientific papers on AGW regardless of whether they're used by the IPCC for their own papers. Might I suggest you do that?
- MCRed 11y ago
  What about the reports from the UN IPCC That misrepresented the claims of scientists named in the reports? (To the Scientists protests.) In fact, IPCC reports-- which are not science but political propaganda-- are the sum total of "science" that AGW proponents rely on when making their political claims (And their claim that "Science" agrees with them, which they think justifies calling anyone who disagrees with the hypothesis by the epithet of "denier")
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    What reports? The scientists publishing the data are very much involved in the IPCC.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
x0x0 11y ago
Wei-Hock Soon, one of the few (formerly) half-reputable scientists the energy industry could find that pretended anthropogenic climate change isn't real recently was found to have: - "forgotten" $1.2m in payments on disclosure forms (oops-a-daisy); - referred to his papers as "deliverables" in correspondence with the energy companies
- MCRed 11y ago
  For every such example you can come up with, there are a dozen examples of scientists you guys consider to be pro AGW who have made similar errors. For instance, this comes nothing close to impeaching his work like ClimateGate did for Mann. (And yet proponents still use the Mann data.) Notice that your argument is not science, but demonization. Meanwhile every projection and prediction your side has made has failed to come to pass. And this has been going on for 20+ years!
  - ocschwar 11y ago
    " For instance, this comes nothing close to impeaching his work like ClimateGate did for Mann" You obviously have no idea what it is that Mann does, let alone how mining his email for a quote that can be misrepresented had one nothing to discredit him.
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    Ah, yes, Mann, the dude whose work was reviewed by multiple indepent panels and groups and consider it to be sound science. If you're going to attack someone based on stupid soundbites, you should at least use the ones that are up to date.
- Zuider 11y ago
  I have flagged this comment as libel. It is one thing to argue a position you believe, it is quite another to smear another's character. This kind of fact-twisting is on the level of the apocryphal Smathers campaign speech: "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert [pervert]? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism [necrophilia] with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian [lesbian] in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy [???]." http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=101;t=000379;p=0 http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to...

MCRed 11y ago

" these companies have spent well over 100 million in recent years for propaganda, and a grand total of ONE grant of 200K for scientific research." Prove it. Prove they have spent that much on "propaganda" and that they have spent no more than 200k for research. Now prove that the government has spent more on research, and that ALL of that research was of the "free inquiry" type (Eg: without a required outcome predetermined. Remember government has pressured scientists to reach certain conclusions, and journals have set out a particular hypothesis as fact for all articles, etc. Suppression of scientific inquiry is at a shocking level these days.) Also, please tell me how much has been spent on propaganda by proponents of AGW. I know just a few of Obama's and Gore's efforts alone were more than 200M (Obama spends 200M on a week long trip oversease-- every time he's gone overseas to promote the global warming theory he's spent more in propaganda than you claim the whole industry opposing him has.)

ocschwar 11y ago
"Prove they have spent that much on "propaganda" and that they have spent no more than 200k for research." The 200K went to Richard Muller at Berkeley. I challenge you to find any other money. As for the $100M, here's $80M from one source, (freres Koch). The remaining $20M takes a bit more googling. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/ http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-an... [update] I love how I'm being challenged to prove a negative. If you can find any grant besides the Berkeley BEST grant, you will have disproved it. Go ahead and try. And BTW, I have no downvotes. I've been "too fasted" myself.
- MCRed 11y ago
  Nope, you made the claim. You need to back it up. Also, mister just-created-a-throwaway account, thanks for the down votes from you and your cronies. It says a lot more than anything you've provided on this thread.