Billionaires Secretly Fund Vast Climate Denial Network 848
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.'"
Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Make lobbying equal to bribery and throw the fuckheads in jail for life.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between explaining politicians what you want and under cover operations to buy influence.
For instance, finding out Yanks "lobby" for SOPA shit in Europe...
Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
So, the government "solutions" so far have been to subsidize corn ethanol, windmills, electric cars, and solar panels.
What we got from that are electric cars that start fires, don't move (as in need to have a forklift pick it up onto a flat bed truck since the wheels locked up), or are so expensive that only the hated "1%" can buy them.
Somebody loves being fed lies, and regurgitating them to the rest of us. Hate to tell you this, but gasoline? It's flammable too. Every single gas-powered car is quite capable of bursting into flames. Just ask your local fire department about it. And yes, they do lock up too, that's why Tow-Truck drivers keep in business.
And no, there's no reason you have to be part of the 1% to buy one. No more than any other car of the same value. Or did you think they're all high-end Tesla luxury vehicles? They're not. And we could make them cheaper, and more available, but we won't because we have to protect the free market, and so we don't have the government making cars.
We get battery manufacturers that get government money but don't produce any batteries. We have government funded solar panel companies that, if they actually produce a solar panel, can get only government agencies to actually buy them.
Don't know what battery company you're talking about, but Solyndra made solar panels, and they were bought by many people. Unfortunately Chinese ones came out cheaper.
We have corn ethanol mandated in our fuel which raise the price we pay for our fuel, have a tendency to damage certain vehicles, and have a reduction in CO2 output that is pathetic if it even exists. The consumption of corn by our cars means the food that we consume costs more since, as it turns out, people eat corn too.
You can check the price of corn, ethanol usage hasn't had the dramatic impact you want to attribute to it, and I'd rather damage vehicles that can be modified than lungs. You do realize it's relatively trivial to convert an engine to work with Ethanol, right? It's no different than any other change to gasoline.
Since fuel companies are mandated to buy corn ethanol there is no motivation to actually reduce the price.
Because fuel companies won't buy the cheapest ethanol they can get?
I could keep going on how the lack of a free market is doing little to nothing to actually reduce our carbon output.
You could probably come up with a few more lies and deceits, yes.
Please don't waste your time.
Some freedom returned to the marketplace is more likely to do more good for the climate than what we have now.
We could be building nuclear power plants, but the government won't let us.
Ah, this notion. Hate to tell you this, but the government is doing what the people have been told to tell it to do. The anti-nuclear agenda comes from the Petro industry.
We could be using sugar beets or switch grass as bio-fuels but the government does not make that profitable.
You're welcome to show the results of using these plants instead.
Perhaps if we introduced some real competition in the markets we'd see some real development in windmill technology. As it is right now the windmill manufacturers make money whether or not the windmills actually produce any electricity.
You probably don't know how much wind-baed energy has grown lately, do you?
I believe we have a long way to go with solar power and electric cars before they are viable outside some very narrow niche markets.
Solar Power and Electric Cars are viable today for far more usage scenarios than you realize. But far too many people are tied into what they do have to support a switch. Instead they'd rather fret over how they just can't drive a car that might run out of energy, even wh
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Interesting)
If the US situation is too confusing for you, look at Europe, where politicians are united on anti-global warming efforts. Has it helped? Not one bit. Europeans have been saddled with large costs and no effective reductions to show for it. Electric and hydrogen vehicles are nearly non-existent in Europe, and car ownership and VMT remain high. The only reductions in carbon output have been due to outsourcing carbon-intensive production to China and due to economic slowdowns. Countries are also not doing so well on renewables, with production in most European countries only being 10-20% (but places like Germany only achieve that by importing a lot of non-renewable energy).
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need to do is get money out of politics. There has been some suggestion of state funding of parties in the UK, where once you reach a certain size you get a fixed budget from the state to run your campaigns and no more. It helps stop people buying their way into office, or buying politicians.
In Japan politicians are not allowed to buy advertising at all. They can go round and campaign in person, but not TV or billboard or newspaper ads.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Al Gore
DRINK!
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Soro's puts his money where his mouth is, and is not making his contributions untraceable.
Don't forget the disinformation. (Score:4, Insightful)
'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.
Speaking of disinformation... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ar
Secretly? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Secretly? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
"Knowing" this is going on based on faith and knowing this is going on based on evidence are two very different kinds of belief. This kind cannot be questioned away; indeed, it is the result of questioning, and it can only make belief stronger. It's news because now there is evidence. It's interesting because it's not illegal to fund climate research or publication, so they wouldn't need to hide their activity unless they knew they were up to something illegal, like perpetrating fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not exactly like this is news at all: http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/07/29/127235/koch-bros-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-and-man-made [slashdot.org]
Re:Secretly? (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as you say - "you can't study that" to people who may disagree with the perceived status quo, you are limiting speech, period.
No one is doing that. That was my point; it's not ostensibly illegal to do what they are doing, and many people are doing it openly, so why are they hiding it? Answer, they're concealing some type of fraud. Either they or their agents are claiming to be studying climate change to see what we can do about it and they're actually working against studying climate change and therefore they've put the lie to some of their earlier statements, or they explicitly knew that their money would be going to fund fraud and they were trying to keep this fact out of the public consciousness. Their goal is likely not to avoid prosecution (what are the odds of getting in trouble for junk science?) but simply to avoid being caught in the typical, non-actionable kind of fraud engaged in by politicians and businessmen every day.
Your logical fallacy is the straw man. Am I going to get a new logical fallacy with every reply to this thread? I would prefer some other prize, thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
If the fact that Exxon or the Koch brothers fund conservative and libertarian causes, or that institutes like the Heartland Institute receive money from conservative donors comes as a surprise to you, you're an idiot. You can't accuse them of "hiding it" simply because you're too stupid to figure this out.
Re:Secretly? (Score:5, Informative)
So what?
People are funding client skeptics, and people are finding Climate Change studies.
Are you really that fucking stupid? That you actually believe that what's being funded by "The Donors Trust" is research? Damn...
Re: (Score:3)
So what?
People are funding client skeptics, and people are finding Climate Change studies.
Are you really that fucking stupid? That you actually believe that what's being funded by "The Donors Trust" is research? Damn...
Yea--we all know the Gore/Soros groups did unblemished "research".
Never said they did, but then I am not stupid enough to throw their product up against academically credible research. Big difference.
Re:Secretly? (Score:5, Insightful)
People are funding client skeptics, and people are finding Climate Change studies.
You're right in that we have two groups - but only one is involved in actually science.
When you receive funding only when your "research" produces the desired results it becomes nearly impossible to have unbiased results. It becomes propaganda masquerading as research. To actually perform real research, the researcher must receive funding regardless of result.
The problem with the skeptics is that their "research", which is always biased, is taking away from the real research that is being done. When an outsider observes two publications making opposite claims, both publications are discredited. And if you ask that outsider which publication they believe, they will usually pick the one they want to be right - which is the one that says they can keep on burning oil.
The scientific community knows that climate change is real and that human activity is to blame. But the general populous does not partly because of the fake research and the arguments it spawns. So no, we shouldn't accept funding from all sides. Funding should only come from a neutral side - if the rich want to fund more they can donate funds to that neutral side.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Secretly? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but the people who don't look at the evidence or think about the data are in the majority. They get all their information from these guys. They vote, too.
That's why this is bad - a bunch of rich guys are using the ignorant masses as a way to trade the future of the planet for their nth new mansion in some tax haven or other.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a simple solution to this, you should know. Make carbon output unprofitable.
OK, well identifying the solution is easy but I know the implementation is much more difficult. Right now we don't burn fossil fuels because we want to fuck up the atmosphere. We burn fossil fuels because doing so makes us money. That money buys us coke and hookers. Maybe not coke and hookers, but we can buy food, clothing, and shelter. If we have money left over we can buy beer and porn, the cheaper alternative to co
Re: (Score:3)
We can even build nuclear reactors that can burn FAR more to completion than the current ones do. I read something about the mining companies lobbying congress to make it illegal to burn beyond a certain point though so that the reactors would require more fuel.
We can even build reactors that will run off the current waste we have now and power the country for about a thousand years. The waste we have now is not an intrinsic part of nuclear power generation, it is a part of our corrupt system.
I think we nee
ok... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Old industries are tied to fossil fuel, add to that that liberal policies usually tax billionaires more than liberal ones, and it should be obvious that this is not a level playing field. Really not rocket science.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also worth noting that the WWF got $44 million [forbes.com] in government funding for the year 2012. That's one large, pro-AGW organization getting a third as much in a single year just from government as "conservative billionaires" are alleged to give in total over an eight year period.
Also if they were I doubt they would be hiding it.
It's worth noting that a lot of the alleged funding isn't actually hidden. For example, everyone knows about the Koch brothers and their funding habits. And the Koch brothe
Only fair (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only fair (Score:5, Funny)
All my billionaire scientist friends heat their homes by burning the trillions they get from grants. On special nights, they have big bonfires and invite the neighbourhood over to toast weenies over the money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ful
Re:How convenient that you calculate base on surfa (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Names, dates, dollars, it's all on record. (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
If you want to convince skeptics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you want to convince skeptics... (Score:5, Insightful)
Skeptics aren't the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Skeptics aren't the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see any actual facts in your post either. And having checked a wide range of predictions and statements by AGW activists, I can say that a large fraction of them are scientifically either unsupported or plain wrong.
Re:If you want to convince skeptics... (Score:5, Insightful)
This. I'm one of the ones who really doesn't know what to believe, but every time I hear the term "denier" used in this amazingly offensive and inappropriate context I stop listening, because it makes it sound like the one saying it doesn't have actual dispassionate arguments and has to rely on ad hominem. I won't say I agree with the skeptics, but mocking them is the antithesis of science, not the defense of it.
Here's a longer, more nuanced verison of why crying "denier!" is anti-scientific [hiresteve.com].
Re:If you want to convince skeptics... (Score:5, Insightful)
That article completely misses the point of why we use terms like "denier". The deniers are not people who having legitimate qualms with the theories and data behind AGW. Those are skeptics and those are fine to have and indeed important in the scientific process. The deniers are the people who *know* that AGW is wrong, or believe that it has to be wrong because the consequences are antithetical to their worldview (e.g., the idea that there could actually be downsides to American capitalism and industry) or for some other reason that has nothing to do with the science. That's denialism. These people would never be convinced by any amount of evidence in favor of AGW. They don't even care. As such, they are correctly labelled deniers.
Now, perhaps some AGW fans are too broad with their use of the term, and perhaps some of them forget their own equivalents -- those people who just *know* AGW is right because capitalism is evil, facts or no facts. And that's a sad truth. That doesn't diminish or destroy the usefulness or correctness of the term "denier".
Re:If you want to convince skeptics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone, on both sides, knows that "denier" is the chosen term specifically because it parallels "holocaust denier".
No. People on one side of the argument use the word "denialism" because it accurately describes the practice of refusing to accept overwhelming evidence. People on the other side of the argument shriek "our opponents are calling us Nazis!" because it makes them feel better about their own ideologically imposed blindness.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If you want to convince skeptics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you want to convince skeptics... (Score:5, Insightful)
For a long time, it was easier to attack the science (a flanking maneuver).
Then don't be surprised that those people are still viewed as being dishonest deniers.
Increasingly, you will see a change to battling it out over policy - which was the proper place for this debate the entire time.
I created the following some years ago. I've been amused as the mass of the denialist rhetoric has followed through it step by step. They don't get any more respect for having done so.
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming 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 does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
Re:If you want to convince skeptics... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with the anthropogenic part is that it's almost impossible to come up with something that's scientific and falsifiable ...
We can certainly measure the radiative absorption characteristics of CO2, that's scientific and falsifiable. We can measure the level and rate of change in CO2 in the atmosphere. We can measure the approximate emissions of CO2 by human activities and observe that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a bit less than half of those emissions. That plus solar input and feedback from water vapor are about all you need for a first order calculation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there are people still around who say that the earth is flat, not round. What's a suitable term for them? Obviously there's a lot of choices, but a "Round Earth Denier" is certainly one of them. And an accurate one.
What about people that deny that tobacco smoke is carcinogenic? It's fair enough to call them deniers too, yes?
And sure enough, we do call people that say that the Nazi holocaust never happened "Holocaust Deniers".
The reason is that we know all these things are true. And for whatever reason, t
Re: (Score:3)
I speculate that the reason you're uncomfortable with it is not to do with science at all, but to do with your politics. You find that the people on the other side of the political spectrum from you have no doubt about AGW. But that people who are your natural allies are where the deniers come from. That's obviously going to make you uneasy about it.
That's probably fair. Thing is, though, not only do (most) progressives have no doubt about AGW, they've stridently politicized skepticism toward it. That doesn't make them wrong on the issue, but at the same time it's not unreasonable that would make moderates, conservatives, and libertarians suspect that their motivation is not so much from science, but rather is simply a convenient article of faith that supports their ideological objectives.
The Sheep Look Up (Score:5, Informative)
A recommended read, as appropriate today as it was 40 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re DDT you might want to review the research; the fact is that DDT is a poster-child for the misinformed politically-driven 'eco-conclusion' that ISN'T informed by science.
The tests that were used for the basis of the book Silent Spring were deeply flawed, and the scientists that ran them, themselves acknowledged that they'd drawn the wrong conclusions as the birds' lab diets were woefully low in calcium - needed to make strong eggshells. When the same labs ran the same tests with adequate diets, there was
Re:The Sheep Look Up (Score:5, Informative)
A side note: cars are actually cheaper (inflation adjusted), safer and more reliable than they were in 1972.
Re:The Sheep Look Up (Score:5, Informative)
The one thing that strikes me these days, is the way how the exact same people who solved the problems you are talking about - DDT, leaded gasoline, smog etc. - are still demonized and portait as plotting to destroy the earth.
They didn't solve those problems, they created them. They created the polluting products. DDT, leaded gasoline, cigarettes, CFC aerosols etc. Government regulation stopped them from manufacturing those polluting products anymore, or at least cut down on them. Without the government regulation they would have kept on polluting, and more so every year.
It's exactly the same now. They won't fix their polluting till government regulation makes them do so. And they are putting that government regulation off for as long as possible by denying science, just as they did before.
In other news (Score:4, Funny)
This just in.... billionaires think the minimum wage is just fine where it is. Film at 11.
Follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [guardian.co.uk], Exxon Mobil [guardian.co.uk] (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!
The Numbers (Score:5, Informative)
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 [scienceand...policy.org]
There's a lot of money floating around, most of it being spent by "warmers."
Misleading (Score:4, Informative)
Crony capitalism in action. (Score:3)
Denialists don't care (Score:3)
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.
Where is science in all this? (Score:4, Interesting)
curious Koch brothers contradition (Score:3)
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.
Cuts both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Cuts both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it's more sponsored speech than free speech isn't it.
Surely the free speech ideal is about letting anyone say what they want to say. It weakens it rather a lot when it's a small minority of people buying the speech of many.
It's the classic difference between real grassroots opinions, and astroturf.
Re:Cuts both ways (Score:4, Informative)
So the Tea Party is just astro-turfing? Yet the Occupy Wall Street is grass roots?
That's correct. The Tea Party was a construction made with the Koch brothers money and the assistance of Fox News to publicise it.
Re:Cuts both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
The Tea Party is actually really the most sophisticated astro-turfing I've ever encountered, because there are many many rank-and-file Tea Partiers that have no idea that it's astro-turf. For example, I encountered one Tea Partier who was a true believer and a bit offended by my offhand remark about the Tea Party being a megaphone for rich people, but was totally flummoxed when I asked him how they had come up with $500K to pay Sarah Palin to give a single speech at the Tea Party Convention (this was back when she was somebody important). That kind of cash is not something a real grassroots group has lying around to blow on a pep talk - it would represent months of fundraising efforts, and probably be directed at something much more useful.
Re:Cuts both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
It's marked "informative", rather than say "insightful", because it relates a matter of fact.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/13/tea-party-billionaire-koch-brothers [guardian.co.uk]
That you don't like the fact being pointed out is neither here nor there. That's not what moderation is about.
Re:Cuts both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cuts both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech implies that the speech is true.
Really? So any fictional statement or story is automatically not "free speech"? Meaning pretty much any editorial in any newspaper is not the exercise of "free speech"?
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech implies that the speech is true.
LOL! No it doesn't. This is a classic redefinition of "free speech" -- if what a person says is "true" (as defined by you), then they are free to speak. All others are "falsifying information" and must be prevented from speaking -- for the good of the people, of course.
Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Big deal... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [aclu.org] 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
Re: (Score:3)
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 [aclu.org] 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 p
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 [wikipedia.org] in the case of Schenck vs the United States. [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Informative)
The climate will keep changing regardless.
Re:Big deal... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
They may cry that they are not the same fringe, but from the outside, they all look alike. Just ignore them.
Re: (Score:3)
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 mitig
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
So about the world (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:So about the world (Score:4, Interesting)
Thank you. Climate change is of course real, but it is an epiphenomenon: the underlying fact is over-population, which seems to have become a taboo subject.
Re:So about the world (Score:5, Insightful)
If the long term effects are far worse for our species, then concentrating in short term benefit is not only greedy, but frankly evil.
And none of the proposed solutions require we become hunter gatherers again. That's inflammatory to the point of outright dishonesty.
Re:So about the world (Score:5, Insightful)
And none of the proposed solutions require we become hunter gatherers again. That's inflammatory to the point of outright dishonesty.
Not only that, but with our level of technology, how bad would that be? We could maintain production facilities in some areas, keep education and research going, et cetera. Hunter-gatherers with internet access (perhaps a mesh finally) and advanced medical care? Sounds awesome to me. The problem as always is that corporations are interested in making a buck first and giving us what we want second, only as a means to the first. If they give us too much of what we want (it would be nice if this stuff were reliable, too) then we'll stop giving them money, so they focus on what is most profitable and on driving anyone who might disrupt their business model out of the market.
Those who profit most from the destruction of our biosphere are spending a lot of effort to convince us that it is not being destroyed. By the time it is effectively impossible to produce crops any way other than hydroponically and indoors, at this rate they'll own all of the water and all of the food production. This is the natural end result of so-called "Green Revolution" agriculture using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides which literally destroy topsoil by killing, washing away, or binding up the organic constituents, it is the natural result of burning CO2 more quickly that natural mechanisms can fix it and not introducing other mechanisms to take up the slack, it is a natural consequence of deforestation when trees are some of the most efficient fixers of CO2 — especially since larger trees of some species actually grow faster and therefore fix more CO2 than smaller, younger examples.
We do not need to return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but it might be not only a valid option for many people and places, but also a beneficial one.
Re: (Score:3)
Oooooh-kaaay, and how do you think that's going to work?
Because water is just piped into your basement and you don't have to think about it, you may not have considered that someone owns all the water. Sometimes the citizenry of an area are the nominal owners, but just try going to where the water company gets the water and pumping out a truckload for yourself, and see how far you get towards filling it up before someone stops you. In my area, Nestle (through their subsidiary Calistoga, they use different names in different places) has bought up springs which pe
Re: (Score:3)
You are taking your water for granted. This is not a sustainable stance.
Right, because it's not like it just falls from the sky, or anything.
The funny thing about that is that just because it falls out of the sky doesn't mean it's usable. In some places they are actually taxing catchment from one's own roof now; if you put in a rain barrel you're going to have to pay for the square footage of your roof (no idea if it's coverage or area, hopefully coverage but you never know.) Many places in the USA if you dig a hole in the ground capable of capturing a measurable quantity of rainwater you will be taxed on its surface area to account for evaporat
Re:So about the world (Score:4, Insightful)
They are not "diametrically opposed". You and he are talking about things which are orthogonal. He's talking about the natural environment and you are talking about economics.
What each of you said is fine so far as it goes. My question is for you though. Why is it only a minority that have got out of poverty? It's certainly not about working hard. Those poor people in the third world typically work a lot harder than those in the first world. Is it that there's only a limited number of resources? Or is it that the wealth in the first world requires poverty in the third world?
And why will it be those who are still in poverty that are the worst effected by the damage being done to the environment?
We can do things a lot better, both environmentally and economically.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason they are in poverty is simple - they are not free. Meaning that, they do not have security of property ownership (including natural resources), freedom to enter into mutually beneficial contracts, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, etc., etc.
Availability of resources is not an issue.
Living in a democracy helps, but is not in itself a requirement.
Show me a poor people who have freedom and I'll admit I am wrong. Please understand that I am generalizing, so specific examples don't count.
And n
Re: (Score:3)
Free is free - there are no "interpretations" to free.
Somalians have no freedom, except the "freedom" to oppress their countrymen
You are just plain wrong, there are infinite interpretations to free. Dictionary.com has 5 definitions, google define lists two, the wikipedia page for freedom is a disambiguation page and is very long, including among other things 14 separate articles on different types of philosiophical ideas about types of freedom, each of which leads to a long and complex article and many of which have further sub-ideas on separate pages corresponding to different schools of thought and ideas about subtle nuances of the
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike most, I'm comfortable admitting that I don't deal in climate science for a living, so my interests land on both sides.
That doesn't follow. Why would a person who "doesn't deal in climate science for a living" have interests "on both sides"?
No, it's not obvious to me what resources and laws are appropriate for dealing with global climate change. That doesn't at all mean I think the answer is "none", it means I want to know if there's a difference between ten billion and twenty, and if any of that would be better spent on other things that worry us too.
Are they qualified at all to tell us how to spend our money? What motivation have we to listen to them?
On the one hand we have a set of facts and a system that we normally trust implicitly, and argument based on logic and a set of observations that a 5 year old could understand. On the other,a bunch of known fraudsters acting in transparently fraudulent ways, telling us not only that
Re:So about the world (Score:5, Insightful)
If Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, et. al. are going to be held up as paragons of truth...
Denialists are the only ones who say that. The rest of us think that actual scientists who have no conflicts of interest and who have actual evidence are the ones to believe.
Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Kind of proves the point (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Climate change is funded by MORE corp/gov grant (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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