Quote :

"the FUCK it wasn't. Why else would you post an article that bitches about the Koch brothers funding an organization related to climate change if you weren't bitching about the Koch brothers funding an organization related to climate change? your argument LITERALLY boils down to "people shouldn't be able to argue that climate change isn't happening because I think climate change is happening.""

^Take note, that is what losing an argument looks like.

Even if your simplistic characterization of my intentions for posting that article were correct, it doesn't change the fact that climate change deniers are resorting to what should be universally deplorable tactics such as "dissuading teachers from teaching science" and keeping "opposing voices out" of publications that generally favor them. The fact that they are being funded by big oil is tangential to the main point here: climate change deniers don't have any scientific basis for their views and rely on borderline evil propaganda techniques to promote their agenda.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM. Reason : :]

2/15/2012 4:22:15 PM

so, AGAIN, your complain boils down to "these people I don't agree with spend money promoting something I don't like." we all know what you think. it's not anything shocking or new. couldn't you have just saved us the time and kept your *shocking* article to yourself? I mean, you are complaining that possible millions in money from anti-AGW sources is somehow dwarfing the BILLIONS coming from pro-AGW sources. seriously, dude. Just give it up. Admit that you don't like someone saying something you disagree with. Admit that the 1st Amendment means jack shit to you. Have the catharsis that comes with it.

Quote :

"The fact that they are being funded by big oil is tangential to the main point here"

then why bring it the fuck up? that's right, because your point is to try and smear any one who doesn't buy the AGW bullshit line as being paid off by oil money, while completely ignoring the 1000-fold amount of money being spent by equally vested interests on the other side of the issue. You wanna talk science? tell me how a study that produces the same results whether you feed proxy data or a phone book into it is "good science." Oh, right, because someone else agrees with it, as do you

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 4:25:51 PM

Nope, you're still missing the point. Here, I'll post it again,

Quote :

"climate change deniers don't have any scientific basis for their views and rely on borderline evil propaganda techniques to promote their agenda."

This isn't about what I think, what anyone else thinks, or the first amendment. I know, you're trying extremely hard to change the subject, but I'm not going to bite. Not to mention the fact that you keep repeating the laughable claim that climate scientists are somehow bullying and outspending the billion dollar oil industry, which is posting record profit after record profit. Do you really believe this? I know you're not very smart, but that is downright delusional.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM. Reason : :]

2/15/2012 4:44:34 PM

Quote :

"Nope, you're still missing the point. Here, I'll post it again,"

yes. I'm still missing the point that you tried to make with an article that talks about something completely different. I'm still missing the point that millions of dollars from oil companies is corrupting but billions of dollars from the green lobby has no ill effect. I'm still missing the point that you only support speech when you agree with it.

Quote :

"Not to mention the fact that you keep repeating the laughable claim that climate scientists are somehow bullying and outspending the billion dollar oil industry"

get back to me when the oil industry is actually outspending the green lobby in the climate change arena. Funny how you made it "scientists bullying the oil company" instead of "green lobby spending a metric fuck-ton on climate change" which was actually my statement.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 4:47:38 PM

Quote :

"yes. I'm still missing the point that you tried to make with an article that talks about something completely different"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate?CMP=twt_fd

Quote :

"The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science", the documents said."

Quote :

""It's a rare glimpse behind the wall of a key climate denial organisation," Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace, said in a telephone interview. "It's more than just a gotcha to have these documents. It shows there is a co-ordinated effort to have an alternative reality on the climate science in order to have an impact on the policy.""

Quote :

"The papers indicate that discrediting established climate science remains a core mission of the organisation, which has received support from a network of wealthy individuals – including the Koch oil billionaires as well as corporations such as Microsoft and RJR Tobacco."

Quote :

"Heartland is anxious to retain its hold over mainstream media outlets, fretting in the documents about how Forbes magazine is publishing prominent climate scientists such as Peter Gleick. "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out," Heartland documents warn."

Quote :

"It plans to expand that this year by paying a former US department of energy employee to write an alternative curriculum for schoolchildren that will cast doubt on global warming. The fundraising plan notes the anonymous donor has set aside $100,000 for the project."

You didn't read the article did you? Seriously, you threw a hissy fit over a bunch of hacked emails that eventually amounted to nothing. But this is no big deal? At least be logically consistent and admit that you don't care how your side plays the game as long as they win.

2/15/2012 5:00:32 PM

so I guess these guys pushing their school curriculum is no different than Al Gore's movie, which has been shown to have major factual errors, being shown in school. It's not like Al Gore has any financial interest like major stakes in carbon credit schemes or anything like that. Oh, wait, he does.

The passages you are bolding and showing are all saying the same thing: how dare these guys spend a fraction of the money we spend doing the exact same thing. I'll, again, ask you what is the difference between the oil industry spending money on climate change and the green lobby spending money on climate change. You've only got one answer: you agree with the green lobby.

say it with me: You don't like it when people say things with which you disagree

Quote :

"Seriously, you threw a hissy fit over a bunch of hacked emails that eventually amounted to nothing."

yes. after the green lobby spent enough money to make it look like it. Yep, there's nothing bad about a scientist saying "delete emails and data so we don't have to comply with the law." Nothing bad about that at all. There's nothing bad about manipulating study results when they don't work out the way you had hoped. Seriously, this is what you are defending as "good science" dude. And here comes your defense: "He was cleared!" and "Other people agree with them!!!!" Yep, he was obviously cleared of ever having said "ok" or "delete emails and data so we don't have to comply with the law," even though we have the emails where he said both.

Quote :

"At least be logically consistent and admit that you don't care how your side plays the game as long as they win."

Says the person who doesn't care that "his side" is doing exactly the same things that he complains about the "other side" doin

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 5:12 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 5:07:48 PM

aaronburro's a great example of how a next-to-illiterate idiot can get sold literally any okey doke, in literally any field of science that his masters have an interest to distort

"What's a climate? Durp. OH HELL NO WE AINT CHANGIN IT, EVEN IF IT WAS"

What a fucking joke. I can't believe the people in this thread waste time on you; I can only imagine it's to snag the few lurkers that are on the fence, and not to educate a person whose pinnacle of mental achievement must have been passing calculus

2/16/2012 8:07:53 AM

you can only pick one of the following to quickly combat global warming what would you do:

1) replace all coal energy plants with solar? (estimated at 34 trillion dollars needed)
2) replace all combustion cars with 100% electric non-emission cars (also estimated at 30 trillion if you replace all cars with an equivalent to the nissan leaf or tesla model-s(or model x))


keep in mind:





---- also... food for thought:
if 150 million people donated about $400,000 each to this cause we could have 100% solar/nuclear power, and 100% electric cars in a very short time.
if 1 billion people donated around 60k (or equivalent in effort) we'd have the same effect.

the value of the US economy is 188 trillion dollars.
if 1/3 of our economy was based in electric cars and solar power production then we would be absolutely kicking ass as an exporter and manufacturer in the near future and saving a CO2 nightmare.



[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 8:24 AM. Reason : /hippie blog post]

2/16/2012 8:15:14 AM

What's the point of that hypothetical scenario? When are you assuming this quick fix would be necessary, and why then are you using present-based estimates (which you don't substantiate) of the costs?

Further, it's a no-fucking-brainer that waiting until a catastrophe requires drastic overnight replacements of everything is the worst strategy possible. Congrats anywa on making the case that we should start working on a gradual transition to alternative energy ASAP and not wait until we're staring catastrophe in the face.

Spending the next 10 years heavily funding research in solar power and electric motors could end up tipping the scale to make them more profitable than oil. No need to replace all our power plants and cars in a sweeping move, I don't think a single person has ever suggested such a thing, ever, except people like you trying to build strawmen.


[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2012 11:14:48 AM

Quote :

"No need to replace all our power plants and cars "

thank you for your answer!

Str8Foolish = Pathetic

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 12:28 PM. Reason : ,]

2/16/2012 12:20:28 PM

The enormity of your stupidity is overwhelming.

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2012 12:52:59 PM

Quote :

"you can only pick one of the following to quickly combat global warming what would you do:"

thanks for a beautiful false dilemma, dude.

Quote :

"Spending the next 10 years heavily funding research in solar power and electric motors could end up tipping the scale to make them more profitable than oil."

or it might make us completely ignore other emerging technologies that might have a better shot at supplanting oil, assuming you are talking about heavy gov't funding. sorry, I don't like the gov't picking winners and losers

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2012 1:04:59 PM

Yeah let's make a big fuss over the Heartland Institute, whose annual budget is around $6.5 million. Compared to the global warming propagating and green flag bearing organizations like Greenpeace ($310 million), the Sierra Club ($100 million) or the NRDC ($95 million). I guess warmists are just pissed that they spend exponentially more and can't convince the general public to switch from their evil ways.

2/16/2012 2:59:35 PM

Quote :

"assuming you are talking about heavy gov't funding. sorry, I don't like the gov't picking winners and losers"

ladies and gents we have a winrar

2/16/2012 4:00:01 PM

Quote :

"warmists"

lulz

2/16/2012 4:30:51 PM

^^^ didn't you know? Only oil money is evil. There is something special and different about the money that comes from the green lobby that makes it not the same as money that comes from the oil lobby. this is science, man

2/16/2012 5:32:29 PM

Quote :

"sorry, I don't like the gov't picking winners and losers"

No, you prefer arbitrary private firms picking winners and losers (bonus if the losers don't look like me)

2/16/2012 6:17:28 PM

gas prices go up -> oil companies make record profits -> maintain dependency on oil

How exactly are alternative industries supposed to break through, when the current system is so deeply entrenched against them?

Is BP going to meaningfully invest in technologies that undermine their core business? It would practically be illegal for them to do so considering their a publicly traded company.

2/16/2012 11:58:41 PM

^^ oooh, concealed race-card. good work!

2/17/2012 1:03:18 AM

Quote :

"(bonus if the losers don't look like me)"

it's funny seeing you shits say this. esp when i look around at my current team (all of us paid 75-150k) and 5 are black and 3 are white and 1 is indian.

i should be the one complaining like you. but nope. my trap is shut and we work 100% brilliantly together making huge profits. interesting how that works.


OH LOOK HE HAS A BLACK GUY FRIEND LOLOLOLOLOL

maybe one day it'll be an all white blonde and blue eyed team

pwnt

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM. Reason : ,]

2/17/2012 8:57:36 AM

The brilliant thing about actual science is its ability to mitigate humanity's failings regarding rational thought.

Like anecdotes.

2/17/2012 9:31:20 AM

Quote :

"^^ oooh, concealed race-card. good work!"

haha aaronburro is proud he picked up on my obvious insult

2/17/2012 10:41:36 AM

Everything you post is obvious insult; that's why nobody listens to you or bothers responding.

You seem to take this lack of interaction to mean "you're correct" or "we're stupid." We aren't dodging you-

It's simple human nature not to want to interact with douchebags. You seem to think internet anonymity changes that and people should be forced to respond to you for fear of ridicule.

Nope, not happening buddy-

At this point you pretty much only garner pity-posts or overreactions to over-the-top trolling. Yes, you have conservative equivalents here although I would suggest you're a bit more extreme in your inferiority complex.

On the plus side I can just about guarantee you're probably a nice and intelligent guy in person.

2/17/2012 10:59:32 AM

^^ you are nothing but an enraged minority racist hack and you are finally getting what you deserve (hopefully in reality too)

no respect.

work hard and achieve something and you earn respect. and shut your fucking racist trap you stupid son of a bitch

2/17/2012 11:23:49 AM

ummm, McDouche is white, yo

2/17/2012 11:31:28 AM

ahahahaha i'm a white dude who is doing quite fine, thanks

2/17/2012 11:40:49 AM

We aren't dodging you-

It's simple human nature not to want to interact with douchebags.

2/17/2012 11:45:50 AM

lol it's amazing how guys like yowilly are only willing to extend reasonability and understanding to the people posting the most baleful, vile opinions. I jump ugly with the ugly, and that makes me some sort of douche-bag.

Some people have to be slapped in the face to see a thing. The soap box is full of these sorts of people; I've been reading it for quite a long time, and I've seen quite a few of the posters trapped in the same tiny orbits of thought.

2/17/2012 3:52:22 PM

oh please, great and wise McDouche, save us from ourselves! Please save our savage souls!!!!!

2/17/2012 5:49:07 PM

Some people don't want to be saved. They'd rather waste their lives playing village idiot on a message board. How many years have you planted your ass on the wolf web, a source of anti-information

2/19/2012 9:27:16 AM

well, I've been trying to help you, but, you are right, some people don't want to be saved

2/19/2012 1:42:57 PM

you know mcdanger, shrike and str8foolish both seem to have interests and passions along the same lines as yours.

however, theyre able to participate in discussions without being cunts. why is that?

2/20/2012 7:39:32 PM

on the contrary, none of my interests include "humoring idiots by treating them like anything less."

[Edited on February 21, 2012 at 8:43 AM. Reason : .]

2/21/2012 8:42:55 AM

Quote :

"however, theyre able to participate in discussions without being cunts. why is that?"

I have a special place in my hearts for the morally bankrupt, dishonest shit that people like you say and think

2/21/2012 11:04:48 AM

Is it a surprise to anyone that these Heartland Institute documents were fraudulently obtained and the most damaging memo fake? You can thank Peter Gleick for the ruse. Boy, those left leaning media outlets took that fake story and went running with it.

Meanwhile the rest of us can thank him for resigning from the NCSE (national center for science education).

2/21/2012 1:12:15 PM

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/21/no-sympathy-for-the-devil/

Quote :

"Really, people? Seriously? This is what the Heartland Institute wants, the poisoning of the debate and the undermining of public understanding. They probably read that letter and said, “Yay! It’s working!” How about if we focus on the content of the leaked documents instead? They do reveal a deep truth: that the Heartland Institute is a propaganda organization with great support from right-wing political organizations and individuals, and that their mission is to parcel out money to disinformation agents like Anthony Watts and Fred Singer, who sow unfounded doubt and confusion about real science. And they plan to poison American education. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain- two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor. No matter how it was obtained, the Heartland Institute has confirmed that it stupidly mailed out internal documents. The denialists are trying desperately to claim that one of the documents is fake, which just affirms that all the others are accurate. That ought to be the central story here. "

[Edited on February 21, 2012 at 1:47 PM. Reason : italics]

2/21/2012 1:45:51 PM

you do realize that nothing has been proven to be authentic....

2/21/2012 4:44:20 PM

WHOOOSH! You sure missed that point.

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-confirms-it-mistakenly-emailed-internal-documents

Quote :

"The Heartland Institute has confirmed in a prepared statement that it mistakenly emailed its board materials to an anonymous third party - confirming the source of the documents released here on the DeSmogBlog yesterday. Heartland then goes on allege that one of the documents (the Climate Strategy) is a fake. "

Heartland confirms that documents were leaked, going on to claim that one of them are fake. What does that say about the rest?

2/21/2012 7:34:34 PM

Oh but Greenpeace spends whatever money they have leftover after their whaling-ship attacks to bribe all the scientists!!!

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 1:46:56 PM

because the only people spending money on the issue on the pro-AGW side are the people depicted in that graph. nevermind the FACT that oil lobby money is dwarfed by green lobby money on the issue. for someone who likes to dispel misinformation, you sure are promoting it.


I also find it fucking HILARIOUS that a guy heading the AGU's "ethic's committee" had such an enormous lack of ethical judgement. kinda proves the point

2/22/2012 10:35:22 PM

^^^no you're still missing the point.

^^your chart would make sense...if anything on it was actually the case IRL, which it is not.

[Edited on February 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM. Reason : k]

2/23/2012 9:00:33 AM

Quote :

"nevermind the FACT that oil lobby money is dwarfed by green lobby money on the issue. for someone who likes to dispel misinformation, you sure are promoting it."

Source please.

Quote :

"^^your chart would make sense...if anything on it was actually the case IRL, which it is not."

It has to be one or the other. Global warming can't simultaneously be a hoax and not be a hoax.

[Edited on February 23, 2012 at 10:45 AM. Reason : .]

2/23/2012 10:44:41 AM

Quote :

"Oh but Greenpeace spends whatever money they have leftover after their whaling-ship attacks to bribe all the scientists!!!"

it's already pretty obvious we have to get as much solar/wing/tidal energy as possible before fusion is finalized around 2030. why make our lives a complete nightmare with retarded full of shit fees on a hypothetical guess of the end of a single fossil fuel.

why tax the shit out of people and jobs and businesses and ruin the global economy when you can use the economic momentum of the past 50 years of inovation to come up with some cool shit like super-scrubers or outright on renewables

this is why cap and trade is completely full of shit and will never gain traction.

2/23/2012 7:50:51 PM

^ This muddled argument has essentially shown that your brain is what's full of shit. Your diversions into text are essentially just getting lost in that shitjungle

Like most simple minded primates you see the shit in your mind's eye and project it onto the world

2/24/2012 10:40:32 AM

Yes, if we simply stop taxing these companies that are actively fighting green technology with their massive sums of money, they'll use that money to develop green technology so as to make their own industries obsolete. This is pack_bryan signing off, as the last of my brain cells dribble out of my anus on the keyboard.

2/24/2012 10:58:57 AM

Quote :

"it's already pretty obvious we have to get as much solar/wing/tidal energy as possible before fusion is finalized around 2030."

2/24/2012 11:42:43 AM

you guys hate renewables?


fusion tokamaks will break even in a decade hopefully. and then get a net positive energy shortly after.

not sure why the troll face, but hopefully shit like this isn't just for white teenage anonymous trolls:

2/24/2012 11:59:51 AM

Quote :

"fusion tokamaks will break even in a decade hopefully. and then get a net positive energy shortly after. "

Are you talking about the Iter goals? I know you're not talking about the Iter goals.

The lovely 500 s DT burn time that was scaled back from the original energy output goal isn't going to happen until 2026. But that hasn't been revised since the last setbacks, so it's already past 2026 and we don't even know how far past that. And that's if things go to plan.

Iter is going to fail, and heavens let's hope it fails early as opposed to "succeeding" by lumbering along to a watered-down, barely net-gain plasma sometime in 2030 hopelessly far away from commercialization. Why do you think we've spent billions on laser confinement in this country? Do you really think anyone who has even the slightest streak of realism is holding out hope for tokomak technology track? Please tell me you don't believe that.

Do you think Iter can withstand a sovereign debt crisis? It has a 15 year window to stop the landmark plasma. Probably more. And after that, how generous is Japan going to feel about R&D to build the DEMO plant? This is madness.

Not to mention:

Quote :

"we have to get as much solar/wing/tidal energy as possible before fusion is finalized "

is logical drool. Diversification makes sense in the context of diminishing marginal returns. This isn't entirely applicable to the situation you present. Fusion will want to be our one and only energy source should it ever be commercialized, just like hydrocarbons want to now. The entire problem with fission power is that we never built enough of it for it to become cheap. Really, to break it down:

a) renewables won't beat hydrocarbon economics until we hit the down-slope of the global oil production curve
b) when we do hit the fast down-slope of the global oil production curve we won't be able to build fusion plants and we'll be in uber-austerity mode

2/24/2012 12:41:45 PM

Quote :

"Source please."

I don;t need to quote common knowledge. if you can't see that the green lobby spends far more than oil companies on the climate debate, then something is wrong with you. Simply contemplate the millions spent by oil companies on climate alone, something that is not their main concern. Then ask yourself if the green lobby spends more or less on what amounts to its main issue of concern. It's simple, and obvious.


http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/green-lobbying-intensifies-1576
then, consider this: Koch has spent 48.5 million since 1997 on the discussion. That's over 15 years. Meanwhile, in one year, California was given 315 million in green subsidies. One. fucking. year. in. one. fucking. state. Other sources show total oil lobbying per year being around 135million, and that's for ALL of their lobbying, not just climate-specific lobbying. Now, tell me which side is getting more money into the issue, guy. And that's just in the US.

2/24/2012 2:03:31 PM

Here you go:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i

They have an industry called "Environment" which didn't even make the top 20. "Oil and Gas" is #6.

I mean, pretend we don't have this "common sense" for a moment and use the data from this site to illustrate how "green lobbby outspends oil lobby" is justified.

Wait, are you talking about goverment spending or lobby industry spending?

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2012 2:14:20 PM