Creationists Team Up With Climate Deniers To Take Down Science Education.

originally posted by: Metallicus
This is a closed minded OP. It is everyone's job to constantly question the status quo. Even if I don't agree with the opposition, it is important to have people with alternative beliefs. The climate is changing, but the question of WHY is still not closed to debate in my opinion.

No it's not a close minded OP. It is a reminder about the ulterior motive of some of those behind the skeptic agenda (i.e question the status quo of skepticism). Those ulterior motives have nothing to do with truth. I have never not once ever seen any post by a skeptic defending the integrity of a climate scientist, every single one implies they are all part of a global government agenda. There are scientists who get their funding from government and thus their conclusions have to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, there are many climate scientists who are not funded by government.

Understanding climate change requires people to be able to read scientific papers that are longer than one side of A4 and include a myriad interactions. The skeptic only needs to grab the attention for a tabloid headline! Ever noticed that that is where the volume of skepticism resides, tabloid headlines and front pages. Doesn't that alarm you about the simplicity of the skeptic argument knowing full well how complex climate science is?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Hey thanks,

I'm just trying to frame this so-called "debate" the way it really is. People want to be skeptical of man made climate change then so be it, but they really need to stop kidding themselves at least about where the majority of that skepticism comes from.

This whole "conspiracy" gets played off as some suppressed and unspoken controversy, but the reality is it's just a very manufactured PR campaign run by fundamentalist ideologues and special interest groups against modern science. There is so much evidence out there of this, and no skeptic ever seems to want to face up to these facts. I notice they are once again pretty hauntingly silent on this thread, other than the one poster who chimed in right away to tell me how they weren't going to read any of this, lol.

By next week though I'm sure somebody here will post another headline they find in the Daily Mail or some Rupert Murdoch outfit, completely smearing the science for the umpteenth time - and it's off to the races again. There'll be pages and pages of the same predictable comments with everybody congratulating themselves on how they knew it was a big scam all along.

It really parallels with the creationist debate quite well. In their own minds they love to pretend there's a legitimate controversy happening here, but all any one else has to do is peel the layers back a little bit and see for themselves, what a total farce this whole thing is.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yup, James M. Taylor is the absolute prototype shill for this fake climate non-debate - he's a puppet lawyer for big business, likes representing himself as a scientist when he has no credentials, and what he lacks in facts he makes up for in hyperbole.

If you want to play a good drinking game, just take a shot every time he writes the word "alarmist" in one of his articles.

originally posted by: pennydrops
I would like to believe that I would have a right to express my opinions without being insulted.

But you do not have that "right". No one does. If you put your opinion out there, chances are, someone is going to disagree and say so and they have every right to do that, even if it means that you take it as an insult.

Where did you get the idea that you have the right not to be insulted?

originally posted by: theMediator
I'm all for science but lately, I have big doubts that much of that science is swayed by corporatism.
Suppressed cures and the health risk denials of cell phones are things that comes to mind.

I agree 200% with you, but that's exactly why I'm making the case here that big business is manufacturing all this phony climate skepticism, because the real science is completely inconvenient to their bottom line.

We've seen this type of thing before, not only with tobacco companies suppressing the health hazards of smoking, but also with oil companies holding back the science on lead additives in gasoline:

Firms 'knew of leaded petrol dangers in 20s'


But you seem to be implying (maybe I'm reading your post wrong?) that it's the opposite - that corporations are advancing "the global warming agenda" to further their cause. I've heard this numerous times before, and this perspective has never made a lick of sense to me. So I'd love for someone to actually explain how they think this is happening in greater detail.

Because usually I just get some lazy generic comment about taxes and government scientists, or "follow the money" or whatever. But every time I actually follow it I end up here, at the doorstep of these phony baloney climate denier groups who are being funded by meddling billionaires and oil companies.

Meanwhile this whole idea that global warming is a big scam to get more tax money doesn't make any sense either if you just look beyond the two-bit rhetoric. It's completely backwards. The more things are taxed, the less inclined people are to buy them. It slows overall growth and that's the exact opposite of what big business wants to happen.

The best way to implement a carbon tax is to make it revenue neutral, so all income generated by that tax at the point of purchase is returned to the taxpayer through other means (e.g. lower income taxes). This costs the general public absolutely nothing in the grand scheme, but it still keeps the incentive strong to use carbon-free resources, because doing so will effectively make that conscientious consumer more money.

The only people who actually lose big in this transaction are the carbon producing industries themselves, because they lose all that business.

And this is exactly why they're the ones pushing back on climate action. It's why they're using shady front organizations like The Heartland Institute to perpetuate fake scientific controversy and fake skepticism, and drumming up all sorts of nonsensical fear that the whole thing is just some giant conspiracy to get your precious tax monies.

lol I agree with you completely. The US constitution gives a right to free speech, not freedom from insult.

To the point of the OP. The direction of the global warming debate has extended throughout my lifetime and one must remain open minded to what exactly our impact is on it. I'm not saying we're innocent in this. I'm just saying that I cannot claim to know the full picture yet, but what I do know is the second someone like yourself puts two and two together proving that a group putting out nonsense disguised as science is being funded by the people that would benefit from the swayed opinion that group can be ignored. It reminds me of the anti-lead argument fifty-odd years ago. I'm skeptical on a lot of things and do wonder if the elite can sway scientists on the CO2 argument to put forth a CO2 tax but until that is proven I have to read their publications and think deeply on the science involved. Since it's clear where this anti-GW group speaks from it can be classified as a strong form of propaganda.
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yet another thread solely in existence to bash someone or something else. Odd how so many of these threads come about, having atheistic posters come along and pat each other on the back for how clever they feel they all are, and how dumb their so-called opposition is. Ego stroking? Aye.

originally posted by: TacticalStats
lol I agree with you completely. The US constitution gives a right to free speech, not freedom from insult.

Odd how so many people speak out of both sides of their mouths with that one. It's ok to ridicule and insult someone, as long as it's not YOU or YOUR beliefs. Right?

originally posted by: TacticalStats
To the point of the OP. The direction of the global warming debate has extended throughout my lifetime and one must remain open minded to what exactly our impact is on it. I'm not saying we're innocent in this. I'm just saying that I cannot claim to know the full picture yet, but what I do know is the second someone like yourself puts two and two together proving that a group putting out nonsense disguised as science is being funded by the people that would benefit from the swayed opinion that group can be ignored.

^ this

This sounds like a very grounded skeptical perspective, and one I can totally respect. Although my own opinions on the matter have become very one-sided over time, I am and always will be a huge proponent of true skepticism, and my current views have only come through 5+ years of applying that skepticism to both sides of the argument in great detail.

Over this time there's been one side of the story that to me, despite some of its own bumps and snags along the way, has consistently checked out and reinforced itself against the bigger picture. The other side meanwhile constantly falls apart into a mish-mash of ignorance, mental gymnastics, and outright propaganda.

I am glad that, despite whatever reservations you may hold about the whole thing in general - you are willing to freely acknowledge and accept the existence of propaganda on this side as well.

I've met way too many self-proclaimed skeptics who, although they may reluctantly admit to this element in an abstract way, they absolutely refuse to look it right in the face. They can't handle it, and they treat it instead like it's some inconsequential distraction. That's because they've already made up their minds here, and nothing's going to invalidate those beliefs.

These people are not skeptics. They use that term to define themselves rather than guide them, and that makes them no more than hopeless ideologues in their own right.

Normally I wouldn't even care too much about these hypocrites, but being a conspiracy theorist myself, and seeing how much this mentality gets exploited and abused by the propagandists I am calling out here - I feel this issue deserves a lot more attention.

Thanks for posting

originally posted by: Chronogoblin
Yet another thread solely in existence to bash someone or something else. Odd how so many of these threads come about, having atheistic posters come along and pat each other on the back for how clever they feel they all are, and how dumb their so-called opposition is. Ego stroking? Aye.

Yeah because it's not like I did any research on the subject matter, or laid out all sorts of links and resources in my OP for people to examine for themselves.

Sounds to me like you are just making excuses about the intent of this thread, so you can avoid dealing with the content.

What a joke. There is really no excuse for people who are ignorant themselves of science, meaning lacking a rigorous and broad scientific education, to ignore the body of scientific evidence on a range of topics.

This the main difference between faith-based/fundamentalist people and empiricists:

1) Faith-based and traditionalists base their views on tradition, authority, and religious texts. They then go out to find evidence that supports such a view and ignore all evidence that contradicts.

2) Scientific and evidence-based people first look at as much evidence across disciplines, cultures, religions, etc, and then make a hypothesis. If a principle is independently confirmed by peer review, replication, etc, and doesn't encounter any significant counter data, then the hypothesis can become a scientific theory.

But the same principle holds too for all areas of life. "Arguments from authority" versus empiricism.

As a former science teacher, It really bothers me that so many fundamentalists are so anti-science and expect everyone else to conform to their low information beliefs.

I'd modify that, respectfully, to all fundatmentalist intrepretations of religion.....

I really don't see how Buddism impedes human development other then their rather sexist take on things.

Again, I don't really care who or what causes global warming, I care about mitigating the warming so that humanity and other life can survive on this planet. We have the means to do so, but not the will.

These groups prey on frightened and insecure people, like cults.

a reply to: mc_squared

I don't see why it is, that some people refuse to allow others beliefs. Is it going to hurt someone? I mean, everyone here was taught "pseudo-science" and yet I bet you don't find yourselves to be stupid. I doubt you believe it hindered you. More speech, not less, is the answer. If one side of the argument is so much better than the other, there will be no need for silencing the opposition, they will silence themselves.

OR could it be that the whole purpose of this "discussion" is to distract from the real issues.

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: theMediator
I'm all for science but lately, I have big doubts that much of that science is swayed by corporatism.
Suppressed cures and the health risk denials of cell phones are things that comes to mind.

I agree 200% with you, but that's exactly why I'm making the case here that big business is manufacturing all this phony climate skepticism, because the real science is completely inconvenient to their bottom line.

We've seen this type of thing before, not only with tobacco companies suppressing the health hazards of smoking, but also with oil companies holding back the science on lead additives in gasoline:

Firms 'knew of leaded petrol dangers in 20s'


But you seem to be implying (maybe I'm reading your post wrong?) that it's the opposite - that corporations are advancing "the global warming agenda" to further their cause. I've heard this numerous times before, and this perspective has never made a lick of sense to me. So I'd love for someone to actually explain how they think this is happening in greater detail.

Because usually I just get some lazy generic comment about taxes and government scientists, or "follow the money" or whatever. But every time I actually follow it I end up here, at the doorstep of these phony baloney climate denier groups who are being funded by meddling billionaires and oil companies.

Meanwhile this whole idea that global warming is a big scam to get more tax money doesn't make any sense either if you just look beyond the two-bit rhetoric. It's completely backwards. The more things are taxed, the less inclined people are to buy them. It slows overall growth and that's the exact opposite of what big business wants to happen.

The best way to implement a carbon tax is to make it revenue neutral, so all income generated by that tax at the point of purchase is returned to the taxpayer through other means (e.g. lower income taxes). This costs the general public absolutely nothing in the grand scheme, but it still keeps the incentive strong to use carbon-free resources, because doing so will effectively make that conscientious consumer more money.

The only people who actually lose big in this transaction are the carbon producing industries themselves, because they lose all that business.

And this is exactly why they're the ones pushing back on climate action. It's why they're using shady front organizations like The Heartland Institute to perpetuate fake scientific controversy and fake skepticism, and drumming up all sorts of nonsensical fear that the whole thing is just some giant conspiracy to get your precious tax monies.

So you're admitting that taxes provide a disincentive to use something? hmmm.... who would have thought.

Anyway, as for who would pay for the junk science that is CAGW; GE, utility companies, the federal government, and basically every household appliance maker. It's classic marketing. The purpose of a successful marketing campaign is to make you need the sellers product.

So say I'm GE and I have this new light bulb that costs $10 instead of $0.50. Well, I've spent a lot of time and effort on this and it really doesn't do anything more than provide light, just like any other lights. So how am I to sell this? Cost savings over the life of the product is one way but when you're saving thirty dollars over twenty five years, it's pretty difficult to sell.

So how else do you do it? Make the other product seem bad, like a health hazard. It's funny how now that LED's are gaining steam, everyone knows that CFL's have that evil mercury in them, don't you think? Or even better, you stake humanities existence on your products. If everyone would just use LED's or electric cars, or energy efficient televisions and stoves, then we will be saved!!!! Only problem is, you need the science to prove it. So you pay and pay and pay for groups to find what you're looking for. And hell, it's not even a huge leap, just some minor (but very important) details get overlooked, and viola, by 2014 the polar ice caps will be gone! The ocean will rise! and now (since we are entering a cooling period) the oceans will acidify, killing all the beautiful fishy's and corals! All because we evil people had the audacity to drive cars and use incandescent light bulbs!

As for the government's role, it's all about power. Just like Social Security starting out as only a 1% tax, now it eats up 12%. It's the foot in the door, no matter how rational they try to make it sound to start.

Anyway, there you go, that's how, who, and why you could easily have junk science on your side. Not saying it's the truth, just saying how it could be the truth.

a reply to: Dfairlite
Excellent presentation there. It pretty much sums up my view. Where there is money to be made, there are people who will be bought with that cash and won't worry their heads one bit about the consequences. I've seen it firsthand amongst both scientists and religious folk.
I certainly wouldn't call myself a creationist but the theory of evolution has some really glaring holes in it that have yet to be explained to me so I can't call myself part of that group either. I've studied dozens of different creation stories, I just enjoy the pursuit.
I wouldn't call myself a denier of climate change at all but the "why" is still up in the air as far as I can determine. Perhaps if I hadn't learned all that stuff about the Ice Ages in science classes many, many years ago, I could be persuaded beyond doubt that the human race is at the root of this issue of the changing of climate. Perhaps if I hadn't spent years studying anthropology and it's history of the rise and fall of theories about our origins, I could more easily be persuaded that this change is going "kill" the planet. I'm a conservationist in the vein of Benjamin Franklin, "Waste not, want not." so I don't fit into today's consumer world. My grandparents were fervent believers in the view that God gave the earth to people and would judge us by our actions toward the gift.
These issues, in my opinion, are being thrust into our faces to further divide---and conquer. Seeking to define every member of the population as One Thing vs. The Other Thing is simply wrong. There are multitudes of opinions on both religion or climate. When you fall into the trap of "One Thing vs. The Other Thing" those who are attempting to divert your attention have succeeded. They, the "One-ers" and the "Others" are there to make power and exercise power. And it's always at the expense of those of us who refuse to be herded into their small box categories.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Anyway, as for who would pay for the junk science that is CAGW; GE, utility companies, the federal government, and basically every household appliance maker. It's classic marketing. The purpose of a successful marketing campaign is to make you need the sellers product.

Ok, well thanks for taking me up on my request, but I'm sorry - this is the exact sort of loopy backwards conspiracy speak I am talking about. So CAGW is “junk science” paid for by GE and the appliance industry so we will need their light bulbs? Yeah, because nobody ever had a use for light bulbs before there was global warming.

Furthermore here’s how you've got it totally backwards:

LED lights make less money for the companies selling them because of the fact that they last way longer. This is exactly what companies like GE literally conspired to prevent for decades by colluding with other light bulb manufacturers in the 1920s. These companies pretty much got together and invented the concept of planned obsolescence. Google something called the Phoebus Cartel:

The cartel was a convenient way to lower costs and worked to standardise the life expectancy of light bulbs at 1000 hours, while at the same time raising prices without fear of competition. Members' bulbs were regularly tested and fines were levied for bulbs that lasted more than 1000 hours.

There’s even an excellent documentary on all this called The Lightbulb Conspiracy

Giant corporations are all about planned obsolescence. They want you to keep having to replace your light bulbs. They want you to “upgrade” your cell phone, your laptop, your TV, your car, your shoes, everything. They want you to consume as much as possible, just like energy companies want you to use as much energy as possible – because that’s what makes them all more money. They work very hard at pushing out all sorts of propaganda to make you associate these wallet-flexing exercises with your own so-called "freedom".

Meanwhile LED light bulbs, energy efficiency, sustainability, reducing waste – these are all core tenets of the global warming solution and they run 180 degrees opposite to this agenda.

And this is exactly why the real conspiracy here is climate denial, being pushed by these corporate handpuppets like the Heartland Institute who advertise themselves as “free market think tanks”.


So I hate to tell you, but your post sounds chock full of Fox News style talking points and nothing more to me. In fact I couldn't help but notice you used the term “junk science” twice in there. The whole junk science lead is yet another fantastic example of how fake lobbyist organizations manipulate and brainwash people to think so backwards about this.

I challenge you to go read this thread - it’s all about the man who injected the idea of “junk science” into this debate - and reconsider where you're getting your information from.

originally posted by: rigel4


Unlike religion, which of course holds human beings in a 2000 year old fairy tale grip of nonsense.

carry on

Ah.

I see.

Specifying an age of 200 years pretty much narrows down just which religion you have a gripe with.

Carry on, then.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Dfairlite

Anyway, as for who would pay for the junk science that is CAGW; GE, utility companies, the federal government, and basically every household appliance maker. It's classic marketing. The purpose of a successful marketing campaign is to make you need the sellers product.

So I hate to tell you, but your post sounds chock full of Fox News style talking points and nothing more to me.

And there goes your credibility, right out the window. I have an equation for disqualifying posts, because i'm all about an honest debate. When dealing with leftists, it is # of responses before fox (or as most of you like to say faux) is interjected as some sort of ad hominem attack on source. if the ratio of responses to fox news attacks is greater than 1:2, then I can disqualify your comments as nothing but trollish. You're 1:1 (not the worst I've had, but definitely pretty bad, you jumped on the bashing bandwagon as quick as possible)

You may have some points, but when you cheapen your argument to that level, it rarely means you have any real substance. See, I don't watch fox news, I visit their website less than most other news outlets and have no real bias programmed by media because I don't view public media on any sort of regular basis. So accusing me of any "style talking points" doesn't hold any water.

I'll give you one more chance though because you bring up an important point.

"LED lights make less money for the companies selling them because of the fact that they last way longer."

First, one example is not proof that they aren't behind it. If they lower profit margins in one area, but raise them in five others it's worth taking the hit. So that type of logic is flawed, but partially my fault for mentioning LED's specifically. "Energy efficiency" is a big marketing ploy in the sales of everything, from lightbulbs to microwaves.

Second, making less money in order to put your competition out of business (I mean, they did get the government to ban incandescent bulbs) or harm them irreparably is common place in the business world. They have classes on it in every college in the nation, it's called strategic competition.

As for planned obsolescence; I agree to an extent, but at the same time the life of those products becoming obsolete is similar to the life of the products because they know there is no point making a PC that will last 25 years since it will just get junked after 5. Why spend the extra effort and money? And no, life cycle is not a conspiracy theory. I work for a technology company, there is no planned obsolescence as far as not trying to make things hold more storage/access it faster.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Dfairlite

Anyway, as for who would pay for the junk science that is CAGW; GE, utility companies, the federal government, and basically every household appliance maker. It's classic marketing. The purpose of a successful marketing campaign is to make you need the sellers product.

So I hate to tell you, but your post sounds chock full of Fox News style talking points and nothing more to me.

And there goes your credibility, right out the window. I have an equation for disqualifying posts, because i'm all about an honest debate. When dealing with leftists, it is # of responses before fox (or as most of you like to say faux) is interjected as some sort of ad hominem attack on source. if the ratio of responses to fox news attacks is greater than 1:2, then I can disqualify your comments as nothing but trollish. You're 1:1 (not the worst I've had, but definitely pretty bad, you jumped on the bashing bandwagon as quick as possible)

You may have some points, but when you cheapen your argument to that level, it rarely means you have any real substance. See, I don't watch fox news, I visit their website less than most other news outlets and have no real bias programmed by media because I don't view public media on any sort of regular basis. So accusing me of any "style talking points" doesn't hold any water.

I'll give you one more chance though because you bring up an important point.

"LED lights make less money for the companies selling them because of the fact that they last way longer."

First, one example is not proof that they aren't behind it. If they lower profit margins in one area, but raise them in five others it's worth taking the hit. So that type of logic is flawed, but partially my fault for mentioning LED's specifically. "Energy efficiency" is a big marketing ploy in the sales of everything, from lightbulbs to microwaves.

Second, making less money in order to put your competition out of business (I mean, they did get the government to ban incandescent bulbs) or harm them irreparably is common place in the business world. They have classes on it in every college in the nation, it's called strategic competition.

As for planned obsolescence; I agree to an extent, but at the same time the life of those products becoming obsolete is similar to the life of the products because they know there is no point making a PC that will last 25 years since it will just get junked after 5. Why spend the extra effort and money? And no, life cycle is not a conspiracy theory. I work for a technology company, there is no planned obsolescence as far as not trying to make things hold more storage/access it faster.

all good stuff!

the LEDs are called a "leading loser" it's a way to get people in the door. (resto tactic) usually not everyone will go for the special but people will come because of it. simple.
good PR for the company.
they are cheap and saves electric, which is not the Led's makers problem.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

An even bigger joke, is that those scientists actually believe they are not being controlled, and shifted to make those opinions.

It IS a close minded OP ENTIRELY, because it fails to look at all facets of the issue.

Clearly, man can have effect on climate, and other things, and CLEARLY we can see MAN having effect on the SCIENTISTS.

I love how the scientists that are pushed with BILLIONS of dollars to tell us how we need to be punished for the fact corporations that are PAYING THEM, are in control, and scientists of differing opinion, or maybe out of the MAINSTREAM are completely silenced.

This topic is hilarious too me, it shows the complete inability of the RELIGION of MAN MADE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, to have any hope in the WORLD to convince the TRUE atheist that we can actually trust the garbage spewed by them either!!!

Like are you serious ? Go to school and try to learn science with an open mind!!!!

You will be booted out of school, for your opinions!!