It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gov't Climate Researcher Exposed for Hiding Funds...So Breitbart Jumps to His Rescue?

page: 2
37
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: mc_squared

You, my esteemed friend, have cut to the chase. I meant no offense in my choice of speech.


None taken


The whole issue of the media in general though is a huge can worms. It’s a slippery slope because the media absolutely over-sensationalizes everything, but you also have to ask why they do it: because it sells. And media is ultimately just another business that likes money.

So who is at fault: the media that sells the ridiculous product, or the consumers that continuously buy it up (and in doing so demand more and more of this endless nonsense)? I’m not sure it even matters anymore because the whole thing has just become a vicious self-feeding cycle.

But that’s why the burden ultimately falls that much more on us – the ones that carry the “deny ignorance” flag who want to see truth and critical thinking triumph over mindless propaganda. It might be an unfair burden, but it’s something I think most of us here embrace anyway, because it's why we gather at a place like ATS in the first place.

I’m just trying to draw attention to an issue that I think sadly gets easily confused or outright ignored too often around here. It’s easy to just go “Aaaagh taxes! Government regulation! Global warming is a conspiracy!!”. But there are many layers to this onion, not the least of which is the potential conspiracy to create a conspiracy. If people want to get to the truth then they need to be willing to peel back all those layers, not just the ones that appeal to their ideological tastes.




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
It really doesn't matter if GW is real or not. We don't have any affordable, viable alternatives to our current fossil fuel based energy grid. Until we do the point is moot unless we are willing to return to the stone age which the majority of the people are not. This is the social and economic reality no matter how many studies are pumped out by climate change scientists.


This statement isn't even remotely accurate – it’s just another serving of empty calories from the bullsh** buffet at places like Breitbart and FOX News.

The price of renewables has been plummeting for decades and it’s gotten to the point where there’s already cost competitive infrastructure in place: Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels

And there's no end in sight - some major financial institutions like Deutsche Bank are predicting solar will hit grid parity across the U.S. as early as next year: Solar Grid Parity In All 50 US States By 2016, Predicts Deutsche Bank

With the rest of the world right behind: Deutsche Bank Predicts Solar Grid Parity In 80% Of Global Market By 2017

...
And yes, it does matter if GW is real, because fossil fuels carry all sorts of hidden environmental health costs that (conveniently) always get left out of this equation. How much do you think it will cost to build a levy around all of Florida if we just stick to the business-as-usual game plan?

When you factor in these elements, renewables are already saving us tons of money:
Wind power is cheapest energy, EU analysis finds


The hyperbole here though is another one of my favorite hypocrisies in the global warming conspiracy. The deniers are always trying to paint the other side as a bunch of alarmist chicken littles. Literally, it's been a strategy in their playbook for over 25 years:




Meanwhile look at their own end:

“Agenda 21!”
“They want to tax the air we breathe!!”
“We will have to go back to the stone age!!!”

Do you not see the very obvious projection bias in play?




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
It should also be noted that Dr. Soon was a frequent Fox "News" contributor in their non-stop propaganda wave in support of the fossil fuel industry.


Don't even get me started on FOX. A while back I did some digging on their connections and the end result was this thread:

Here's 100% Proof That FOX News Are Straight Up Lying, Corporate Shills.

They are so blatantly and deeply guilty here. They took one of these shills who ran a PR company hired by Big Tobacco to question the science on the health hazards of smoking, and then later began questioning climate science when Big Oil cheques started showing up in his mailbox too - and they made him their resident "expert" on climate change.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

You really misrepresent what I wrote. If you look at my posting history, then you will see that I understand the problems that human activity is causing on our planet. CO2 is rising, CH4 is rising, both contribute to warming so it is logical to assume that human activity is causing the planet to warm, however I do believe there are more immediate issues on this planet that need to be addressed and the Global Warming debate has become a red herring and now we have a false dilemma, aka an either, or fallacy with the debate over global warming that acts as a distraction.

Instead of actually making progress in helping the planet, we are stuck debating an issue that is difficult to prove. Unless Earth warms at an incredible rate, we still will not be able to 'prove' that the planet is warming with statistics 101 within our lifetimes, this gives the anti-warming crowd a leg to stand on in these 'debates'. It does however appear the world is warming as a result of human activity.

Lately I have been posting in these threads because the arguments the anti-global warming crowd makes are generally full of fallacies and I feel obligated to point those out.

It is frustrating how the anti-climate change crowd will deny and deny obvious facts, like the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of the industrial age.
edit on 26-2-2015 by jrod because: 101



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
It really is a mental illness at play here. It's like they don't how science works and they want to be afraid!


I agree completely... There is definitely some sort of mental illness in modern humanity which causes them to turn everything into a campaign of fear mongering and calamity.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

The wagons have started circling. Curry, Spencer, Pielke are blogging about it, Watts is in a tizzy... they're all calling it a witch hunt for the skeptical 7 (LOL).



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
So the point is...well there is no point really. Debating this topic is 99% pointless because people will just twist all this evidence to fit their pre-disposed beliefs one way or the other.


Agreed. Thanks for wasting my time.




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The other side of the argument is that these government sources are pushing AGW theory as fact because it open the door for them to pass more legislation, claim more control over the people, and extort more taxes from their constituents while universities and the like ride along due to the nature of public university funding being largely at the whim of their political leadership.


That makes plenty of sense, because politicians LOVE raising taxes on their constituents and wealthy and powerful donors for the benefit of unborn people who don't vote!

Oh wait..........



Not exactly sure what further evidence is needed, really. You clearly have a circle jerk of policy makers being in charge of money sources towards the folks developing the data they use to publicly make their policies. It is absolutely apparent that there is a direct cost and power benefit to the scientists and governments to ensure AGW is not questioned.


No it isn't. In practice, the actual scientists who participate say that they get pressure from governmental sources to downplay the importance and strength of their findings to make the need for action less apparent.

And it's been questioned and examined up the wazoo for decades.

edit on 26-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jefwane
One sponsor i would be looking for closely on the goal warming team aside from academia and government is from banks and wall street. Those guys are chomping at the bit to get to trading carbon credits so that they can skim even more from those that produce something.

I personally am not that concerned about climate change mainly because i don't trust either side.


That's precisely the reason for the tactic of the self-interested denialists.


I am concerned about other ecological issues like deforestation, over fishing, clean water, and ocean pollution.


And so, do you believe all the scientists on deforestation, fishing, water and ocean pollution are ALSO socialist globalists who hate freedom? When you start pushing on those to change behavior in a way which may reduce the profits and paychecks of wealthy and powerful people, won't the same crap come out? "love fish more than people", "arrogant to think man can change God's bounty", "control & regulate & tax", blah blah blah.

This supposedly being concerned about "other ecological" issues other than the biggest one in the history of civilization is a convenient psychological crutch to not be seen as a "bad guy who doesn't care".



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maxmars
I am often amused by the relative success the media routinely achieves obfuscating the issue of the matter; while effectively negating the legitimacy of any input. (It seems oddly parallel to the old conspiracy theorist meme... "show me evidence" and then "I don't accept that evidence!")

The network structure of the Academic Industrial Complex is such that there are in fact NO objective approaches to any research that is "funded" via a systematic entity who exists solely to make revenue flow through 'institutions."

Even the "squeaky clean" institutional research efforts cannot escape the fact that the revenue flow they facilitate is already tainted by the political posture of various committee members, the level of "commercial" interest in the outcome, and the treacherously undefinable manipulation of public imagery foisted upon us via press releases, and editorialized reporting.


And yet somehow that system works better than any other one in funding truthful basic research in every area of science.



Of course, I am struck suspicious when they idea that the researcher "hid" the connections comes to mind. If there was a deliberate "hiding" happening - then yes - it deserves the scrutiny of balanced inquiry....

... unfortunately, the only people who are allowed to "SAY" they conduct balanced inquiry and report findings are the make believe "press" ... who are neither balanced, nor capable of inquiry at all... mostly now the generalization is true that they simply collate press releases and editorialize social mine-able data to "create" hyped and dramatized articles that foment highly-charged arguments about the irrelevant peripheral matters that don't speak to the so-called subject of the research.


Very well. When they interview other scientists about the value of Soon's work, what will you accuse them of then?



If we are to directly accuse someone of manipulating the facts, in order to forge a truth that is 'expedient' to their 'belief;' recognize that such a belief is not based in fact.

By associating known 'interested' influential institutions with the researcher we are doing no less than applying the old "guilt by association" which more often than not leads us not towards the facts, but away from them, towards a more marketable 'truth.'


Because the fossil fuel industry has only a negative potential interest in climate science, to deny the scientific results.

Fossil fuel industry giving money to scientists to work on geophysical modeling, rheology, fluid mechanics, ocean corrosion, etc, it's generally legitimate because there is a clear reason why the industry would want honest results of the open research. Philip Morris paying for agriculture R&D is OK, but you bet that their funding for cancer research was 100% intended for lying baloney.



The connection between Soon and the "energy" industry funding, is merely a circumstantial connection


Really? Private industry wants results useful for their specific financial goals.

Ah, and in really sharp contrast the connection been the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and academic funding institutions which support basic science research on every major subject, that's a criminal indictment, right?

("energy" == fossil fuel polluting)



- the kind political pundits "love" to abuse for our entertainment. It does not - in fact - automatically mean the industry successfully "influenced" the researcher(s). Also, the idea that the principle "researcher" has adopted a position means little... why? Because the position is based upon "'research."

Research - despite the ostensible position that it is the 'god' gift of organized science to humanity - is NOT a guarantee that it is CORRECT nor that it is CORRECTLY interpreted.


No, which is why you work on something consistently worldwide for many years before making major policy recommendations. Which is what happened.



What "outrage" is being cultivated by the NYT article is just as potentially skewed and over-dramatized as the idea that researcher's must live in a professional bubble or their every pronouncement is poisoned fruit.


And if you found a cancer researcher who was putting out articles questining mainstream theories, and then found out they were hiding funding from tobacco industry...... 'oh that's just circumstantial?'.
edit on 26-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: mc_squared

The wagons have started circling. Curry, Spencer, Pielke are blogging about it, Watts is in a tizzy... they're all calling it a witch hunt for the skeptical 7 (LOL).


Well pass the popcorn because I think maybe it’s all finally going down.

This “witch hunt” is so long overdue. I hope they take no prisoners. Every one of these sheisters who took money and lied in front of Congress should be investigated for perjury plain and simple.

I love how they’re all rallying around Pielke too because “he’s not even a skeptic”. It’s like those racists who deny their racism because they “have a friend who’s black”.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I think the timing of all this is no coincidence either with the Merchants of Doubt movie set for release next week.

Not sure how much impact the film will make on the general public (i.e. not sure how widely it will be released) but the director Robert Kenner is the guy who did Food Inc, so if it becomes even half as popular as that documentary you know why these guys are posturing so much for damage control already.

I can't wait to see this film.

Peter Sinclair posted a kind of teaser on it today and it's awesome:



There's some amazing stuff in there on Fred Singer starting at around the 5:30 mark.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
I love how they’re all rallying around Pielke too because “he’s not even a skeptic”. It’s like those racists who deny their racism because they “have a friend who’s black”.


Pielke?

You mean this one?

www.skepticalscience.com...

It's a good idea also to be skeptical of skeptics. How has their track record been?

www.theguardian.com... ve-been-right?CMP=share_btn_fb

Pretty lousy as it turns out.

Oh, and finally, did anybody notice? The denialists have no consistent scientific position, argument, or physical mechanism. Nobody can settle on solar influence, CFC's, methane, clouds, great spaghetti monster, aerosols, extraterrestrials, socialist Illuminati, etc, it's a big self-contradictory hodgpodge of nonsense.


edit on 26-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
This is a great thread. Finally someone making sense on this topic at ats. Thank you and keep it up please.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

It's actually Junior Pielke they're talking about here, but he's certainly just as inconsistent and nonsensical as his dad.

Junior likes to play the field by going on record and stating he agrees humans are contributing to global warming (like it gives him street cred or something), but then he uses the same obfuscation techniques to confuse the issue to no end.

The fact that the rest of the deniers "don't get" why he's being included in this so-called witch hunt actually says a lot about them: because they want to play up this delusional Galileo-fantasy that they are just being persecuted for their beliefs.

But nobody here is being persecuted for their beliefs - they're being persecuted for distorting, cherry-picking and manipulating the facts to espouse those beliefs.

Pielke Jr's just as guilty as the rest of them.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: whatsup86

Well thanks for noticing it makes sense


I think there's a lot of people who have trouble grasping just how much sense it makes, unfortunately for no other reason than this mountain of ideological bias and cognitive discomfort they have to climb past to get here first.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
It's all a big clusterf***k and I'm tired of it.

If you want real proof then sit twiddling your thumbs until 2050-and if the climate polarizes and we get hotter summers and colder winters then the skeptics will have egg on their faces, but if that doesn't happen and we are still choking on carbon monoxide fumes then who benefits from that?

I know where I stand-we are doing harm to the planet and anyone with half a brain can't deny that fact. Many people can pull a pie chart out of their butts if the price is right but the fact remains that if we continue on this path there will be negative repercussions.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Distorting and cherry picking mc mate......

And you had the bare faced cheek to use the complete BS 97% garbage.....OMG dissonance indeed...cook and lewandowsky has been so completely taken apart, not least by the folks who wrote some of the papers which were evaluated to come up with that ridiculous statistic in the first place.


Listen to history and a very great man. A certain Mr Einstein and argue with him.. Consensus has no place in science if I were wrong it would take only one.. Response to 100 German scientist against his Jewish science...



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared
In cahoots with academia?
Would you suggest that they be should cahooting with morons who are uninformed about nearly everything?

Of course not, because you reason.

Folks who don't reason, tend to be grossly misinformed on nearly everything. Whether it's climatology, biology, politics, history, economics, evolution, medicine, religion and their self-interest, the wahoos find that all those pointy headed intellectuals are ruining the country.
You know because, no really because and not only that because. Honest.
The inadmissibility of hard to learn concepts is intrinsic to the academically challenged and the agenda charged. They need to stay in shop and general business classes so that their self-esteem is preserved. Then when the short bus stops dropping them off from school we give them license to vote and to share their opinions with us.
We who were not sheltered from complicated 'things' are always stunned by their sheer ignorance and truly awesome lack of comprehension. They think we mock them but really what we are is shocked by the knowledge we must share the world with them.

It's like discovering Gilligan is coming to live with you. Forever.
Even better, they want you to consider them not only as your equals but your moral superiors. Because, you know, they want it sooo much.
Reminds me of Rocket Raccoon asking the security dude GOTG, "But what if I want it more?"

Worse they are like tourists (which they are in the realms of 'smart') who keep raising their voices and repeating the same inanities expecting you to NOW understand them. What they fail to recognize, amongst so many other things, is that they are saying nothing of importance to us. We already have considered that short circuited line of thought and dismissed it as trivial. What we DO recognize is, that if we ignore them, at least out thoughts will be clearer. If we DO allow them to express themselves and act as if we are attempting to appreciate their awkward framing of facts and resultant incorrect conclusions, they think they won. Even if every item of their stance is refuted.
If they find one thing wrong with our arguments, they will rail about the 'tard' aspect of all conclusions thus derived and trumpet that triumph to their similarly deficient supporters.
In counterpoint, you can not get them to leave their opinions, faith, beliefs and fantasies out of a discussion.

So, we are in a quandary, do we keep acting as if they are useful for anything other than cutting lawns or do we just let the immigrants take their jobs and let the sad refugees from logic isolate themselves in the South?

Hate me for what I am, an agnostic freethinker. Love me for being honest about the retro-reptiles masquerading as humans.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deharg
Distorting and cherry picking mc mate......

And you had the bare faced cheek to use the complete BS 97% garbage.....OMG dissonance indeed...cook and lewandowsky has been so completely taken apart, not least by the folks who wrote some of the papers which were evaluated to come up with that ridiculous statistic in the first place.


Not at all. The attribution of the for and against was directly confirmed by the authors of the underlying papers. And if it were only 50% then there would be a flood of 'anti AGW' climate papers being published in mainstream journals. And the masses of scientists who were counted as being "pro-AGW" (**) when they weren't. Where are they? Where's the beef?

I'm surprised that there is even 3%.

(**) Scientists are 'pro-AGW' the way a doctor is 'pro-cancer'. It's awful but foolish to deny scientific fact.



Listen to history and a very great man. A certain Mr Einstein and argue with him.. Consensus has no place in science if I were wrong it would take only one.. Response to 100 German scientist against his Jewish science...


Ironically, misleading again. Einstein's insights were immediately considered powerful and important by most of the physics community, and other than general relativity, were taken into account and confirmed fairly rapidly. Einstein was always considered seriously among the top rank of scientists since 1905.

It was the denialist-Nazi scientists who are like the denialists on climate, who disagree with the mainstream and correct interpretation of physical reality, no matter how uncomfortable it is and no matter the political & cultural background of the proponents. Heisenberg himself wasn't so foolish to dismiss Einstein.
edit on 27-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join