Anti global warming conservative removed from Natural History museum board

originally posted by: CB328

politically gaming the system to gain funding for projects, and line their pocket books

We're supposed to believe that scientist are bad, greedy people, but business people who stand to save a lot of money from lying about science are not?!

How could anyone believe something so ridiculous?

Scientists who rely on government grants to survive become greedy. How do you all not see how this promotes them to fudge the numbers to ensure their job security? Kinda like how if the EPA actually succeeded in protecting the environment they would no longer be needed. How about the DEA and the war on drugs? You liberals love to harp on the war on drugs. If the federal government legalized marijuana a few thousand DEA agent's would go unemployed.

Come on man you have been here long enough to understand these simple mechanisms of our government...

Right?...

Punished for "wrongthink".

Not that I like the Hillary supporting brothers.

a reply to: CB328

DB said this :

Did they kill them or just send them off to an "education" camp?

And you replied :

We're not that lucky.

So basically you're saying kill or imprison anyone who doesn't think/believe the same as you. Tell us again how Progressives are the champions of all inclusiveness?
Yeah, we've seen your version of "love and tolerance". You can keep it.

originally posted by: MRinder
Oh imagine. Liberals complaining about someone not believing the same as they do. God forbid somebody commit ThoughtCrime.

Science isn't about belief. It's about verifiable evidence. You are confusing science with religion.

originally posted by: dug88

I'm not going to get involved but I do want to point out...not just to you...but science is not some overarching thing one believes in or not..it's a way of studying the world. Someone who understands the science of chemistry doesn't necessarily have the slightest understanding of ecology or biology. Also, understanding both doesn't mean they'd give a # about the consequences if their chemistry negatively impacts the world's ecology...because as you say, they have an invested interest in chemistry.

I'm not getting into the climate change debate because I don't care either way...whether or not the climate is changing because of humans doesn't really matter because there's # all we can do about it at this point....

But....I will point out that people who stand to lose money should their products be proven harmful to the world are probably not going to be that interested in agreeing with the people telling them their products are #ing the world.

And anyone that thinks pollution from companies like their's aren't destroying the world needs to get the # off the internet and take some time outside to visit some industrial waste sites or ocean dead zones. You can say what you like about climate change but anyone that trys to say pollution isn't poisoning the ocean, land and the air is a #ing idiot.

It so easy to be pious. Definition - making a hypocritical display of virtue.

Are you going to really try to make us think you never use toilet paper, heat your house, eat food grown with fertilizer, drive a car, use plastic trash bags, use electricity, use a computer, use a cell phone, eat meat, etc...

Did you ever stop to imagine what your life would be like without any of these things? You would basically be a cave man. Is that what you want?

Basically, it doesn't matter whether the Koch brothers believe in regards global climate change. They are providing a service to humanity by providing what people want and need. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be making piles of money.

I am not sure what has happened to most of the scientific community. Its like they turned into the Catholic Church excommunicating Galileo for disagreeing with them. That's not science. That's religion. Did you ever see Einstein, Newton, or Darwin doing everything they can to excommunicate anyone who didn't agree with their THEORIES?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MRinder
Oh imagine. Liberals complaining about someone not believing the same as they do. God forbid somebody commit ThoughtCrime.

Science isn't about belief. It's about verifiable evidence. You are confusing science with religion.

No, you are confusing science with religion. The religion of the God of climate change. The religion where if you happen to disagree with the THEORY of global climate change you are a blasphemer and you shall be banned from the community.

The funniest thing about all of this is that the Koch's are probably going to stop giving money, so now they will have more and the Natural History Museum will have less or at least have to work harder to make up the difference. And why is that?

a reply to: MRinder

Nope. I haven't confused anything with anything. All I ever see from anti-climate change people is empty rhetoric, partisan talking points, and slurs. I never see you guys using science or presenting scientific findings to disprove it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MRinder

Nope. I haven't confused anything with anything. All I ever see from anti-climate change people is empty rhetoric, partisan talking points, and slurs. I never see you guys using science or presenting scientific findings to disprove it.

Well its pretty hard to disprove that the climate changes, since it obviously does every minute of the day. That was a nice move on the promoters of this THEORY, to change it from global warming to global climate change when none of their models for warming were panning out. I envy good marketers.

I am old enough to remember that before global warming and climate change there was also a THEORY that we were going into a global ice age. So forgive me if I am a little hesitant to excommunicate my fellow man or to consider them evil for disagreeing with the current scientific THEORY.

Personally, I don't know which side is correct. For all I know we will all be frying like eggs in a frying pan in a few years or possibly freezing our rear ends off. What I do know is that not one single "SOLUTION" that I have been presented with even claims to solve the problem. They say things like if we introduce carbon taxes and cut down on using fossil fuels then MAYBE the temperature will be .2 degrees less in 50 or 100 years after we have spent trillions of dollars.

I do know that climate science is incredibly complex. It is almost impossible at this point to model accurately even in the very near future like in the next few hours let alone 50 or 100 years from now. How do I know this? Though observation. Like sometimes the google weather app says its going to rain between 2 and 3pm, but it is only accurate some of the time. I also know that it takes incredible computing power to model the weather, even in the near term let alone 50 to 100 years from now. Why do I make these points? Am I stupid or something? I make them because what it tells me is that scientists are making a best guess at the future. I am sure someday they will have enough computing power and the correct models to know, but right now they do not.

I also know that historically there have been very high levels of carbon (even higher than now) in the atmosphere due to things like volcanic eruptions but the mechanisms of the earth have dealt with them. Sure this could be a one time event that the earth can handle and maybe it cant handle a never ending barrage of carbon spewed into the environment. That is certainly a possibility.

On the other hand I do understand humans. We are going to do what we have to do to survive today. For example, that means that if we have to burn trees to keep our families warm today we will. Just look at Haiti. Its almost completely deforested because they have cut all the trees down to survive for any given day.

I also understand the inefficiency and corruptness of governments. It seems inherent in humans to skim a little here and there. I suppose it goes back to surviving or thriving for the day. So that means a complex tax scheme meant to redistribute wealth to attack the problem of global warming will only provide a fraction of the actual results that are promised.

The fact is humans will use fossil fuels and modern conveniences because no matter what laws or taxes are involved. Why? Because it makes their today better.

It seems like the real solution would have to come from some sort of inventions that extract carbon from the air and turn it into something useful that makes human lives better. But even if we can do that the question is should we. Humans don't have the best track record with monkeying with nature. For all we know, we extract carbon dioxide out of the environment and create an ice age or probably more likely we create some other negative unforeseen problem that is worse than the one we were facing. If there is one thing that is sure about science it's that a lot of it is wrong. How many theories from the past that were believed to be absolute truths have been proven wrong? A lot! That's not saying anything bad about science because generally you have to make a lot of mistakes to get to the truth.. It is a part of learning and so people create THEORIES and they and other people go about trying to prove or disprove of them. That's science.

What science is not is villainizing and trying to destroy the lives of anyone who happens to disagree with your theory. That is the stuff of religions, cults, and politics.

originally posted by: MRinder
Well its pretty hard to disprove that the climate changes, since it obviously does every minute of the day. That was a nice move on the promoters of this THEORY, to change it from global warming to global climate change when none of their models for warming were panning out. I envy good marketers.

Don't change the conversation. We all know that the debate is around man made climate change. Making an irrelevant point about natural climate change is just a distraction.

I am old enough to remember that before global warming and climate change there was also a THEORY that we were going into a global ice age. So forgive me if I am a little hesitant to excommunicate my fellow man or to consider them evil for disagreeing with the current scientific THEORY.

Theories change. Plus you are wrong. Global cooling was never a theory. It was just a predicted outcome that was later shown to be wrong.

Personally, I don't know which side is correct. For all I know we will all be frying like eggs in a frying pan in a few years or possibly freezing our rear ends off. What I do know is that not one single "SOLUTION" that I have been presented with even claims to solve the problem. They say things like if we introduce carbon taxes and cut down on using fossil fuels then MAYBE the temperature will be .2 degrees less in 50 or 100 years after we have spent trillions of dollars.

In other words you are saying that you are uneducated on the matter but are arguing with me anyways. How about looking up the scientific evidence on the matter and following where it leads? But saying you are against climate science because of political arguments is NOT a scientific approach and just shows an unwillingness to change your thinking.

I do know that climate science is incredibly complex. It is almost impossible at this point to model accurately even in the very near future like in the next few hours let alone 50 or 100 years from now. How do I know this? Though observation. Like sometimes the google weather app says its going to rain between 2 and 3pm, but it is only accurate some of the time. I also know that it takes incredible computing power to model the weather, even in the near term let alone 50 to 100 years from now. Why do I make these points? Am I stupid or something? I make them because what it tells me is that scientists are making a best guess at the future. I am sure someday they will have enough computing power and the correct models to know, but right now they do not.

What observation? Your eyes? Scientists have technologies that are FAR more intricate and data collection then your eyes and limited experience. Your eyes and local anecdotes don't trump scientific analysis. Scientific modeling isn't perfect, but it is certainly better than your own anecdotes. Plus the models improve in accuracy as newer technology comes out.

I also know that historically there have been very high levels of carbon (even higher than now) in the atmosphere due to things like volcanic eruptions but the mechanisms of the earth have dealt with them. Sure this could be a one time event that the earth can handle and maybe it cant handle a never ending barrage of carbon spewed into the environment. That is certainly a possibility.

Yes. Back in the time of the dinosaurs. We, humans, didn't live during these time periods. Furthermore, human civilization didn't deal with those high carbon levels. Just because it was in the past doesn't mean that civilization will just readily adapt to the change when it occurs.

On the other hand I do understand humans. We are going to do what we have to do to survive today. For example, that means that if we have to burn trees to keep our families warm today we will. Just look at Haiti. Its almost completely deforested because they have cut all the trees down to survive for any given day.

True, but it is always easier to get in front of a problem and fix it while it is small. Fixing it when it blows up in our faces costs FAR more resources and manpower. I'd rather do things the easy way. Wouldn't you?

I also understand the inefficiency and corruptness of governments. It seems inherent in humans to skim a little here and there. I suppose it goes back to surviving or thriving for the day. So that means a complex tax scheme meant to redistribute wealth to attack the problem of global warming will only provide a fraction of the actual results that are promised.

The fact is humans will use fossil fuels and modern conveniences because no matter what laws or taxes are involved. Why? Because it makes their today better.

That's why we need to find alternative sources that are cheaper but green so that we can supplant that stuff.

It seems like the real solution would have to come from some sort of inventions that extract carbon from the air and turn it into something useful that makes human lives better. But even if we can do that the question is should we. Humans don't have the best track record with monkeying with nature. For all we know, we extract carbon dioxide out of the environment and create an ice age or probably more likely we create some other negative unforeseen problem that is worse than the one we were facing. If there is one thing that is sure about science it's that a lot of it is wrong. How many theories from the past that were believed to be absolute truths have been proven wrong? A lot! That's not saying anything bad about science because generally you have to make a lot of mistakes to get to the truth.. It is a part of learning and so people create THEORIES and they and other people go about trying to prove or disprove of them. That's science.

If you have a machine that can do that then patent it and present it to the community. Wishing it exists isn't going to make it happen. Furthermore, that is engineering.

Also, scientific theories are a collection of processes with tons of evidence behind them. They are not the same as a layman's theory. Don't mix them up.

What science is not is villainizing and trying to destroy the lives of anyone who happens to disagree with your theory. That is the stuff of religions and cults.

As I said originally, present scientific evidence against man made climate change first. You just talked to me and gave me your opinion. Heck you even admitted that you don't understand things yet you are coming to scientific conclusions while not understanding what you are talking about. That is a fallacy and certainly isn't science. If you want to debate science, then you need to come to the table with a full deck of cards. Opinions and political arguments aren't valid cards to play on the table either.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You do realize that I believe that it is entirely possible that man-made climate change is real, however it is just a THEORY. Like most theories there is evidence to back it up, but there is also evidence that makes it suspect. Science is not infallible. The very least we should be able to agree on is that so far the modelling for climate change has not been accurate, ie the temperature is not rising along the lines of the models.

I really don't see how me hoping for an invention that removes carbon dioxide from the air is any different than your hope that we develop ways to create products that replace fossil fuels. People are working on solutions to remove carbon from the air just as people are working to improve solar energy to the point that it is a truly viable product or building electric cars the masses actually want and can afford to buy.

I am all for creating new forms of energy that are positive for nature, for creating an electric car that is superior to fossil fuel powered vehicles as long as they are a net positive for the environment and mankind. I am also for creating chemicals that are less hazardous to humans, animals, and the environment.

I just don't think anyone has presented a viable solution to man-made climate change. I hope that people do whatever they are capable of to make the world a better place.

Do you have a viable solution to man-made climate change? If so, I would love to hear it, because up to this point in my existence nobody has presented me with one.

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You do realize that I believe that it is entirely possible that man-made climate change is real, however it is just a THEORY. Like most theories there is evidence to back it up, but there is also evidence that makes it suspect. Science is not infallible. The very least we should be able to agree on is that so far the modelling for climate change has not been accurate, ie the temperature is not rising along the lines of the models.

That isn't how scientific theories work. Saying the phrase, "it's just a theory" is one of the more ignorant things you can say about scientific theories.
"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

If you have evidence that makes MMCC suspect, then produce it. Just pontificating that exists doesn't magically make it so.

I really don't see how me hoping for an invention that removes carbon dioxide from the air is any different than your hope that we develop ways to create products that replace fossil fuels. People are working on solutions to remove carbon from the air just as people are working to improve solar energy to the point that it is a truly viable product or building electric cars the masses actually want and can afford to buy.

Well there is an actual industry dedicated to creating renewable and green sources of industry. I can't say the same about your idea.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here I will do my part to make the world a better place. The theory of MMCC is a totally and undeniable fact that is infallible. We are all going to die from it so let's come up with a solution. What is your solution to MMCC?

a reply to: MRinder

That is a long and complicated answer that I really don't have the time or ability to go into on this forum. There are people smarter than myself that haven't figured that out yet. For one, there is no simple "catch all" solution to the problem. We are going to have to implement many different solutions and microsolutions. Some of these solutions may not bare fruit for quite some time either. Also, there are many small steps that must be undertaken and achieved to get the desired saturation to implement a wide scale solution. One of those small steps is to move the discussion past if MMCC is real or not. Pretending like the topic is still up for debate goes a long way in hindering any progress we can make on curbing or eliminating excess carbon emissions.

a reply to: MRinder

The solution to Man-Made Climate Change is a world-wide dictatorship.

A one-world government.


In order for all nations to be part of the "solution" then all nations would have to be under one control for it to be effective. No sense in having some countries participate when other countries don't.

Because that would defeat the entire effort.


So the Church of Climatology is basically wanting a world-wide dictatorship so that one governing body can determine the appropriate carbon output per continent.

No more elections. No more representative republic, no more democracy.


just my opinion.

a reply to: DBCowboy
Oi, oi, that's really nasty that. I was going to watch that this weekend and now you've spoiled it and I'm not going.
In answer to Augustus-:- what's wrong with the blue one then.

OOO, I forgot to add, if these money people are the ones keeping these places open they can put what they want up. Cos if they didn't pay the places would shut down and no one would see anything. Anyway the money they donate goes against their tax bills.

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: dug88

I'm not going to get involved but I do want to point out...not just to you...but science is not some overarching thing one believes in or not..it's a way of studying the world. Someone who understands the science of chemistry doesn't necessarily have the slightest understanding of ecology or biology. Also, understanding both doesn't mean they'd give a # about the consequences if their chemistry negatively impacts the world's ecology...because as you say, they have an invested interest in chemistry.

I'm not getting into the climate change debate because I don't care either way...whether or not the climate is changing because of humans doesn't really matter because there's # all we can do about it at this point....

But....I will point out that people who stand to lose money should their products be proven harmful to the world are probably not going to be that interested in agreeing with the people telling them their products are #ing the world.

And anyone that thinks pollution from companies like their's aren't destroying the world needs to get the # off the internet and take some time outside to visit some industrial waste sites or ocean dead zones. You can say what you like about climate change but anyone that trys to say pollution isn't poisoning the ocean, land and the air is a #ing idiot.

It so easy to be pious. Definition - making a hypocritical display of virtue.

Are you going to really try to make us think you never use toilet paper, heat your house, eat food grown with fertilizer, drive a car, use plastic trash bags, use electricity, use a computer, use a cell phone, eat meat, etc...

Did you ever stop to imagine what your life would be like without any of these things? You would basically be a cave man. Is that what you want?

Basically, it doesn't matter whether the Koch brothers believe in regards global climate change. They are providing a service to humanity by providing what people want and need. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be making piles of money.

I am not sure what has happened to most of the scientific community. Its like they turned into the Catholic Church excommunicating Galileo for disagreeing with them. That's not science. That's religion. Did you ever see Einstein, Newton, or Darwin doing everything they can to excommunicate anyone who didn't agree with their THEORIES?

Sure I use those things...but I also understand those things could be made from sources that don't destroy the planet...it would just cut into those peoples profits.

Lets see right now, cottonwood is used for most toilet paper plantations...ar least here....cottonwoods take about 20-35 years to reach maturity so they can be turned into toilet paper pulp. A cottonwood plantation takes up a decent amount of space and the way they're grown is useless for wildlife habitat or a proper ecosystem. There's no real reason for doing this other than profit. Cottonwoods also require toxic chemicals to process into wood pulp. Lots of other plant fibers could be used for this and would work better..hemp for example which would take about Hmmmm 1 year to reach maturity to produce fiber for toilet paper. Ithey require less water, less space and are less destructive to the environment to process for making pulp. You don't need a mystery bath of toxic chemicals to turn hemp into pulp...it can also be used to make fuel, plastic and even concrete at half the cost and pollution of the current ways. Hmmm but then Scott paper and other paper manufacturers, and chemical manufacturers would lose money.

Ok heat for my house....well all the power where I live is hydroelectric and requires zero oil to produce, but I understand this is not the same everywhere...however these days there is zero reason why every new highrise development or housing development is not capable of producing almost enough power for it's own needs.

The technology exists and is relatively inexpensive. It's just people like the koch brothers don't get to profit from it...so they lobby governments to keep patents on competing technology or lobby for regulations against competing technology or to keep the damaging effects of their own products hidden and ignored.

It is certainly possible to have many of the things we have without destroying the planet. Every day new technology are created that do that. They get no funding, they get no widespread adoption because of people like them.

In all honesty if you have children or plan on it...these are reasons for you to actually give a # about this. Your children are the ones that will have to deal with this poisoned world.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MRinder
Oh imagine. Liberals complaining about someone not believing the same as they do. God forbid somebody commit ThoughtCrime.

Science isn't about belief. It's about verifiable evidence. You are confusing science with religion.

I actually agree with that statement... climate change is a religion!

originally posted by: CB328
I had no idea that right wing billionaires were using their wealth to negatively influence America's museums until I heard about this on NPR today. I don't see how people that are anti-science like the Koch's and the Mercer's would be allowed to join in the first place, but once again money has corrupted America. Luckily opposition groups were able to get these two removed from this museum, one of the most important museums in the nation.

grist.org...

Its the Museum of Natural History, not the Museum of Climate Change. Dumb move to kick out the billionaires in my opinion.

Edit to add:
US News

What tends to go unmentioned: the owners of Koch Industries, one of the world's biggest conglomerates, have kicked in an estimated $1.5 billion or so to an array of causes and institutions most liberals love: public television, medical research, higher education, environmental stewardship, criminal justice reform and the arts. Stung by a 2010 New Yorker article that framed them as villains, the brothers are assertively putting out the good word about their good works.

Its sad when people only know one side of the story.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MRinder

That is a long and complicated answer that I really don't have the time or ability to go into on this forum. There are people smarter than myself that haven't figured that out yet. For one, there is no simple "catch all" solution to the problem. We are going to have to implement many different solutions and microsolutions. Some of these solutions may not bare fruit for quite some time either. Also, there are many small steps that must be undertaken and achieved to get the desired saturation to implement a wide scale solution. One of those small steps is to move the discussion past if MMCC is real or not. Pretending like the topic is still up for debate goes a long way in hindering any progress we can make on curbing or eliminating excess carbon emissions.

As I expected there is no viable answer to man made climate change. I am not sure how excommunicating everyone who questions it is supposed to help that fact. Maybe you all should work on solving the problem and stop vilifying everyone who questions the theory. I have a clue for you to help you succeed. Try to create products that are equal or greater in value to the consumer as fossil fuel use so they might actually be attracted to it. And try to do that without extracting everyone's money through taxing us all to death.