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

originally posted by: largo
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.

In fact, there is a strand of denialist BS which appeals successfully even to many people who are fairly intelligent and do reason. It's a presentation of apparently "logical" connections to lead to an incorrect conclusion, which was already pre-motivated because of the political instinct & bias of the otherwise reasonable person.

These people aren't generally dull and stupid (if they were, it would be better as they would keep up with the kardashians instead) but profoundly ignorant.

They are profoundly ignorant of the depth and history of the actual science involved and the strength of the experimental evidence which lead to the conclusions of the professional scientific community.

These clever collections of mis-arguments leads these smart people to feel smug and superior in their intellect, that they have "pierced the BS" (in their own mind) and found that "one weird trick climatologists hate". They're nice convenient statements which appeal to the brain and satisfy the need for an explanation, even though they're desperately wrong.

Read this and you'll see the whole set of them, and the scientific rebuttal, in their full infamy:
www.skepticalscience.com...

a reply to: mbkennel

It is a pitfall people can't seem to move past. You can reason anything in fact, but only cold hard logic can make it work. Conspiracy theorists are very good at using nonsense in such a way that it sounds on the level. Throw around a few scientific buzzwords and confuse the issue and the layman feels like he just read something factual.

In the end the fear they have is unjustified and is a bigger problem than the thing they are afraid of.

a reply to: TsukiLunar

What is truly funny, is that somehow this is going to lead to change somewhere.

Trusting science would be nice, IF we could ever see that they are actually looking at EVERYTHING, and not cherry picked as they are taught too at school.

Imagine the engineers before 9/11, if they looked at those towers not even near 3% would possibly find a way that they turned into exploded dust, but because of a certain hype machine suddenly they all wanted desperately to find a way to explain the impossible.

Here we have INCOMPLETE science, in a system controlled by MONEY, SPECIAL INTERESTS, and they are all fighting for the stakes they have set in the ground.

In no way do I trust either side, and I do not trust science to be on the level either, because it can always be swayed with all manner of different data collection methods.

The real pitfalls we have, go way farther than the causes of this latest tragedy of polluting the planet to death again, it is truly amazing people actually believe the scientists are EVEN CLOSE, what does it matter if nothing real and tangible, and BETTER will come of it.

Logic dictates that someone is affecting EVERYTHING here on earth that dictates power, money, and a good many other things.

Without total demolition of the control set, NONE OF IT MATTERS, it will always slide towards the way it has been sliding to the whole time.

I am in constant amazement that anyone actually believes in "Science" the way they do , like it actually has some kind of moral compass that always swings for the truth.

They clearly have not been listening, or watching any history of the last 10,000 years.

And they certainly have NOONE to enforce clear COLD HARD LOGIC on the scum that confuse this place.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: mbkennel

It is a pitfall people can't seem to move past. You can reason anything in fact, but only cold hard logic can make it work. Conspiracy theorists are very good at using nonsense in such a way that it sounds on the level. Throw around a few scientific buzzwords and confuse the issue and the layman feels like he just read something factual.

In the end the fear they have is unjustified and is a bigger problem than the thing they are afraid of.

Nice way of using this example to generalize all conspiracies. While actually each conspiracy theory is a case on its own.

originally posted by: mc_squared
Follow the Money!


The whole “follow the money” meme is so ridiculous, because most people only say it, they never actually follow it.

It apparently makes more sense that 97% of climate scientists everywhere are in cahoots with academic institutions, businesses and governments all over the world to invent this massive elaborate tax fraud, but the idea that the other 3% are just taking cheques from Exxon and the Koch Brothers to say it’s all part of this elaborate tax fraud, is some absurd, unfounded character assassination. How dare you!

Meanwhile when you actually do follow the money, with proper investigative research and paper trails - like what happened here with Willie Soon (instead of the hypothetical innuendo and paranoid daydreaming most “skeptics” seem to prefer), time and time again it’s that 3% who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Billion-dollar climate denial network exposed

You would think if the other 97% were doing this even worse, then the evidence for that would be at least 32.33 times more prevalent, but nope. The well is pretty much dry on that end, outside of all the headlines on Breitbart and the denier blogs that make up in self-contradiction and hyperbole, what they lack in actual facts or proof.

But again, it’s pointless – because those people that want to believe all this empty fluff from Breitbart and the denier blogs will just continue believing it no matter what. And they’ll just continue preaching about the “church of global warming” and how brainwashed anyone who doesn't “follow the money” is.

Nobody likes a hypocrite.

Couldn't get past the absurd 97% claim, which has shown to be a straight up fabrication time and time again, I won't bother pointing out by whom. Do your own research.

a reply to: mc_squared

That article you linked shows zero evidence regarding a billion dollar climate denial network.

You do realize that every climate scientist does the same thing this guy did. He was just smart to get money from both sides as he was only part time at the Smithsonian. You can't live off part time...he is smart for taking advantage of the scam that is global warming.

How can you guys not see this? The whole thing is a joke from both sides...the only difference is that one side swallows it all down never questioning one single thing, and the other is skeptical of the obviously political/economical agenda behind it all.

As an atheist I find it hilarious that your average AGW supporter seeks out to belittle people "against" science like your average christian/muslim, when they actually have faith in a person that existed. Sure Jesus was probably just a manipulative illusionist, but at least they have some sort of truth to base their faith on.

AGW supporters will be first in line to be sacrificed for food/heat sources once the next Ice Age takes place.

I find it hilarious that people like you contradict your self, while accusing the majority of the world's scientists as being driven by money, not the quest for awareness and answers.

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

How can you guys not see this? The whole thing is a joke from both sides...the only difference is that one side swallows it all down never questioning one single thing, and the other is skeptical of the obviously political/economical agenda behind it all.
.....

AGW supporters will be first in line to be sacrificed for food/heat sources once the next Ice Age takes place.

So when is this ice age going to happen?

Do you have anything scientific that suggests we are moving into another ice age?

Do you think the 40%+ increase of CO2 over the past half century is just a cosmic coincidence and not related to the industrial age?

a reply to: Deharg

a reply to: dr1234

This thread was intended as a commentary on confirmation bias, and it’s replies like these that really exemplify what I was talking about:

originally posted by: Deharg
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.

First off – the link I left on the 97% consensus made absolutely no mention of the Cook and Lewandowsky papers. It referenced three other peer-reviewed studies published well before Cook et al:

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

But the reason I used that source more than anything is because it also left references to statements from numerous esteemed scientific institutions. From those links anyone can check directly for themselves what these organizations have said publicly on climate change. For example this statement:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.

Is signed by the following organizations:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

And it can be easily demonstrated that this kind of consensus extends all around the world. Here is a great link that accumulates many more of these statements across the globe. There you can find anything from the traditional western/industrial powers to positions of concurrence from the Network of African Science Academies:

A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.

This is jointly signed by the National Academies of Science for Nigeria, Uganda, Cameroon, Senegal, Zambia, Ghana, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Sudan, Madagascar and Tanzania.

So everything I said before still stands – you want to believe this is a conspiracy then you need to believe ALL these institutions are in on it together. It’s unreal the amount of collusion this would require. I mean look at this statement on anthropogenic CO2 & ocean acidification. It’s endorsed by dozens and dozens of national academies from Albania to Zimbabwe, including these two:

Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology

Holy crap this conspiracy is SO big it’s even got Israel and Palestine working together!


...
But this is exactly why climate deniers are deniers and not skeptics. Because they go around repeating these ridiculous mantras like “there is no consensus” when all the evidence dictates otherwise. Unfortunately they live in a bubble of confirmation bias where they get all their information filtered and spun by obviously biased sources like Breitbart and WUWT, so anything that contradicts this information is simply dismissed and denied offhand without applying any actual skepticism. Usually if you ask for some skepticism (e.g. critical thinking, evidence, a goddamn link for once) you tend to get replies like this instead:

originally posted by: dr1234
Couldn't get past the absurd 97% claim, which has shown to be a straight up fabrication time and time again, I won't bother pointing out by whom.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

That article you linked shows zero evidence regarding a billion dollar climate denial network.

The article I showed links back to a peer-reviewed paper that sourced these connections directly through IRS data.

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

So once again - there is only “zero evidence” in the minds of serial denialists who prefer to ignore all this evidence because it just doesn’t jive with their confirmation bias.

I think your screen name is quite ironic here.

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: mc_squared

That article you linked shows zero evidence regarding a billion dollar climate denial network.

You do realize that every climate scientist does the same thing this guy did. He was just smart to get money from both sides as he was only part time at the Smithsonian. You can't live off part time...he is smart for taking advantage of the scam that is global warming.

How can you guys not see this?

Because the evidence is entirely against it. How did this "scam" work in 1965?

The whole thing is a joke from both sides...the only difference is that one side swallows it all down never questioning one single thing, and the other is skeptical of the obviously political/economical agenda behind it all.

What is the obviously political economical agenda behind "it" all? What is the evidence the scientific facts have been influenced by this? What is the evidence that scientists want to pursue this "agenda"?

Is there a political and economic interest in favor of continuing fossil fuel extraction and use?

Are you skeptical of the mainstream science supporting the periodic table? What about fluid mechanics? Infectious disease? Is that full of hoaxes for pharmaceutical companies? HIV?

WTF would scientists begin a world-wide conspiracy (remember, starting in the Cold War) to pursue some kind of ill-defined political/economic agenda from which they benefit little?

Why wouldn't they, for instance, lie and say "we're about to invent warp drive, just give us a hundred billion dollars and it will be ready in in a bit" and fake all the data? Why would they pursue a really stupid and profitless conspiracy instead of a lucrative one?

Of course the denialists simultaneously believe two contradictory pieces of nonsense:

a) the assertion that there is 97% consensus among professional scientists working in the field is not true

b) there is a massive and pervasive totalitarian conspiracy that the scientists follow to support the consensus

As an atheist I find it hilarious that your average AGW supporter seeks out to belittle people "against" science like your average christian/muslim, when they actually have faith in a person that existed. Sure Jesus was probably just a manipulative illusionist, but at least they have some sort of truth to base their faith on.

This analogy is nonsensical and contrary to reality. Do religious proselytizers have decades of peer-reviewed research and repeated observational and experimental evidence built upon rock-solid laws of physics?

AGW supporters will be first in line to be sacrificed for food/heat sources once the next Ice Age takes place.

Who has the political agenda now?

Not exactly sure what further evidence is needed, really.

So, anyone who works for the government or ever gets grants from the government must be crooked, but people who get paid by corporations who only care about profits are somehow A OK?

This is really one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.

His funding is suspicious. Him hiding it is much more suspicious. His research is repeatedly shown to be deceptive and bad. That's probably because he is an Aerospace Engineer who takes money from the Koch Brothers to write papers on polar bear populations.

Soon once famously argued that polar bears can afford to lose some ice, because ice is actually bad for polar bears.