OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Their work is repeatable eh? They can run the same models over and over again and confirm? LOL.
Liberal censorship - We know you can burn a book, but can you light a kindle?
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Hey guys, they can run our model on more than one type of computer. It's repeatable. It's science! Long live science, all hail it!
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What was it you'd accept as proof of ACC again?
Oh right... still can't answer that one can you?
canndo
Well-Known Member
The question is, when does misinformation become so dangerous to the general public that it should be censored? Should I begin to claim that arsenic is good for your bowels and I get others to sign on, when should I be stopped? Is countering information enough?
Ad the second point is not a question. Free speech is at work when a group of people are attempting to keep someone's columns out of a particular paper - there is a tacit agreement between readers and publishers. It figures that the right sees any infringement upon their "right" to lie as censorship. Seems FOX has not been censored, and it has widespread exposure - there is no censorship going on here at all.
Reminds me of Christians crying in their eucharist about how maltreated they are, about how they don't have the opportunity to practice their religion when there are hundreds of Christian stations on the radio and tv, Christian bookstores, Christian Mingle dating sites, An entire holiday with Christian in the title, and fish symbols on every 5th bumper sticker and every tenth business ad.
Nope, no censorship here, just the free market operating as the right says it believes it should.
canndo
Well-Known Member
This is an incredably telling statement, even when it is made in jest. It implies that the right NEEDS to have some one to ridicule, it NEEDS to be involved in an "us or them" situation, it has to include members who all agree in order for any of them to feel valid at all and there has to be an outsider or group of outsiders that are essential to the identity of those in the insider's group.
All in one short sentence that jahbrudda will claim is simply a funny little post that means nothing, signifies nothing.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Yet anothe fascinating quote. It is not about science, it is about politics. PR firms, front groups, political think tanks all backed by those with vested interest in the status quo have spent hundreds of millions of dollars just so that you will believe and publish that very statement. Their money was well spent and the playbook they borrowed from the tobacco industry has worked.
canndo
Well-Known Member
How much money is the UN and the U.S. spending on PR and indoctrination of the people in order to have them believe that global warming is a man made and progressing event? How much and how is it being spent? Show us these these things.
Now, if you are up to it, how about doing the same thing with all those organizations who want us to believe otherwise.
midgetaus
Member
What harm does believing global warming is man made and thus changing the way we use and produce energy do compared to not believing in global warming.
I see no inherent disadvantage in believing in it and then to find out we were wrong rather than not believing in it to find out we were wrong... the consequences are far greater for the latter
I see no inherent disadvantage in believing in it and then to find out we were wrong rather than not believing in it to find out we were wrong... the consequences are far greater for the latter
canndo
Well-Known Member
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
Dec 23, 2013 |By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate
A shift to untraceable donations by organizations denying climate change undermines democracy, according to the author of a new study tracking contributions to such groups.
Wikimedia Commons/Carol M. Highsmith
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.
It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.
The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.
"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."
"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."
Consistent funders
To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.
According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.
Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.
I showed you mine, show us yours, where is all that money you claim is behind the public influence toward climate change?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Did you miss the drought in the midwest? Miss the heat waves? Miss the missing snowpack in California? How about the fires in Australia? THe point is extremes are getting more extreme. You seem to have a seasonaly short memory.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Please do not confuse a free market for any markets that are government controlled or influenced and existing today. That's not a free market. You should be censored when you spread misinformation....see what I did there?
canndo
Well-Known Member
citation needed.
do you ever get tired of lying?
And this is all post GCC. I will wager not a single one of the antis has done any research in finding out why they believe the way they do. Fact is, this graph is the reason.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Well canndo, tell me where scientists who do not subscribe to agw would get the money for research, it' sure as hell isn't going to come the government or the IPCC. Do some searching yourself and you will find that the government and the IPCC funds research for basically man made global warming only. And they out spend the energy companies by a country mile.
All the info is out there, I've cited it many times, if you don't have this basic information, you're not ready to debate this issue imo.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Nobody is against the creation of clean and sustainable energy sources, well, nobody outside the CURRENT energy industries anyways.
What they ARE against, however, is having some asshole like Al Gore try to impose additional taxes on our current energy sources in order to line their OWN g'damn pockets under the pretense of global warming / cooling / climate change / whatever the fuck they call it when citizens don't buy into their line of bullshit.
Look at "carbon credits" for example.
TOTAL bullshit.
Forcing companies to pay "x" amount based on their emissions, which does absolutely NOTHING to reduce said emissions, but instead the funds are transferred to "Y" agency that is supposed to use the cash to clean the environment.
Right.
That's 100% bullshit, and the cash is going to be used the same way ALL government cash is used. Line the pockets of those in charge, and the cronies that support them. PERIOD. I can see creating higher pollution standards across the board, but these assholes aren't doing that, which means that big wealthy companies can get away with polluting as much as they want as long as they pay some asshole government agency.
Fuck that.
I would support a second "Manhattan project" in order to develop a method to produce energy using the fusion of hydrogen, however, I will not support assholes manipulating data in order to justify gaining more personal wealth from higher energy taxes.
That's the issue for me, and I'm not alone.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Bingo!
I was watching Al Gore's dog and pony show on the Oprah Winfrey show years ago (no, I'm not an Oprah fan but da wife is) and after he does his gloom and doom charade, Miss Oprah acts out the liberal part she does so well with the question, "How do we find out more about global warming?"
Al Gore - "You have to buy my DVD and book."
I about puked. Sleezy sonofbitch.
canndo
Well-Known Member
How much harm will I have caused by calling our economic system a "free enterprise" when it is not? You quibble over something that is not important to my point. A boycott is a portion of free enterprise.
canndo
Well-Known Member
No, the "I am right, do the research that proves it" is not on the horizon. I showed you 588 billion dollars THAT WE ARE AWARE OF, goes into swaying opinion and not toward research. Show me some numbers and how, exactly HOW this information you claim is false is made to influence the global warming "believers".
In short - you can't, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to do your research for you.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
did you see that jahbutterchurn actually cited the heartland institute, the same group that got paid by tobacco to deny the harmful effects of tobacco, and who is now taking money from exxon and koch to deny AGW?
he made your point for you better than you could have.