English or metric?
I am aware of efforts to fund also semi pro trolls to prowl the internet forums, but it is clear to me that any one that is prejudiced against any change that even smells like a liberal idea will be willing to copy and paste stupid arguments for free. Those derpy guys even want to tell us that if a site that links to the science has no definition of the global warming term like NASA does it is therefore unreliable. (Yes, there a few of those in this message board)
As they say, never blame malice when stupidity is enough, but one should not forget that virtually all the fake skeptic ideas those trolls are pasting in message boards come or have their basis on the misleading and lying “evidence” produced by the think thanks that we are talking about.
Now just what the fuck is a “pro-apocalypse Christian”?
Other than the fact that The Pro-Apocalypse Christians would be a great band name I’m not sure they exist.
Are you talking about Rapture freaks? Because while they seem to get woodies about the end of times I haven’t seen any evidence showing that they promote the advancement of destructive actions by mankind.
You obviously have not heard of people like Republican Inhofe that even in congress hearings declares that this is a hoax because “god is up there” controlling this and therefore nothing bad will happen to the climate.
AFAIK there are reports of the religious right being divided on the issue, but the money people continue to make inroads to get them (specially the ones that count because they are in positions of governance) and other faithful politicians to ignore the issue.
Sure they do. I myself was one back when I was an early-teenager and still Christian. And, they are people who actively want the end of the world.
Well, they do. James Watt in the Reagan administration was well known for it at the time. So was Jerry Falwell’s attempts to convince Reagan to start a nuclear war.
The claim was “relatively little.” The entire budget of AEI is used to aggregate the total $1 billion. You say they offer $10,000 each to scientists. But $10,000 is five orders of magnitude less than one billion.
So that would be “relatively little,” wouldn’t it?
Of course, that analysis I just did is equally flawed: it compares one expenditure to the aggregate of all expenditures from all organizations.
Right?
GIGOBuster, you claim to be driven by accurate science. But here you were shown a clear, unambiguous, absolute error in the science, and your first answer is to defend it. You don’t acknowledge the error – you assist in concealing it.
I’m linking to this post the next time you try to claim you’re all about the science.
There is a huge difference.
A billion is a thousand millions.
Of course yours is flawed, I already made the point that the OP is an exaggeration,
And I will have to say that it is you who is concealing that I reported that the research in the OP was an exaggeration, but look at the cites (made even years before the flawed research of the OP) and take **also **into account the expenses in political propaganda used to defeat even conservatives like Ingus that **was **driven by science.
Just the effort to remove him from congress was no small potatoes. Several millions of dollars are used to start and maintain many of those astroturf organizations.
And again, IMHO this is dishonest too. Many of the ones funding them do know already that climate change is not the only reason for being, but they do not care much about what they do elsewhere, what counts for them is that the funding they provide allows those groups to give lots of time and effort to fellows that will vote just as they expect. To benefit their bottom line.
No, you didn’t “report” that the research was an exaggeration.
The OP, post #1, offered the research as fact.
You replied in post #2, endorsing it and saying NOTHING about it being an exaggeration. You also authored post #3, which again said nothing about exaggeration.
I authored post #4, which highlighted the exaggeration and asked for your comment.
You replied to that question in post #6, defending the piece and saying NOTHING about exaggeration.
Finally, after mhendo also highlighted the problem, you concede in one throwaway phrase in post #7 that the study contains an exaggeration, but you devote more effort to defending it even while conceding the flaw.
Isn’t that exactly what happened?
Isn’t your pretense of interest in objective criteria pretty much destroyed?
True or false: a billion is a thousand millions.
Science should study both sides, fairly and without drama. Or just maybe, it’s not science.
One billion dollars only keep Bank of America afloat for 2 hours. Totally chump change compared to the cost of moving everyone who lives below 50 feet elevation (New York, London, Los Angeles … all underwater someday).
Most of these quotes are from commercial media … what are they selling?
There is no “two sides” here, scientifically. There’s the scientific fact of global climate change, and there is the anti-scientific attempts to deny reality & discredit it.
I say it’s Orbital Forcing that causes Global Warming, which just happens to allow more CO2 into the atmosphere … has this been proved wrong? If it’s science, it has to be able to be proved wrong, otherwise it’s just philosophy. Wasn’t there a recent Nobel Prize given for evidence that the Big Bang Theory isn’t quite right? Or are you recommending we never ever try to show Relativity as being not exactly perfect?
Neigh-saying is part of the scientific process, Look at the Standard model, where does a fuckton fit in. Do we ignore the evidence or rework our Standard Model?
Disclaimer: If curbing CO2 emission also curbs pollution in general, then I’m all for it
Advertising space.
“Natural Gas, today’s green alternative. We remove ALL the CO2 before we send God’s Gift for Heating down the pipeline”
(a) Not too impressed with this study for reasons already pointed out. That all the different outfits add up to a billion dollar in funding for ALL their activities does not strike me as particularly unexpected. So activists who oppose our position are being activist about it, and people whose wealth may be at risk will invest part of that wealth to protect the rest of it. Gee, what a surprise.
(b) OTOH science is NOT a “both sides of the debate” thing - if it’s good science the experiment/analysis contains its own falsifiability but its truth is not a matter for appeal to public sentiment. Smoking cigarettes was never good or harmless for you, Earth was never the static center of the universe. We CAN however decide politically that we’d rather not adopt the scientists’ recommendations, and instead take our chances and risk the costs.
© Both “global warming” and more specifically the influence of anthropogenic CO2 in climate have been in science’s awareness for a century, it’s not something some liberals pulled out of their asses c. 1990 just to be mean to the Oil/Coal industry.
(d) Some denialists’ position seems to be that because correcting anthropogenic climate change would mean some of the current very large industries/very wealthy nations would be forced to eat a huge loss, and it would require much government intervention, then it must be some sort of lefty plot.
(e) Der Trihs is not completely out in wackoland about this, yes there are Eschatophiles out there who can’t wait for something to already trigger the End Time (and that’s not just Christians, there are also a Jewish brand who’d like the mosques on the Mount blown up and the Temple Rebuilt so the Messiah may show up already). These folks ISTM have somehow missed the part where it says “You shall not put The Lord to the test” and (for Christians) “None knows the day and hour but the Father”
Sounds like a load of horse hockey to me. Unless we’re talking about equine CO2 emissions?
Your personal problems aren’t necessariy indicative of how other people think.
You realize, I assume, that such quotes attributed to James Watt claiming nuclear war is great are apocryphal, denied by Watt himself, and most likely baloney. I also cannot find any quote from Jerry Falwell in support of nuclear war.
“pro-warming”??