Koch Brothers to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Elections

[adaher]

It’s dangerous to assume that you understand the causes of climate change doubt. A lot of it is less based on disagreement over facts than identification for or against a political side. Plus if we’re just talking about the debate over climate change taking place among the talking heads, there’s just as much fact free stuff coming from the ones who supposedly accept the science. Things like “the earth will become uninhabitable in our lifetimes”.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

It’s dangerous to assume that you understand the causes of climate change doubt. A lot of it is less based on disagreement over facts than identification for or against a political side. Plus if we’re just talking about the debate over climate change taking place among the talking heads, there’s just as much fact free stuff coming from the ones who supposedly accept the science. Things like “the earth will become uninhabitable in our lifetimes”.

And it is a strawman, virtually no scientist or published science says that, besides now you are now avoiding what you just claimed, if you are aware of what is going on then we all have to condemn the fraudulent moves of the Kochs and others to impose their opinion on the body politic.

Otherwise claiming that you are not fooled is only just a useless platitude.

[adaher]

I can condemn that without reservation. I just don’t think it should be against the law. Part of being citizens is discerning what the truth is.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

I can condemn that without reservation. I just don’t think it should be against the law. Part of being citizens is discerning what the truth is.

:rolleyes:

The truth here is that the Kochs and others are paying for shoddy scientists to deliver false science that allows ignorance to reign, that is then used by the politicians in their pocket to prevent change.

That is nowhere close to being a good thing and since it is clear to me that perjury was committed to push that shoddy science in congress (just by claiming then that there was no conflict of interest) it is very likely that it was against the law or as it was pointed before: what the Kochs and others already did and continue to do is truly asinine and the very opposite of the supposed good that you claim to be defending here. Doubt is their product and the result is to benefit their bottom line.

[adaher]

Perjury is lying under oath.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Perjury is lying under oath.

What do you think the scientists that testify to congress do?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/22/3625629/willie-soon-fossil-fuel-money/

That Soon has received funding from the fossil fuel industry has been known for some time, however these documents reveal the scope of the largesse that enabled him to publish what he did, and helps illuminate the quid pro quo nature of the relationship.

According to the documents, Soon received at least:

[ul]
[li]$409,000 from Southern Company, a huge utility company whose giant coal plants regularly top the list of largest greenhouse gas emitters in the country[/li][li] $274,000 from the nation’s main oil and gas lobby, the American Petroleum Institute[/li][li] $335,000 from ExxonMobil, though the oil giant stopped funding Soon in 2010 despite stopped funding Soon in 2010[/li][li] $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation, a billionaire whose money has been made mostly through oil refining[/li][li] $324,000 from anonymous donations via DonorsTrust, a fund set up to funnel money from the Koch brothers and other conservative funders to groups that promote climate science denial like the Heartland Institute and Americans for Prosperity[/li][/ul]
**In many cases he referred to scientific papers or congressional testimony as “deliverables” in correspondence with his funders. **Southern Company’s agreement with Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian gave the coal utility the ability to review the scientific papers and suggest changes before they were published. In 2009, he wrote Southern Company about an upcoming paper, saying “I have a big super-duper paper soon to be accepted on how the sun affects the climate system.”

But, was his science any good? As pointed before the science Soon produced was very bad. And so his testimony had also the problem that he had to also misled many Republican congress critters about what virtually all scientists are saying.

My Depressing Day With A Famous Climate Skeptic

Taken as nothing more than a scientific talk, Dr. Soon’s presentation was, in my opinion, pretty bad. I watch a lot of these things. It’s part of my job. If Soon had been giving a Ph.D defense, he would have been skewered. I was left without a clear line of argument or clear justifications for his claims. More importantly, for a topic this contentious there was insufficient discussion of the voluminous and highly detailed response critics have offered to his claims that solar activity accounts for most observed climate variability. Many of my colleagues listening to the talk said they felt the same way. I came away thinking, “Is that the best they have?”

But more troubling was a conversation I had with Soon earlier in the day. Every scientist has the right to his or her own perspective. But scientists also understand how research communities build their understanding about what is known and how anyone knows it. So, **I wondered how Soon could fail to acknowledge that the weight of evidence was overwhelmingly against him when he made his overarching public statements of skepticism. I asked Soon why his testimony to Congress did not begin with something like, “I acknowledge that the majority of researchers in my field hold a different view from me, but let me now explain why I am taking such a contrarian position.”

When I asked Soon about these points, he had very little to say.
**
I came away from my meeting with this famous climate skeptic feeling pretty depressed. What I had seen was a scientist whose work, in my opinion, was simply not very good.** That, on its own, is no big deal. There are lots of scientists whose work is not very good — and some people may even think my science should be included in that list. But Soon’s little string of papers were being heralded in the highest courts of public opinion as a significant blow to everyone else’s understanding of Earth’s climate. From TV studios to the halls of Congress, we were being told his was world-shaking research of the highest caliber, and that we had to take notice.

From what I saw and learned that day, the truth wasn’t anywhere close. That was what made it all so depressing. For an issue so important to all of us, the standards should be a lot higher.
**
That is the real problem with Willie Soon and climate denial.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

The truth here is that the Kochs and others are paying for shoddy scientists to deliver false science that allows ignorance to reign, that is then used by the politicians in their pocket to prevent change.

(post shortened)

Oh, Baby it’s cold outside. And it gets hotter in between ice ages. Until it gets colder again. It’s almost like it’s a cycle or something. :rolleyes:

Your goal appears to be the prevention of political free speech for anyone who disagrees with your CO2-is-evil mantra. Fortunately, that ain’t gonna happen.

[elucidator]

Kinda depends on your definition of “evil”. For me, global catastrophe fills the requirements neatly. You know, destruction, starvation, dogs and cats, dying together…

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

Oh, Baby it’s cold outside. And it gets hotter in between ice ages. Until it gets colder again. It’s almost like it’s a cycle or something. :rolleyes:

That silly argument is based on the assumption that the data that is telling the scientists what it is currently increasing the warming is not good or useless, of course that is just pushing for a miasma of contradictions as usual, the reasons why it was warming then is well understood, what it tell us is that the sensibility and uncertainty could be worse by continue to insist that the data is not as reliable as the experts see it.

@doorhinge

Your goal appears to be the prevention of political free speech for anyone who disagrees with your CO2-is-evil mantra. Fortunately, that ain’t gonna happen.

As usual the Bad Astronomer (former doper) has a reply to that, and it was done years ago:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-study-of-the-tactics-of-climate-change-denial-in-which-i-am-the-target/#.VPh__CxBnsE

Denialism’s dark mirror

I will admit the irony of this attack amuses me greatly; Briggs accuses me of many things he himself is doing. That is standard fare from antiscience group: creationists, global warming deniers, and alt-medders, for example, all seem to project their own tactics on the scientists with whom they disagree. Don’t like real medicine? Accuse scientists of being in the pocket of Big Pharma (and forget about the millions being made by quacks on useless “remedies”). Don’t believe in evolution? Accuse scientists of being too dogmatic. Don’t think global warming is real? Accuse scientists of misrepresenting the data.

My favorite irony is that a lot of these global warming denialists take money from fossil fuel interests, but then routinely say to “follow the money”, as if it’s the climatologists who are raking in the big bucks from shady think tanks with undisclosed bankrollers. While Briggs points out he gets no money from them, he asks where my money comes from. Think on this, Dr. Briggs; how much money would I make if I suddenly turned coat and said global warming wasn’t real? I’ll guarantee you it would be a lot more than I make now, probably with a couple of zeroes added to the end. So that argument falls a wee bit flat here.

Like all the others.

Of course we are now years after what Phil Plait reported that, and thanks to efforts to get transparency (that should had been set as rules already) we know that the Kochs and others are the ones spreading that ignorance.

Maintaining the idea that nothing is going to change is indeed demanding that ignorance should rule the day, that is only demanding that we should flush Jefferson down.

Again, what we can see is that already the Kochs and others did impose their ignorance on many Americans, defending that is just a justification to continue using ignorance to drive policy, that will affect us more the longer it is not dealt with.

[John_Mace]

@GIGObuster

:rolleyes:

The truth here is that the Kochs and others are paying for shoddy scientists to deliver false science that allows ignorance to reign, that is then used by the politicians in their pocket to prevent change.

That is nowhere close to being a good thing and since it is clear to me that perjury was committed to push that shoddy science in congress (just by claiming then that there was no conflict of interest) it is very likely that it was against the law or as it was pointed before: what the Kochs and others already did and continue to do is truly asinine and the very opposite of the supposed good that you claim to be defending here. Doubt is their product and the result is to benefit their bottom line.

So, if what they did is against the law, why isn’t anyone prosecuting them? And if it’s against the law, then why do we need more laws to stop them from doing what you don’t like them to be doing?

Otherwise, what exactly are you proposing to be done wrt Climate Change Deniers and their ability to spread their ignorance-- both under oath and not under oath?

[GIGObuster]

@John_Mace

So, if what they did is against the law, why isn’t anyone prosecuting them? And if it’s against the law, then why do we need more laws to stop them from doing what you don’t like them to be doing?

There are senators and congress critters that are, now armed with the recent information, requesting an investigation regarding Soon and others.

@John_Mace

Otherwise, what exactly are you proposing to be done wrt Climate Change Deniers and their ability to spread their ignorance-- both under oath and not under oath?

What I proposed: Demand more transparency and to demand better; really, when you see the Republicans inviting flakes like Christopher Monckton to testify in congress the fact that many Republicans do not complain to their congress critters is asinine.

There is also what we all can do: to request that the media pounce on items like this one and in social media we should all spread the word to others.

[elucidator]

That is not the requested answer. That answer would be that you, GIGObuster, and your radical tree-hugging minions want to totally control what can and cannot be said, free speech be damned!