Typo - I meant corn mags. (Whew, that explains why your thoughts turned to sheep fucking.)
*(NaturalNews) Corn-derived biofuels release even more greenhouse gases than conventional gasoline, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change on April 20.
The $500,000 study, which was funded by the federal government, is expected to be a setback for the Obama administration’s plan to promote such biofuels as a way to meet renewable energy targets set in a 2007 energy law*.
When you have to strain that hard to draw a false equivalence, it’s time to pause and reconsider.
:rolleyes:
That’s what they’d have to say, isn’t it?
It isn’t about ideology, as you fucking well know. It’s about science, and denial of science when financial interests take precedence. IOW, cut the shit.
Repeat earlier comment about false equivalence.
It offends your own sense of Americanism, huh? 
Again, you need to frantically handwave away the reasons for such criticism in order to support your “The Democrats are just as guilty if not even guiltier” template that you have to resort to in order to cheer for the team you’ve chosen to support in what is, for you, a mere spectator sport.
(post altered)
Technically true is still true.
All of the global warming polar bear expeditions had to be funded. The results were used to lobby (more money spent) Congress for evil-CO2 legislation and resulted in the polar bear being considered an endangered animal - at a time when the numbers of polar bears were increasing. When it became known that the original polar bear story was based on 4 dead floating bears that had never been examined, some people lost faith in the “folks we can trust” global warming zealots.
Some people indeed, but they are people that could not convince the courts that the issue was imaginary:
The anti-climate change argument! No, when you say “both sides spend millions,” you’re suggesting the two sides spend similar amounts. Not “one side spends ten times as much as the other.”
Ah, yes, that makes much more sense. Thanks. Also I hope this is the only time that last phrase has been attached to anything I’ve written.
I believe I can if one side produces actual science and the other produces mountains of bullshit.
Something I acknowledged upthread.
Of course they’re not just funding “research.” They’re promoting an agenda. It’s one they obviously believe in, but it also has substantial benefits for them.
If you give away $100 million once and it gets you $50 million every year, does that make sense?
There’s no effort or expectation that they’ll withdraw from the public arena. What a strange thought: it’s extremely hard to make a billionaire do anything he doesn’t want to do, and a few people carrying signs or saying negative things about them certainly isn’t going to do it. There is a hope that people will be aware of the agenda these people have, and that’s part of public discourse.
I’m not crazy about that either. Then again it’s a great deal less than the vitriol going the other way, and the horse is out of the barn.
When I said “both sides spend millions”, I meant millions are being spent by both sides.
You jumped to the incorrect conclusion of that implying that both sides spend similar amounts.
So you agree that one side spends much more than the other?
It’s a fair reading of the statement, as much as you might like to disown it. After all you could have said “Both sides spend millions, though the anti-climate change spends far, far more.”
I could have said many things. I chose to write what I wrote. If I had wanted to write what you had wanted me to write, I could have asked you what my opinion should be. I didn’t.
Both sides have spent millions promoting their position.
All of the polar bear/global warming expeditions were funded. All of the glaciers are melting/global warming expeditions were funded. All of the sea rise/global warming studies are funded. All of the lobbyists are paid for. All of the climate initiatives have been funded. The NASA/GISS studies that used faulty/false data were funded. All of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC were funded. Gore’s An Incontinent Truth was funded.
The global warming zealots have spent millions, hundreds of millions, to promote man-made-CO2-is-evil “science”. The bottom line is that after spending all this money and time to convince the public that AGW is actually occurring and that “something” must be done quickly/now/yesterday, the public has less faith in AGW “science” that they did before.
Telling the public that they’re wrong isn’t very convincing. The global warming camp might want to try some other tactic. just sayin’
This is the argument Sam Stone just complained I unfairly accused him of making: science can’t be trusted because it costs money to do science. Of course it costs money- how else would it happen? You’re now trying to blur the distinction between doing research and promoting an agenda, and those are not the same thing.
Is that another typo or an attempt at wit?
Cite.
Yes. I think that has something to do with climate change deniers spending far more money.
Wit. (They can’t all be kneeslappers. 
)
I just listed some of the AGW studies/propaganda that have been paid for. There has been a lot of money spent year after year, since 1988, to prove/promote global warming. You’d think they would have provided more credible proof than they have so far.
People believe, people don’t believe, people don’t care, people are confused. The same thing occurred during the clean air and clean water debates. In spite of having to deal with opposing opinions :eek:, the clean air/water camp managed to convince the public that there actually was a problem and what was needed to fix it.
Any thoughts on why people don’t care and get confused? I have a theory.
The friends of the IPCC haven’t been able to provide convincing information that convinces the public, is my theory.
Sea rise seems like it would be a really simple example to show the public what warming and melting ice caps would mean. I hear 1ft, 3ft, 3m, 7m, etc. If someone is coming up with such an accurate number, they must know how much ice there currently is at the arctics and they must know how long the global shorelines are. The math is the simple part.
Yes, it was unfair. I never ONCE said that science can’t be trusted because it needs to be funded. I said that there huge vested interests on both sides, and that’s true. The outcome of the global warming debate is going to cause a change in capital flows to the tune of billions to trillions of dollars. There will be winners and losers, and you can find those people throwing money into the current debate - on both sides.
My point was that your side is singling out the Kochs as being particularly pernicious simply because they have an economic interest in the debate. In other words, it’s not enough to merely point to some chain of potential conflict of interest and use that to smear these people - especially when they have a pretty good track record for being quite reasonable and fair with their money.
Is that clear yet? Or am I going to come back on later and find you telling people that I’m saying that all Global Warming funding should be stopped because it’s all tainted, or some other stupid ‘interpretation’ of what I’m saying?
In your other message, you said that they have an ‘agenda’. Do you suppose Greenpeace has an agenda? Or the UN bureaucrats who stand to have hundreds of billions of dollars placed under their control if ‘their’ side wins? Does Tom Steyer have an agenda? How about Al Gore? He’s got a nice big mansion paid for by his Global Warming ‘activism’.
Global Warming is a political issue as well as a scientific one. Agendas abound. The Kochs are no different than anyone else, yet they’re the only ones with a full-throated demonization campaign being mounted against them - spearheaded by a sitting Senator in the U.S. government. It’s disgusting.
Indeed.
[QUOTE] Sources:1:48 “Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland”
Ola M. Johannessen et al, Science November 2005
2:10 “Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite Gravity Observations” – S. B. Luthcke, et al., Science November 2006
2:12 “Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet” –
J. L. Chen, et al., Science 2006
3:19 “Satellite gravity measurements confirm accelerated melting of Greenland ice sheet” J. Chen et al., Science, 2006
3:22 “Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite Gravity Observations” – Luthcke et al, Science, 2006
3:24 “Lower estimates of Antarctic sea level contribution from satellite gravimetry” King et al, Nature 2012
3:26 Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling" – Rignot et al, 2008
3:28 “Recent Contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise from GRACE”
3:30 “A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance”
Shepherd et al Science 2012
4:01 “Recent Contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise from GRACE”
4:24 “Toward prediction of environmental Arctic change”
W Maslowski, JC Kinney, J Jakacki - Computing in Science 2007
5:25 “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise” – WT Pfeffer et al., Science 2008
5:40 “Global sea level linked to global temperature” –
Martin Vermeer and Stefan Rahmstorf, PNAS 2009
6:10 Table adapted from “Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes”
– R. J. Nicholls et al., OECD 2008
[/QUOTE]
And because their actions are pernicious.
Oh, boo fucking hoo. Sure, people are dying from crazy weather and homes and lives are going to get wiped out as the oceans rise, but let’s spare a moment to pity the billionaire industrialists who are getting some bad press.
And what I conclude is that we have to follow the agenda that is grounded on science. The Kochs can be disliked for that, and thanks to other political discussions I also concluded that sure, politicians also have their interests, but one of them is to gain power to tell the powerful to stop doing harm.
IMHO Teddy Roosevelt would had defenestrated the brothers. (Instead of just wishing to it when he met a very obtuse robber baron of the day)
It isn’t a fucking “debate”. :rolleyes: It’s science vs. lies.
That’s *not *why they’re being called pernicious. :rolleyes: It’s been explained to you carefully enough by now that you don’t need to misrepresent the charge, even unintentionally. No. It’s because they’re funding, heavily, the side of lies, attempting to discredit the science and the scientists themselves, to the ultimate severe detriment of us all. Their reasons are side matters, although clear enough.
Heal thyself.
You’re suggesting that truth and lies are of equal value by even writing that paragraph. Maybe someday you’ll realize how sad that is, but maybe not.
They’re spreading lies. They *are *different from those attempting to spread truth.
You might reread your own fucking paragraph right about about Soros and Steyer. :rolleyes:
This board is about *fighting *ignorance. Try it sometime.
That video is a good example of what I’m concerned with. It says sea rise is expected to be 0.8m to 2.0m or maybe it’s 1.0m to 2.0m. There is plenty of talk on the video about why the opposition is wrong but the viewer is expected to accept the sea rise numbers without actually seeing the actual math.
He mentioned something about his not doing any of the actual science. He seems to readily accept as fact whatever his favorite science writers tell him. Yeah, it’s 2m. Maximum. Trust us. You’ve never caught us lying to you before have you?