First you become a scientist, you also completely let your ideology triumph the evidence you find and what other scientists are finding, you also get into an important position in an institution. Then thanks to your doubts they contact or you contact the [del]stink[/del] think thanks like the Marshall, Heartland and other right wing institutions funded in large part by fossil fuel groups or individuals.
See the money flow to your account.
For the think thanks and fossil fuel interests Doubt is their product and as Willie Soon showed (before and still we have Pat Michaels, Roy Spencer and a few others that are always trotted with their “evidence” when discussions like this one happen)
If Al Gore is a total hypocrite, does that lower the temperature any? All those scientists who sign on to global warming concern, if you show them that Al Gore is a hypocrite, do they suddenly change their minds?
And money? Ask yourself, suppose a middlingly respected scientist announces a new wrinkle in climate research, one that very well might prove AGW is the bunk, if only he had enough money for his research…how many seconds after he puts the phone down will his check arrive?
That is nice, have you ever heard about the idea of “eternal vigilance”?
The fact is that many organizations and powerful groups that are seeding doubt appeared recently and are poisoning the debate.
[snip]
And you only ignore the most important point, most of the change will have to come from regulations from government and industry (the industrialists that do worry about the issue, it is clear that the majority are not willing to drive into the abyss as the fossil fuel money men) so then it will be the small increase in cost that will be shared by all.
As the example of how the modern cities got their sewage system shows, it is really ridiculous to expect that the ones proposing the changes should be shamed when they are still contaminating the river or to claim that that is a reason to ignore what needs to be done. What did happen is that after the changes were done the wealthy and the elite people did pay more than the poor people to get clean water and sewage to almost all the people.
Nonsense, the “it’s always something” crowd are the ones that always come with silly excuses to continue voting for the ones that are allied with the fossil fuel interests that do not care if we drive off the cliff.
As I noticed, it is not necessary that the scientist goes that far, I have seen many times that just by claiming that the effects of humans using the atmosphere as a sewer will be minimal your bank account gets better.
I see. No doubt you have an authoritative cite for that.
This peer-reviewed study traced 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 political advocacy organizations from 2003 to 2010 for the express purpose of climate change denial.
I’d be very interested in seeing the credible data on which you base your claim, which I presume must show at least $5.58 billion being spent on political advocacy organizations that “exaggerate” AGW. Also let us know on which planet or alternate universe this is happening.
Basically, but I would think that there are scientists that do become popular and get more funding, but as it is clear to me (and my basic training is in social studies and history with a slice of technology and computers) history has shown already examples of how scientists that do break bad are not really unprecedented, there are several that benefited from supporting creationism and tobacco causing cancer denial for example.
Some like Dr Seitz and Roy Spencer did like it so much that they worked for one of those 2 of those denial groups in the past and present, besides the current flavor of denial.
The point that should not be missed is that there can be a benefit for the side that is proposing change, but as pointed before the ones that proposed that we should not have clean water or a sewage system (some of those were literally working to push shit) had their own interests to protect but they were on the wrong side of history, back then even “hypocrite” politicians that had also dirty ways of dealing with the refuse found that they had to ignore the naysayers and do the right thing.
That there are groups that will benefit by the change should be welcomed news for proponents of free enterprise, but somehow many conservatives seem to forget that, and it really has to be blamed on ideology and partisanship.
The “US Senate”? For those who may not know the obvious backstory here, it would be instructive to look up who the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works is. Why, goodness gracious, it’s none other than James Inhofe, the Senator from Oklahoma who has been called the most incredible imbecile to ever infest the halls of Congress, author of such quotable gems as “manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” and “only Jesus can change the climate”. Inhofe has been a dominant influence in E&PW for many years and has managed to turn it into a discreditable and embarrassing cesspool of climate change denialism for ages solely because of his zealous activism.
So what we have is the National Review – a right-wing rag in its own right – offering its hilariously lunatic interpretation of an Inhofe propaganda piece that somehow tries to equate funding scientific research with “lying about climate change”.
I cited a peer-reviewed study that traced hundreds of millions of dollars directly to climate change denialism funding, which pays shills like these. I asked the other poster for equivalent credible data that there is funding for “exaggerating” the other side. What we got was a steaming pile of such utter nonsense that it seems to prove the old adage that some people have no shame at all.
It was shown already that that is not the case and even just about the majority of Republicans think that government should be doing more.
What I do think is that eventually, once the powers that be can not follow just the tune of the fossil fuel men, that then the corporate media will be unleashed and make this issue like the Republicans encountered in 2012 about being the “rape” party. The Republican field is full of contrarian misinformation and eventually they will sound like the fools they are.
It may not happen even in this coming election cycle, but just like what happened with prohibition the Republicans will eventually fall hard thanks to this and several other issues that deal with science and human welfare.
No you have not shown that. I on the other hand have shown the purchase decisions made by the public are the exact opposite. Sales are in decline for the environmentally superior cars.
But again, it doesn’t matter. When battery technology catches up people will switch over for the savings automatically.
You are really doubling down on that? Please look carefully, the number of sales from the first months of 2015 are larger than the numbers of the respective months of 2014
Actually it does because it shows to all that you do not pay attention, as you usually do.
Again, for mistaken practical reasons you are then seeking to delay a concerted efforts to control emissions by assigning a price to carbon emissions and accelerating that change.
The only thing you are doing is to make more likely that other bad effects. And this is besides the observed ocean rise and changes in the mid latitude weather that will get worse thanks to the CO2 that will be realized until then.
No, it is still asking to be penny wise, and pound foolish.
So you are indeed looking at just 3 months of this year and comparing it with the total of 2014…
What year is this again?
To be fair with the data one has to compare the first 3 months of 2014 with the 3 months of 2015, the only thing you are showing is classic climate change denier math.
Oh well, I guess you are indeed happy of showing all that time lines are a big blind spot for many conservatives.
And where do I complain about it? The point stands, even if that is so and many times it was my point too in the past, there are a lot of costs that will come just by the ocean rise that will be seen by following a low emissions scenario, what I see as usual is that there is a lot of effort in protecting the ones that should pay more for the change and the adaptations that will be needed to be made.
And you really have troubles at looking at data, but that is what many misinformers out there are counting that many conservatives will fall for.
For those who may not know the obvious backstory here, it would be instructive to look up who the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works is. Why, goodness gracious, it’s none other than James Inhofe, the Senator from Oklahoma who has been called the most incredible imbecile to ever infest the halls of Congress, author of such quotable gems as “manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” and “only Jesus can change the climate”. Inhofe has been a dominant influence in E&PW for many years and has managed to turn it into a discreditable and embarrassing cesspool of climate change denialism for ages solely because of his zealous activism.