Google Made Large Contributions To Climate Change Deniers (theguardian.com) 170
The Guardian is reporting that Google has made "substantial" contributions to some of the most notorious climate deniers in Washington despite its insistence that it supports political action on the climate crisis. McGruber writes: Among hundreds of groups the company has listed on its website as beneficiaries of its political giving are more than a dozen organisations that have campaigned against climate legislation, questioned the need for action, or actively sought to roll back Obama-era environmental protections. The list includes the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative policy group that was instrumental in convincing the Trump administration to abandon the Paris agreement and has criticised the White House for not dismantling more environmental rules. Google is also listed as a sponsor for an upcoming annual meeting of the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella organisation that supports conservative groups including the Heartland Institute, a radical anti-science group that has chided the teenage activist Greta Thunberg for "climate delusion hysterics". SPN members recently created a "climate pledge" website that falsely states "our natural environment is getting better" and "there is no climate crisis".
Google has defended its contributions, saying that its "collaboration" with organisations such as CEI "does not mean we endorse the organisations' entire agenda".
Google has defended its contributions, saying that its "collaboration" with organisations such as CEI "does not mean we endorse the organisations' entire agenda".
We don't support Genghis Khan's entire agenda. (Score:5, Funny)
Google said in a statement, "At Google, we don't support the sacking of European cities, murder of tans of thousands, and taxation of trade by ruthless war lords. But Genghis Khan does support strong pro-business policies that Google supports."
Re: (Score:2)
Google said in a statement, "At Google, we don't support the sacking of European cities, murder of tans of thousands, and taxation of trade by ruthless war lords. But Genghis Khan does support strong pro-business policies that Google supports."
This. Please mod this up!
We need to constantly expose corporations for their lies & deceptions & constantly remind the public of their misdeeds. Corporations are the problem: They corrupt our governments, they pollute our environment, they impoverish the majority of us, & extract obscene amounts of money from us in the process. We need more democracy & less corporate power.
Re: We don't support Genghis Khan's entire agenda. (Score:2)
Denouncing them without you taking action is what they count on. Not using their shit hurts them financially, and they won't change until enough of us give them the middle finger.
To anyone using Google services or products , stop aiding and abetting evil (same applies to Facebook and Twitter - you won't die).
Re: (Score:2)
People have denied climate change. People have overstated the effects of, and/or reduced the time frame of climate change. Both groups have done more harm than good.
That doesn't mean that climate change isn't a thing or that we should ignore it. Sooner or later the consequences will be disastrous. If incremental steps aren't taken now, then at some point radical changes will have to happen in a short time. Worldwide radical change does not happen overnight. Aliens could vaporise a continent and politics wou
Re: (Score:2)
LESS corporate power.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are PEOPLE , that is how the real people escape prosecutions for the crimes they commit, hiding behind the false person hood of the corporate entity. End limited liability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability) for corporations worth more than a billion dollars, make all investors liable for the debt of that corporation, debtors to be paid out of the pockets of those investors, every single last one, until none are left standing economically intact.
When prosecuting corporations, thos
"The world is going to end in 12 years" legislatio (Score:2, Insightful)
"Climate change deniers", the summary says, are people who "campaigned against climate legislation, questioned the need for action, or actively sought to roll back Obama-era".
Would that by chance be legislation proposed by a Congresswoman who recently said "the world is going to end in 12 years due to climate change"?
Or perhaps a more distinguished stateman, a REAL leader of the global warming movement, a Senator and later vice president who said California would be underwater by 2020? (While making tens of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Climate change deniers", the summary says, are people who "campaigned against climate legislation, questioned the need for action, or actively sought to roll back Obama-era".
That's a garbage definition. Deniers deny that climate change exists despite being less qualified to make that determination than the people who say it does. You can campaign against climate legislation (etc.) even if you think AGW is real; you can either think it's less serious than claimed, or you can just want to watch the world burn.
Re:"The world is going to end in 12 years" legisla (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point to someone who denies that climate is changing?
You mean aside from all the people who are like "It's not happening at all, and if it is we didn't cause it, and if we did it's not really that bad..." etc.?
Re: (Score:2)
And anyway the climate has changed before and the world was warmer before too.
Re: (Score:2)
And anyway the climate has changed before and the world was warmer before too.
So let's experiment with the atmosphere. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
"Can you point to someone who denies that climate is changing?
Spend a little time on Watts Up With That and you'll find quite a few
Re:"The world is going to end in 12 years" legisla (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA mentions the specific groups. They are denying that there is any action we can take or that the companies who pay them are responsible for what is happening.
Denial takes many forms, often designed to trick you with pseudo science and even by pretending to be trying to fix the problem in a way that just happens to benefit their paymasters.
Citation needed (Score:2)
CEI publishes many papers every year. Actually that's pretty much what they do - publish papers. So I'm sure you'll have no problem finding that statement in one of their papers.
Now back to reality. According to AOC, her proposal would cost $10 trillion. That's $300,000 per household. Other estimates put the cost closer to $36 trillion, or a million dollars per household. CEI says that's probably not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people price national policies as a "per household" amount, when in fact the cost is never paid by just households and never equally by all of them?
Also even if it does "cost" $10 trillion, how much will you get out of it? How can you measure the value of investments like job creation?
This is why sound countries suck at infrastructure projects, BTW. Voters who don't understand the basics of how government works, people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Citation see still needed (Score:2)
Who, exactly, do you think is going to pay the costs, of not households?
Also, please kindly Google "broken window fallacy" re your "creating jobs" idea.
Still waiting for that cite. Their papers are readily available on their website.
Re: Citation see still needed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. That definition is crap.
I wouldn't say that deniers are necessarily less qualified than supporters, on average. The vast majority of people who are talking about global climate change are not s
Re: (Score:2)
So my reaction when I read this story was, "Is your theory really so weak that it cannot stand scrutiny? If not, why are you so horrified that someone might fund someone who doesn't believe your theory?"
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think any significant number of people are concerned that people are spending money trying to disprove AGW. Every time someone does that, they wind up confirming it. Plus, I'd love to not believe in it myself. Reality doesn't really give two fucks what I want, unfortunately.
What we're (or at least I'm) concerned about is people spending money on anti-AGW propaganda which conflicts with scientific understanding, because it conflicts with progress. It only supports the
Re: (Score:2)
But does it, really? I would argue that the controversy keeps the environment in the forefront of people's minds, which makes it more likely that politicians will pay attention to it and take actions that improve the environment. Without the controversy, the public could easily lose interest, and poli
Re: (Score:2)
But does it, really? I would argue that the controversy keeps the environment in the forefront of people's minds,
People who know AGW is a thing are just disgusted by that stuff and try to avoid it. But it still encourages the denialists.
Without the controversy, the public could easily lose interest, and politicians might stop bothering to care about the issue at all.
No, because people will keep being angry with them as long as they don't address it. AGW is my #1 political issue because I consider it most important, not because of denialism.
Re:Roads Should be Private (Score:5, Informative)
She misquoted the IPCC report which actually said something like "we have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe [theguardian.com]". Do you understand the difference?
You're a denier if you believe Big Oil--who have a HUGE financial incentive (and the money to support it) to keep people enslaved to their cars--more than scientists, who only want to discover and share the truth. You should learn to be more skeptical!
Re: (Score:2)
Big Oil actually owns a lot of patents in solar power production, and those companies are highly active in producing power through other means (both in manufacturing the hardware and in building the infrastructure). Big corporations are very good at diversify
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that energy companies (Big Oil) have diverse investments, they also fund a bunch of climate research directly.
For example: The East Anglia Climate Research Unit - one of the big name climate change research centers - was founded by money from British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell.
Big Oil spends billions a year on research for biofuels, carbon capture, solar, batteries, improved ICE efficiency, and so on. Biofuels are close to $400 million, solar over $1.5 billion, etc.
By comparison, the He
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You're a denier if you believe Big Oil--who have a HUGE financial incentive (and the money to support it) to keep people enslaved to their cars--more than scientists, who only want to discover and share the truth. You should learn to be more skeptical!
I like how you cast dispersion on one set of scientist while canonizing another set. One set is demonic; the other angelic. When you hear someone describing the global warming cult as a religion, you'll now know why.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you denialists keep up with your BS even when Koch-funded scientists agree that climate change is real and humans are the cause.
Your projection is noted, denialist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, some folks out there misunderstand the situation and send the wrong message as a result. That doesn't mean the main message, "Barring a miracle, human civilization will be critically/fatally damaged if we don't get serious about cutting GHG emissions," is wrong.
I also couldn't find that $40K/year number you quoted. Further
Unfortunately there aren't nearly enough uber-weal (Score:2)
If the United States had a million trillionaires, the "tax the uber-wealthy" plan could work for a lot of things.
Unfortunately, there are a LOT of middle-class people and very, very few super wealthy people. Taking ALL of the income earned by very wealthly people would fund the government for between 6 minutes and 12 hours, depending on how you choose to define "very wealthy".
I think it was last year the Democrats proposed a tax and "wealthy" people and it turned out that in order to raise enough funds, "w
Re: Unfortunately there aren't nearly enough uber- (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are 40 million people over age 65, and only 30% of those (the 12 million you mentioned) have saved enough to pay their bills for the rest of their life. That is indeed a problem.
Does that have anything to with having the 25 uber wealthy people pay the $7.6 trillion that government spends in the US every year?
Are you suggesting that we take away everyone's retirement in order to pay for the a few months of government spending?
Re: (Score:2)
More like $700 billion damage if not 80% in 8 year (Score:2)
Nobody said that. It's more like a sliding scale, hitting primarily red states and wealthy people with coastal views, causing $700 billion in damages from increased storms, floods, fires, crop failures, insalation, etc if we haven't completed 80% in 8 years, and 100% in 11 years.
Inaction is not your friend, it just exponentially increases both the cost and the intensity.
So much better, then (Score:2)
> primarily red states and wealthy people with coastal views, causing $700 billion in damages from increased storms, floods, fires, crop failures, insalation
Okay, let's assume you're right. The cost of inaction is $700 billion.
According to AOC, the cost of her proposal is $10 trillion.
Other estimates put the cost of her proposal at $32 trillion.
So - doing nothing might cause $700 billion costs.
AOC's plan comes at a cost of about $28 TRILLION.
Given those choices, I'll take "do nothing" for a savings of $
Re: (Score:2)
That's per year.
Do the math, it escalates after that.
Cool, where did you find that number? (Score:2)
Cool. Where did you find that number, by the way?
Re: (Score:2)
It's online. Try reading a paper sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
Online, eh. Cool, so like Breitbart. I'll go check the onlines.
Hmm actually I just went looking for the highest numbers I could find. The highest I could find was on https://www.yaleclimateconnect... [yaleclimat...ctions.org] a couple of climatologists said that by 2090 it could by hundreds of billions worldwide. An economist asked to comment on their paper said "it's consistent with the idea that there could be costs". Which is a polite way of saying "their methodology for cost estimates makes no sense, but sure there could be
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you got modded 4 insightful? Slashdot has become complete trash.
Either that, or maybe $1 million per is silly (Score:2)
Either everybody on Slashdot suddenly turned insane, or it's reasonable to think that maybe we don't actually have to spend $300,000 - $3,000,000 per household just because AOC said we should.
Sometimes sports fans have a really hard time accepting it when their team does something dumb. Sometimes politics fans are the same way.
Here's the video her saying it. I'll take my BTC (Score:2)
> I will send you 1BTC if you can cite AOC saying either of those two things
Here is the video of her saying it, followed immediately by her saying people shouldn't think about how we're going to pay for her plan
https://youtu.be/oHk8nn0nw18 [youtu.be]
> Not her supporting some policy that nutters interpret to mean that ("LED lightbulbs will cost $40k/year!")
The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com] cites a cost of estimate of $32 trillion, then states "Ms. Cortez has acknowledged that her plan would be
Re: We don't support Genghis Khan's entire agenda. (Score:2)
Re: We don't support Genghis Khan's entire agenda (Score:2)
Not everything (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless that is the only thing those organizations do I fail to see the point. It sounds like they are conservative organizations and Google is a business. I imagine there is quite a bit they do which is in line with Google's business needs.
Also, Google doing evil is hardly newsworthy anymore. What needs more attention is that corporations are being allowed to leverage cash to influence politics. Cash should not influence politics at all but Google is a stack of paper, it shouldn't get a voice, the people who work there or own shares already have their own vote. ONE vote each and that should be without regard to dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
It's way too late for that in the US where you can't run for any office without big campaign donations.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's way too late for that in the US where you can't run for any office without big campaign donations.
Unless you run on a liberal platform like AOC or Sanders, you mean? I guess we know which wing applies money to the mouth location, and which just talks a lot of shit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless that is the only thing those organizations do I fail to see the point.
So you fail. So what? At least some of these organizations do little else, like the "Competitive Enterprise Institute".
Also, Google doing evil is hardly newsworthy anymore. What needs more attention is that corporations are being allowed to leverage cash to influence politics.
And this is a story about it, and you fail to see the point.
Re: (Score:2)
"At least some of these organizations do little else, like the "Competitive Enterprise Institute""
That may well be. My argument was with the tone and suggestion of the summary that supporting someone who disagrees on a single point is necessarily bad.
"So you fail. So what?"
So it is a comment thread and I'm expressing my opinion. That is what this space is for.
It is an example of black and white thinking as presented. Just because a third party does something you don't agree with or oppose doesn't mean you c
Re: (Score:3)
I hope so, but I doubt it.
It's reasonable to protest when your employer sells out your future. You helped them make that money!
Of course, what they should really do is go work somewhere else, because Google is evil in a number of ways, and they have Google on their resume so they can get another job. It might not be as exciting, but at least it won't be involved in aiding China with its panopticon.
Re: Not everything (Score:2)
Learned a new term/concept today... and you're correct.
Outrage mobs being idiots again (Score:4, Insightful)
So they donated to them because of political reasons completely unrelated to climate policy.
Jesus, shut the fuck up. Organizations can have more than one dimension, and donating to them because they support one thing doesn't mean you support them in literally everything they have and will ever do. The world is not black and white
Re:Outrage mobs being idiots again (Score:4, Insightful)
Jesus, shut the fuck up. Organizations can have more than one dimension, and donating to them because they support one thing doesn't mean you support them in literally everything they have and will ever do.
What is one positive thing the CEI has done?
Re: (Score:2)
CEI successfully appealed a Google class-action settlement that would have given the lawyers millions of dollars while giving the plaintiffs not even a coupon. In fact, they've done that in several dozen cases. Unfair class-actions settlements is one of their activist issues.
Re: (Score:2)
CEI successfully appealed a Google class-action settlement that would have given the lawyers millions of dollars while giving the plaintiffs not even a coupon.
So why did Google give them money? To get them to stop? Are they the Yelp of class-action lawsuits?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I love how the social bullying system now labels everyone a 'denier' or 'hate group' on anything and anyone that disagrees with them. Then they claim 'the time for debate is past, it is a settled science'. Yea right. If it was a 'settled science' then their predictions would be 100% accurate, which they aren't. Whether the planet is warming slower than they predicted, or its warming faster than they predicted, it doesnt fucking matter, they still predicted wrong, and by a big margin. In fact they were so w
Re:Outrage mobs being idiots again (Score:5, Insightful)
Your entire rant is so vague and clueless it could about absolutely anything. You could post it in reply to a discussion about raising interest rates, terraforming mars, or impeachment, and by changing a few words it would totally fit.
If it was a 'settled science' then their predictions would be 100% accurate,
Wrong. The fact that planes can fly is "settled science" but our predictions about laminar flow of air across a wing shape are not 100% accurate. Yet we still build planes successfully! The fact that human CO2 emissions contribute to global warming is "settled science" but our predictions about specific temperature increases in different areas of the globe are not 100% accurate. Yet we still can build levies and plant trees successfully.
they still predicted wrong, and by a big margin.
Who is this mysterious "they" and what prediction is wrong by a "big margin?" Is "they" the entire scientific community? Your generalizations are so sweeping as to become meaningless.
so wrong they got caught altering scientific measurements
Who are you accusing, and what exactly are you accusing them of? Again, sweeping nonsense statements.
There have already been some pretty insane proposals coming from these 'settled scientists'
What the heck is a "settled scientist." You are just making up terms. What proposals from who? Making more stuff up.
Who modded that post to 5???
Re: (Score:3)
Who modded that post to 5???
Maybe Google is making large donations of modpoints to climate denialists
Re: (Score:3)
I love how the social bullying system now labels everyone a 'denier' or 'hate group' on anything and anyone that disagrees with them.
Yes, the stereotyping and prejudice based on a single aspect of a multi-faceted, complex individual is wrong. What we need is more professional discourse based on data.
Then they claim 'the time for debate is past, it is a settled science'. Yea right. If it was a 'settled science' then their predictions would be 100% accurate, which they aren't. Whether the planet is warming slower than they predicted, or its warming faster than they predicted, it doesnt fucking matter, they still predicted wrong, and by a big margin.
No, climate change is not "settled science", whatever that means. I personally think the discussion of and the pointed use of the term "settled science" is mostly a red herring and strawman because I'm not sure that term is all that useful. We still have earnest scientists trying to test the arguably settled science of relativity. Regardi
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly everyone. Deniers are called deniers, because you reflexively deny things you don't like out of petulant butthurt. See also, antivaxxers and Young Earth Creationists.
100% is a red herring. But climate models going back to the previous century have proved remarkably prescient in their predictions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
no its not, obviously you dont understand science or the scientific process. Let me explain something ... fucking nuclear fusion isnt even a settled science and we have been using it for power since the 50s. Its still called Atomic THEORY. But at least THOSE scientists have predictions that are pretty close to accurate. They can predict at exactly what rod height, based on a series of other factors including time after last shutdown, the reactor will reach critical state. Right now your experts keep releasi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is settled science the same way that Piltdown Man was settled science proving Evolution.
It isn't even Newtonian Gravity "settled science" that isn't correct, but accurate enough that we still use it for launching missiles.
It is "the glaciers will be gone by 2020" signs that have to be removed because the glaciers are still there wrong.
It is the death by starvation of 7.5 Billion people if we do everything that the "Settled science" says we have to do to stop "Climate Change", because we've already over t
Re: (Score:3)
Not even close to "settled science", because science isn't consensus.
Settled to what margin of error ?
The overwhelming opinion of climate scientists is that we are in serious trouble. They may disagree on the rate of sea level rise or how much/quickly tornadoes will increase in destructiveness -- but they are agreed on the rough trajectory. It is like disagreeing if that meat in your fridge will go bad in one week or two: everyone agrees that it will soon be unsafe to eat.
Re: (Score:2)
The overwhelming opinion of climate scientists is that we are in serious trouble.
because science isn't consensus.
Let me know what part of scientific method includes "Consensus". I'll be waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Red herring is red. And obnoxious. Why don't you let us know when you are working with science and not just pure denialism, like an antivaxxer.
Re: (Score:2)
It is "the glaciers will be gone by 2020" signs that have to be removed because the glaciers are still there wrong.
It is "the glaciers will be gone by 2020" signs that have to be removed because the glaciers are still there wrong.
None of those predictions have ever been settled science. Most of those predictions have been singular studies with error bars. Settled science is that the glacier is shrinking, not that your damn fucking watch needs adjusting.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, the glaciers reached gulf of mexico. Also, once upon a time Greenland was green (Not frozen). They've been shrinking and expanding for a long long time. My clock is fine, it is Millions of years old. Its been warmer, its been cooler.
The problem you have, is unless Climate Change is Horrible (your prediction), there is nothing wrong with it. Your assumption is that it is bad (not good) based on subjective predictions, which have largely been wrong. That isn't science.
CO2 is great for plant
Re: (Score:2)
Forest fires have always been around. So if one burns you whole town the ground this weekend, it's no big deal! Because it's all happened before!
Yeah, climate has changed before, your Nobel is in the mail. But when the climate changes too fast for life to adapt
This got modded +4 insightful??? (Score:3)
It is "the glaciers will be gone by 2020" signs that have to be removed because the glaciers are still there wrong.
Who the heck said that? Was it in the IPCC?
It is the death by starvation of 7.5 Billion people if we do everything that the "Settled science" says we have to do to stop "Climate Change", because we've already over the "tipping point".
Again, who the heck said that? Scientists acknowledge we can't prevent the effects of climate change because we're already seeing them. The goal is to do as much as possible, as optimally as possible, to limit the effects of climate change while doing as little damage to the economy as possible. Do nothing, we lock in civilization's downfall sometime in the next century. Ban fossil fuels tonight? Civilization falls tomorrow.
We need to find the optimum balance, a
Re: (Score:3)
You've been misled about the "hide the decline" nothingburger:
https://skepticalscience.com/M... [skepticalscience.com]
Also, the global cooling scare was supported almost entirely by attention-grabbing cranks, the scientific consensus was unaffected by it:
https://skepticalscience.com/i... [skepticalscience.com]
You're right that annexing Brazil's rainforests would be a very productive way to slow global warming, but obviously it's politically unworkable.
Re: (Score:2)
Skeptical Science is not run by the University of East Anglia as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:2)
> doesn't mean you support them in literally everything they have and will ever do. The world is not black and white
Right. Let's bring back the NSDAP! They werent ALL bad, and they were big on animal welfare. That's a good thing, right?
Re: (Score:2)
CEI has opposed regulation of the internet and enforcement of antitrust rules, and has defended Google against some Republicans’ claims that the search engine has an anti-conservative bias.
Well, surely that balances all of the damage done by their anti-environmental lobbying.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree or disagree with the intents, it's still corporate donation intended to inflluence legislations. That's borderline immoral in my books; even if I agree with the ends I don't like the means. Corporate political power is drowning out the democratic process, and it's time to stop allowing corporations to have the same rights as people if they don't have the same responsibilities as people.
Gather the torches and pitchforks! (Score:4, Insightful)
The mentality behind political divisions is getting increasingly mob-like.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that this is a possible outcome of democracy, especially when political divisions are acriminous (ie, they hate each other rather than considering the adversaries to be the loyal opposition). The problem here is that this all sends a huge signal to autocratic countries that democracy is broken and should never be attempted, and better to keep the monarch, dictator, warlord, CEO, etc.
The same Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same Google that also spent huge sums on building datacenters powerd by regenerative energies and I'm sure if you would look you'd find donations to climate activists, too.
In other words: I dare say that Google makes donations to any side.
So either this is some kind of really evil hegemonial double-play playing each side against each other, or their charity department lost track of who is getting donations. Using the usual rule of thumb it's stupidity, not maliciousnes.
So? (Score:2)
They've also indirectly given money to Political Group A's disinterest, as well as Political Group B's disinterest.
Companies like this tend to spread money around in order to keep their name at the top of client's minds... "do we go with cloud services from Google, or Amazon, or Microsoft? OH yea, I remember that donation that Google gave to a branch of our company that doesn't have jack all to do with anything we really stand for... wasn't that nice? Get Google on the phone so we can chat about their cloud
Fair and balanced (Score:2)
To be fair: They did do away with the whole "Don't be evil" thing and they have shareholders to worry about. In short, they are just another soulless corp.
sigh (Score:2, Informative)
a radical anti-science group that has chided the teenage activist Greta Thunberg for "climate delusion hysterics"
Chiding Thunberg does not make one "anti science".
Claiming that there are 57 genders, or that you can change your gender merely by dressing funny and wishing it, or that a baby isn't human until you take it home from the hospital, kinda does make one anti-science, however.
Physician, heal thyself ...
Crazies need to learn from Ellen DeGeneres (Score:2)
The bias is amazing around here.... (Score:2, Insightful)
You DO realize, I hope, that someone who simply believes government legislation isn't the way to solve climate issues doesn't make them a "denier"?
I'm really tired of that term. I've never once attempted to argue that our climate isn't really changing. We used to have an ice age and now we don't, for example.
Even a person like Donald Trump is known for over-simplifying practically every statement he makes about a subject. So we don't even *really* know if he denies the climate is changing. He could easi
self-defacing collaborations/aid (Score:2)
Pseudoscience for the masses (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like there are always charlatans successfully promoting a pseudoscience. Marxism and Freudian psychology are two historical examples. Both of those belief systems are absolute nonsense, but they became popular because the majority of people are not sufficiently intelligent to distinguish fake science from real science. I started college when those beliefs were in vogue and could not find anyone on the faculty with a brain in their head who believed that stuff. It was popular in the arts, humanitie
Is that performance art... (Score:2)
...or sincere libertarian dipshittery? Hard to tell these days.
1) Mann's work has been prescient
2) Even Koch-funded scientists agree that AGW is real
So what? (Score:2)
As in, is it illegal? It is their choice. They could give zillions to the flat earthers or Monster Raving Loony party or maybe even Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
a "climate pledge" website that falsely states "our natural environment is getting better"
False? Our environment is getting better in many ways: especially in areas like pollution, particulates and greenhouse gas emissions other than CO, things are markedly better than they were 50 years ago. An unqualified statement like that is d
Re: (Score:2)
And others in the various Green movements are starting to distance themselves from Thunberg and ER.
As they should : ER's leadership even say they are not a Green Movement, but rather an anti-capitalist black bloc type operation (basically, like every movement on the left in the last few years). They simply use the "Green" cards to get people to join and protest.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we are currently emitting tens of billions of metric tons of GHGs each year and co
Re: (Score:2)
not supporting her accusatory, alarmist and divisive narrative
Well because please and thankyou has worked so well in the past. Just what are you waiting for? At what point do you stop calling someone alarmist, do we need to melt more glaciers? Flatten more cities with extreme weather?
The word has lost meaning due to its endless misuse.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you criminalize disagreement with your religion.
You know what I like? Science. If only it were religion and not science, you'd have a point.
mod this down too, please (Score:2)
Please mod this comment down also, I'd rather you waste your modpoints on me instead of someone who won't just get another bunch of positive karma today.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So she made comments that her boat trip was done show how how evil plane travel is and we have to travel using zero emissions. That has been shown to be 100% fake.
She said that the science has been settled for 30 year. Yet in that time we have been told by many leading environmental scientist that Manhatten would underwater by 2019.
he
Re: (Score:2)
He does deserve some heat for his anti-science views when the spotlight was shown on some of decision because then he would stop or slow them down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:so they don't follow your agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
and the climate transparency report found no nation adhered to it anyway
Can you provide a link?
The Paris Climate Agreement merely required nations to make a specific pledge. They chose the pledge on their own. So it would be quite silly if a nation made a pledge they couldn't keep when no one was forcing it on them. The whole agreement was purely a good will gesture.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The Paris climate agreement for example was ineffective nonsense that would do nothing for emissions
Except it by policy has reduced the pre-agreement estimated emissions significantly in many nations, just not significantly enough.
that harm the USA
On behalf of the planet, fuck you for putting your own wealth above the world after contributing so much to the problem in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the most wrong, anti-scientific thing you could possibly say on this topic. AGW has an unassailable mountain of very settled science behind it, it's better understood and more proven than gravity at this point.
Now THIS is anti-scientific. And ignorant to an amazing extreme.
Gravity is exceedingly well understood in its effects. We can predict gravitic effects precisely enough that a probe sent to Jupiter on a 5 year trip, and still get the arrival time correct within a few hours. We can estimate the effects of gravity with certainty out to 4 sigfigs, and almost certainty out to 9.
On the other hand, AGW is so poorly understood that the IPCC cannot decide on the effects of any given forcing model, having estimate
Re: (Score:2)
The causes of global warming are better understood that the causes of gravity, and just a few years ago before the LHC and LIGO experiments the gap would've been much larger. You probably know this since you chose to focus on effects via a relatively simple prediction problem. Gravity would be just as difficult to predict given a similarly difficult problem, a probe flying through a vacuum is kid stuff compared to predicting an entire climate. Suggesting that weather prediction is related to climate predict