Double post
1 Like
Here is a watch and a read some of you may find interesting.
A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.
Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.
2 Likes
I firmly believe that we should stop baking our grandchildren’s world, and the idea that we shouldn’t have to sacrifice to do it is silly. But I’m pessimistic that it will ever happen even if everyone were to agree. For example politicians in Canada are running on repealing their barely-implemented carbon tax system, and as of 2023 China was building two new coal-fired power plants every week.
OTOH gas is quickly replacing coal in the US (half the cost and half the CO2 per BTU) due to fracking, and Michigan is going to re-open a nuclear power plant. Ironic that those two things turn out to be good for the environment, eh?
2 Likes
As Thomas Sowell has repeatedly said, “there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs”. If we want to lower our CO2 production and maintain our current electric consumption we’ll have to consider other alternatives particularly nuclear. Solar and wind won’t be able to meet current demand let alone the increased demand with a growing population and EVs.
1 Like
Stop using air conditioners and turn the heat down to 60° during the winter. Get rid of the hot tubs and swimming pools. Stop using the clothes dryer. ALL of my clothes are dried in open air. Don’t be a hypocrite, just do it. Weigh in now. Who else agrees. NO MORE campfires, NO MORE power boats. NO MORE charcoal grill, gas grills, indoor fireplaces, gas, electric or wood. No heating house with wood pellets. No lawn mowers of any kind - plant ground cover. NO MORE night sports events that use high powered lights. Let’s pledge. Who is on board, that will go a long way to ending the fear.
2 Likes
That philosopy could result in a lot of divorces.
Life isn’t easy.
All humans are ignorant. Just in different areas and on different topics. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge in any given subject.
Now stupid…that’s something different entirely. It’s the refusal of knowledge if it goes against what is per-decided to be true, regardless of facts.
Ignorance mixed with intelligent and integrity is shown in an attitude that can be described in the phrase “I don’t know this subject so please teach me, and if it’s controversial please show me both sides with no lies, no 1/2 truths and no censorship”.
Ignorance mixed with stupidity is shown in an attitude that can be described in the phrase “I know enough to refuse any new, additional information if it is at all contrary to what I want to be true and my mind is made up, and all that disagree are simply beneath me”.
One person of integrity will say “Show me all the information we can get, so I can make my mind up”
The stupid one will say “Don’t confuse or bore me with any truth or facts because my mind is already made up”.
As Twain said, “It’s easier to fool a person than it is to show and convince a person he’s been fooled”
2 Likes
It’s always pointed out where Harvard-Smithsonian accepted 1.25M in funding from of course some groups that would be positive in the direction the research was leading. I believe half that money went directly to Smithsonian and have went to funding Willie Soon’s research team working on their version of the science. I’m sure some of that went into salaries of Professor Soon and others. I believe the real controversy back then and this was close to 20 years ago now was not as much directed at the science but Greenpeace pointing out that this 1.25M was not properly disclosed in relation to the publication of some of the scientific papers.
In the Tucker interview this was kind of round about brought up because at this point it sounds like Professor Soon has learned his lesson when he suggested he wouldn’t or didn’t want funding from billionaires where they would attach strings to the research as it sounds like that is how it normally works going to both sides of the discussion.
To put the 1.25M in perspective the current US climate budget in 2021 was 1.5B and went up to 5.8B in 2022. Keeping in mind the 1.25M came from private donations where the billions came from all of us in the form of tax dollars. I would be willing to bet none of the billions went to any research deemed “climate deniers”. Globally over the same two years it was 1.3T each year.
I can somewhat relate having spent 44 years working in the transportation industry and we took money many times from the federal government to develop alternate power sources for transportation, where we had very low expectations of success but the money was hanging there for the taking so why not. During the Carter years I remember we built several city buses that were powered only by a flywheel. We also proved coal could be cleaned and liquefied and be a suitable fuel in a diesel locomotive. A whole lot of money was spent proving these concepts and as far as I know never got off the ground.
I have no idea if this Willie Soon guy is a knowing denier of the truth and doing this to just enrich himself while trying to convince the world’s masses to kill the earth. If that is his goal he’s not doing a great job of the enriching himself part. As all the real money is on the other side and it is flowing freely. He could just be another one of these renowned scientific types that for some reason wants to go against the current just for the fun of it.
After all the science is settled.
You’re comparing the salary of one guy to the entire climate budget of the United States government. In any case, it’s only relatively recently that the government has begun to spend a lot of money to combat climate change. The oil companies have been at the climate denial game for many many years longer.
Correct the spending started in 2021 and that would indicate a political motivation rather than scientific to my way of thinking. Did something change in 2020? Scientific or political?
Is the science settled? Just saying it is doesn’t make it true. If it is settled and the situation is as dire as some are telling us then 5.8B is not nearly enough we should as a world be going for broke to solve the problem. No one seems to be suggesting an all in mentality though that is going to produce a lot of suffering to solve the “problem”. If mankind is going to die off anyway what’s the difference.
It is hard for me to stand back and take a 1000 yard view of this without feeling something is fishy as too much doesn’t add up for my logic.
@szihn said it best in his above post.
Thank you Bud.
1 Like
Yes, it’s political, since unfortunately many of our politicians are heavily influenced by donors. You might as well ask why it took the government so long to regulate cigarettes. The industry pushed very hard for many years to obscure the fact (which they already knew) that cigarettes did indeed cause cancer. It took the government and people a while to catch up.
However I’ve been aware of climate change by all its different names for decades now thanks to a friend of mine who’s a forest manager. As far as I’m aware 98% of scientists agree that there is certainly warming and it is caused by human activity. Sure, some small fraction of scientists may disagree, but I’d say it’s settled.
As to why we’re not spending all our funds to combat it, I think that’s a good question. But I put it down to the fact that humankind can’t seem to act collectively to solve even small problems, let alone a huge one like climate change that would affect the way everyone in the entire world lives their lives.
I think it’s sad that something so important, that will affect all our offspring, has become a political ball. I don’t really care what your politics are but I do care that the planet is the ultimate loser.
2 Likes
Well you prefaced that correctly! What you are aware of is what you are told about… Also remember that it was reported that 96% of doctors agreed that the codiv shots were “safe and effective”. 93% said remdesiivir was the best treatment for Covid.
89% of the Senate and the Congress agreed that the events of 9/11 were justification for the passage of the “Patriot act”
The largest majority of the Joint Chief’s of Staff agreed that the “Gulf of Tonkin incident” was pure justification for deeper involvement in Vietnam (despite the FACT it was a false flag and several of them KNEW it but 'their careers were on the line")
100% of the Warren Commission agreed that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald was 100% and independently responsible for the murder of JFK!
The Murrah building was destroyed from the street by a truck bomb (despite the fact the inner 24" I beams were cut off at ground level, and the 8" I beams closer to the street were not cut at all.
Oh yes…the experts (under financial or physical pressure) will always give you the “right answer” and be voiced by the Mainstream Media!
As far as anyone who believes mainstream media go 100% of them are going to believe what they are told despite the fact that concerning 100% of large scale political events both inside the USA and the whole world the main stream media (all in lock step) and been dishonest, incomplete or simply wrong very close to 100% of their stories.
And it’s nothing new.
Want to see a historical prospect?
Read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.
Too “deep”?
OK try “Ordinary Men” by C.R. Browning.
Read real history instead of simply absorbing what you are told on TV. You WILL find there is another side and it’s not always a minority.
Read books written 60-150 years ago and thereby defuse your view point "it’s the Conservatives today lying to me because Joy Bair said so)
No— the bridge near Boston was not the victim of White Supremacy.
99.9% of (Insert favored title here) Interviewed agree…XXXXXXXXX is the truth!
But what you are not told is that that 99.9% is actually 3% of the experts in the field and seldom if ever the top minds or researchers in that field. They are the ones willing to give the answer requited by the interviewers so all others are NOT interviewed.
1 Like
@bud16415, you see through the deception, but you can’t convince someone else that a process is a bunko game if they can’t see the slight of hand. All you can do is watch. I fully believe the earth has been warming for thousands of years. This reminds me of the rainmakers, but today everybodynis smarter than that. I just don’t trust the con artists and huckster fleecing the vulnerable public. I made the mistake of ridiculing the green deal mascot. Sadly, her tears are real. She believes global warmimg is worse than an impending ice age. That crowd can’t be convinced how more vegetation grows in the tropics than in Siberia.
Keep on trying. You’re comments sound valid.
3 Likes
@szihn Dang Steve, there you go convincing me again. You forgot to mention how Trump colluded with the Russians because Hillary paid a Russian spy to make up a story. I too believed we needed the Patriot Act and we do. I knew a lot of federal agents and never knew any would have violated the public trust by using it to target innocent citizens, yet it happened. I hope those people are held accountable in both criminal and civil court. Title 18, US Code, sec 242 provides a civil remedy. Also looking forward to prosecution of a former Senator, VP, and a Secretary of State to be held accountable under Title 18, US Code, sec 1924. That was ignored intentionally or because the Director of FBI and US AG apparently aren’t familiar with the US legal code. Its one thing to dislike a person, but it’s a terrible disservice to be so bias as to believe blatant lies. Worse to make then up. That’s the difference between opinion and stupidity, or worse, shear blind acceptance of unsubststiated fabricated bull crap. You can’t fix that. That’s why I dont try to change anyones opinion. You cant fix bigots.
1 Like
In 2015, I started construction on an addition (19 ft x 21 ft) to my house. Uograded thecrest ofvthe house as well. My gas and electric bill on budget distribution has been $171 for over 10 years. It has remained the same, even with the addition, until three months ago, when it dropped to $153 each month. Why not start a new thread: Show Me How Much You Saved on Your Utility Bill. Water usage has been dropping as well. Were about 10 gallons less per day per person (2 occupants) over the last 10 years. That’s about 20 gallons under the average. Call me what you want, but you have to show me that you can top that before you gain my respect.
That’s how you reduce the impact. Base i on what you do, not what you expect from others. My weekly garbage on the curb amounts to about one and a half grocery plastic bags (now obsolete).
You will have to revise your numbers as it is now 99.9% of studies showing man made climate change is true, thanks to Krishna Ramanujan Senior science writer at Cornell University. Here is the report that is becoming widely propagated around the media as the new truth.
The old number of 97% wasn’t convincing enough evidentially so he re-studied the data and came up with the near 100% number of 99.9%. It is a shame that he couldn’t have sharpened his pencil just a bit more and removed all doubt forever.
What I think is interesting is that someone first of all felt the need to up the ante such a small amount and then that it re-ignites a new batch of articles for people to site as sources. Here is one such example.
‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans | Climate crisis | The Guardian
If you want to study the methodology of how Cornell came to this conclusion here it is.
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience
There are very few subjective topics that fall into the 99.9% category and when you do find one it is never as complex as climate science. So this makes this new information even more amazing. Pay close attention to the last link above as the scientific method used to derive the 99.9% is outstanding.
The bottom line is 99.999% of the people quoting the 99.9% number will not dig into any of this when they hear it on the nightly news. They will then repeat it to their friends and families and it quickly becomes a fact plain and simple.
Repeat anything enough times and it becomes truth.
I’m put off by heart string appeals using a child mascot steaming crocodile tears, telling me I’m the ignorant .1%. I know a lot of .1%ers. I mean a lot. Maybe 3.0% of the people I know. Manipulation makes me think of deception. Better to stand on merit. I saw some contradictions based on early predictions. It convinced me there’s treachery afoot. I’m fine with the ratio of believers to non-believers. Itsca lot like claiming to be a uniter . . . Because we got to beat those MAGA peoplecwho wantbto take all y’all back to the stone age. You know the ones, they smell like Wal-Mart. Yeah . . . Yeah, you won that round.