$1B Climate Change Denial Industry: Getting Rich Telling Lies: open discussion

[Into the Night]

Since the kiddies have decided to start another thread in the kiddie pool, I am opening one here open for anyone to comment on.

Choice posts are reproduced here for further open discussion.

 

[Into the Night]

"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, international governmental bodies, relevant research institutes and scientific societies are in unison in saying that climate change is real, that it’s a problem, and that we should probably do something about it now, not later. And yet, for some reason, the idea persists in some peoples’ minds that climate change is up for debate, or that climate change is no big deal.

Actually, it’s not “for some reason” that people are confused. There’s a very obvious reason. There is a very well-funded, well-orchestrated climate change-denial movement, one funded by powerful people with very deep pockets. In a new and incredibly thorough study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle took a deep dive into the financial structure of the climate deniers, to see who is holding the purse strings.

According to Brulle’s research, the 91 think tanks and advocacy organizations and trade associations that make up the American climate denial industry pull down just shy of a billion dollars each year, money used to lobby or sway public opinion on climate change and other issues."

The Billion Dollar Climate Change Denial Industry

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

Opening post from other thread.

 

[Into the Night]

Even Trump's own EPA administrator - aka, the guy that Trump thought was the best in the nation to manage our environmental problems - testified to congress that human-induced climate change is a real problem that needs to be addressed in the long term, although he did not think it was one of our most pressing and top priorities right now.

That is pretty much a stunning admission that decades of global warming denial was a complete hoax.

I think your post in insightful, because I have never thought climate denial really had anything to do with science or with sound environmental management.

For one thing, a lot of people have become famous or rich from the Climate Change Denial Industry. People who otherwise do not have the talent or wherewithal to become rich and famous.

Secondly, there are trillions of barrels of untapped oil still in the ground which has not yet been burned. The oligarchy is not going to walk away from that kind of money without a fight to the death.

Lastly, there is some element of emotional investment in climate denial. Teabaggers have been pre-conditioned emotionally to reject everything that is perceived to be liberal. One single example - Trump violating, and pulling of of the Iran nuclear agreement, an international agreement that was actually working, but Trump wanted out of it simply because Obama negotiated it.

There are Climate Deniers who have emotionally invested themselves in denial for decades. And I put the probability at exactly zero percent that, at this point, they are every going to confess that they were wrong. I believe some of them would rather see harm come to their children and grandchildren than admit they were wrong to anonymous liberals they will never meet on an obscure message board.

This kind of psychoquackery is common coming from the Church of Global Warming. They accuse, they project their own problems on others, and they deny both science and math. They use the 'for the children' argument as an emotional argument. To them, these 'children' are nothing more than pawns to be used to further their religion.

The Church of global warming preaches doom and gloom to come, like many religions. Their solution, however, is to impose their religion upon others by force of law and threats.

These idiots claim 'tolerance'. Yet they build threads to censure dissenting opinions. They talk of 'freedom of speech', but try to lock out anyone that disagrees with them on any point. They are hypocrites.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello reagansghost,



Check out the sources for the funding.

There is a link in the OP.

Here it is:

Funding The Denial Industry

Exxon Mobil is totally funding the Denial Industry.

There is no 'denial industry'. This is just sour grapes because Exxon/Mobile are simply trying to protect their interests. Did you know they are required to by law?

The 'greenhouse gas' model is simply not possible. It violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmannn law.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot. You can't heat the warmer surface of Earth using a colder gas.
* You can't reduce the radiance from Earth and increase it's temperature at the same time.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello anonymoose,



There is no deadline.

The sooner the better, the longer we wait the more extreme the devastation.

What devastation can be attributed to 'climate change'? How do you even define 'climate change'?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

oh, but having to rebuild every building to make it "green" isnt a money grab.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Cypress,



I think you are totally correct on all counts.

Seething hatred as a way of life.

No. Censuring is an indication of hatred. I invite open discussion of issues. You can't handle it because of your hatred.

They give one another a group to identify with.

This is you again. You have identified the 'group' that you hate. You have built a list of them that you use to try to censure.

The old we/they theory.

You again.

We're not fighting the Germans, the Japanese, or the Rooskies anymore.

A useless redirection. We are fighting idiots like you.

Now they absurdly believe they can remake America in their own vision.

You again. It is YOU that wants to remake America YOUR way, through imposing your religion upon others by force.

Somehow, they believe they can either a) change the minds of all the liberals, or b) drive them away?

You again. You believe you can make conservatives go away by censuring them.

Neither is possible.

Something you finally got right.

So they are stuck in a country with diversity of views.

Here again you deny your own argument. It is YOU that trying to censure dissenting views!

But they don't want to admit it.

You again. It is YOU that doesn't want tolerate opposing views.

So, against all hope, they press on.

You again. You have denied science, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have denied mathematics, specifically statistical mathematics and probability mathematics. Yet you press on with your religion.

Talk about mixed up!

You again.

Why can't people just accept that we Americans are free to believe as we wish?

Good question. Why can't you do that?

It's one thing to allow freedom of religion. It's quite another to impose it upon other by force and threats.

Why can't they accept reality?

It is YOU that cannot accept reality. You don't even know what 'reality' itself means. It is YOU that is censuring.

Why can't they have some respect for Americans just doing the American thing and standing up for what they believe in?

It is YOU that does not show respect.

Why do they have to be so obtuse, always resorting to whataboutism, deny, deflect, attack?

You again. You, along with the rest of the Church of Global Warming. is all about whataboutism in their dire predictions, their denial of theories of science and in their inability to even define what 'climate change' or 'global warming' even means, deflect into accusations, insults, lies, and censorship, and attack any dissenting opinion with the same.

Why can't they argue their positions on the basis of merit?

You again. It is YOU that cannot handle an argument on the basis of merit. The theories of science which you deny have not changed. They have merit. YOU ignore them.

Well, we know the answer to that one.

No, you don't.

They would lose the argument!

This is called the argument of the Stone fallacy. It is YOU that can't stand any dissenting opinions. It is YOU that simply discards these theories of science. It is YOU that simply discards these branches of mathematics. It is YOU that turns to censorship while talking of 'freedom of opinion and speech'. You're a hypocrite of the worst sort.

 

[Into the Night]

oh, but having to rebuild every building to make it "green" isnt a money grab.

Well put, and a great observation of the hypocrisy these people are.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Well put, and a great observation of the hypocrisy these people are.

totally.

 

[Into the Night]

What brand of petrol do you recommend as an alternative to BP, Chevron or Exxon? I want to be environmentally conscious.
I've already queried McSlawber about this, he refused to answer

They have no answer for this, other than synfuels or biofuels.

They hate oil and oil products, plain and simple.

Making synthetic fuel is their denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They deny the energy required to make such materials, and that energy has to come from somewhere.
Biofuels is their version of using solar power to make oil products. It's 'green' because it's closer to the Solar Power Nirvana they seek.

But it won't work. It requires tremendous amounts of farmland to be diverted from producing food to producing fuel to be burned. The starvation this would cause is forgotten.

Fortunately, oil is a renewable resource, and it's simply easier to drill for it. Oil is constantly forming underground. The conditions for the formation of oil from hydrogen and carbon naturally exist there.

Enjoy your Formula One racing!

 

[Into the Night]

The untold other parallel story to this is the age of the 6th major extinction, the Anthropogenic Extinction Event.

Now showing on a planet under you.

And a first.

This is the first time a mass extinction has been caused by one species.

It's gonna be a very different world without elephants or bees.

Sad to see corral go, too.

A classic example of the type of Doom and Gloom predicted by the Church of Global Warming.

There is no mass extinctions occurring. The elephants and the bees are obviously still here and doing just fine.

Arguing that a mass extinction event is going to take place due to global warming is again ignoring several important things:

* It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
* No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
* The Sun's output hasn't change significantly. The distance from the Earth to the Sun hasn't change significantly.

Again, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws are simply discarded to preach the Doom and Gloom.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

these climate people want petroleum off limits now that the u.s. is energy independent. this is an extension of america hate on a lattice of lies.

 

[Into the Night]

Makes ya wonder how these people sleep at night.

This is quite probably YOUR problem. It is YOU that worries so much about the coming impending 'doom'.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the rules of statistical and probability mathematics allows me to comfortably sleep at night. I don't worry the world is going to burn up in some kind of catastrophic 'global warming', 'climate change', or 'mass extinction'. You do. You are probably describing yourself and your own insomnia problems.

Why don't they care about their children and grandchildren?

This tired old argument, using children and grandchildren as pawns? Really? You don't give a damn about either.

Why don't they care about humanity.

You don't give a damn about humanity either, unless they are part of your religion.

BASIC wisdom:

No wisdom here! Just hatred. Hatred and fear is not wisdom.

If there is a chance that you will face a destruction, it is best to prepare for it.

This is known as Pascal's Wager fallacy. Pascal once used it to try to justify Christianity. The only difference here is the religion being justified.

Even if it is not a certainty that it will occur.

It can't. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law show why.

The wisdom goes like this.
Prepare for the worst; Hope for the best.

This is not wisdom. It is fear. It is fear based on a denial of science.

Denial is foolish.

That it is. It is YOU that is denying science and mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

Most deniers have guns.

Ask them why.

Partly to stop little tinpots like you from becoming dictators. YOU want to impose fascism by oligarchy. YOU think you are one of the 'elite'. How wrong you are.

They are preparing for the worst possibility, that they will be attacked by some stranger meaning to do them harm.

A very real possibility.

They hope they never have to use them.

I use my guns regularly. I target practice, I remove pests with them, I hunt with them, I defend my property, myself, and my loved ones with them, and I have no problem defending the Constitution with them...the same Constitution YOU want to destroy.

Most gun owners never have to use their guns to defend themselves.

I have already used my guns to defend myself. I also use them to defend the property of others. Part of that use is to protect the airport my aircraft is based at.

They are preparing for the worst, hoping for the best.

No one like to shoot another human being, even a dictator like you want to be. I will not allow this nation to fall into fascism by oligarchy if I can help it.

 

[Into the Night]

It would be easier to accept AGW if there were any documented scientific proof that CO2 were capable of whats claimed of it.

Science has no proofs. It's an open functional system. It does, however, have theories. These theories must be falsifiable.

It is not possible for any two theories of science to conflict with each other. One or both of them must be falsified.

The theories in question concerning CO2 are quite simple. They are:

* The 1st law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. Increased temperature is increased thermal energy. CO2 has no capability to violate this law.
* The 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, such as CO2. Heat only flows from hot to cold, never reverse.
* The Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is not possible to have something like CO2 trap or slow heat. Such an action would necessarily reduce the radiance of Earth while the temperature is increasing. According to this law: radiance = Boltzmann's constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4. Both Boltamann's constant and emissivity are constants. Radiance is proportional to temperature, never the reverse.

That said, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light emitted by the surface (according to the same S-B law I just mentioned). Air is also in contact with the surface. It is heated by the surface. Absorption of surface emitted infrared light is just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the air.

Both the surface and the air itself is mass. All mass radiates according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The heated air radiates just as the surface does. ALL of it radiates into space. CO2 cannot in turn heat the surface that heated the CO2. The CO2 is still colder than the surface, and heat does NOT flow 'uphill', not even by radiance.

No molecule or atom will accept a photon that has less energy than the molecule or atom already has. To that photon, it is transparent or reflective. The photon is NOT absorbed. If a photon IS absorbed, it is utterly destroyed. ALL of it's energy is converted into another form. For infrared light, that other form is typically thermal energy. Thermal energy also converts to light (electromagnetic energy). This is known as 'blackbody' radiance and follows the Stefan-Boltzmann law equation.

Existing theories of science say that CO2 has absolutely NO capability to warming anything, including the Earth. No gas or vapor has this capability.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Celticguy,



The proof is there but it involves believing in science.

Does that make it a problem?

Science is not a belief or a religion. It simply is.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No more, no less.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Religions do.
Science does not use consensus. Religions and politics do.
Science does not require degrees, certificates, licenses, or any other Holy Blessing. Religions do.
Science has no power of prediction. Theories of science explain, but they cannot predict. Religions have prophets. Science turns to math, a closed functional system, to gain the power of prediction.
Science has no conflicting theories of science. Religions often conflict with existing theories of science.

The Church of Global Warming is a religion.

It denies existing theories of science.
It denies mathematics.
It tries to use consensus to prove it's case.
It tries to use Holy Blessings to prove it's case.
It has a scripture (much of which is published by the Church of Karl Marx).
It has a High Priesthood, known as climate 'scientists'. There is no science for climates. There is no such thing as a global climate either.

You deny science. You deny mathematics. You deny the linkage between the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Karl Marx.

 

[Into the Night]

Carbon dioxide has been experimentally proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to have greenhouse gas properties. This has been known for a century, it is known by all informed people, and Exxon's own scientists knew it when they secretly concluded four decades ago that burning fossil fuels and adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause the planet to relentlessly warm.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth (or anything else).

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from a colder gas to a warmer surface.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth by 'trapping' heat and have the Earth warm at the same time.

We don't burn fossils for fuels. Fossils don't burn. We burn carbon based fuels such as coal, oil, or natural gas. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

If this is true the scientific evidence should be availble. Perhaps even readily availble. And by scientific evidence i mean an actual repeatable demonstration.

You will never find it.

Science is not evidence. It is not demonstrations, either repeatable or not. Science is nothing more than a set of falsifiable theories.

What makes a theory falsifiable? Just what is a theory in the first place?

A theory is simply an explanatory argument. An argument is simply a set of predicates and a conclusion.

There are many theories. Some falsifiable (theories of science), and some that are not (the basis for many religions).

To be falsifiable, a test must be available to try to destroy the theory. That test must be available, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result. If the theory survives such a test, it is automatically part of the body of science. As long as it can continue to survive such tests, it remains a theory of science. It is never proven True. A theory remains a theory forever, or until it is falsified by failing such a test.

Unfalsifiable theories are ones that have no such test available. They will also remain theories forever. There is nothing to falsify them. Since all theories begin as circular arguments, or arguments of faith, that means an unfalsifiable theory remains an argument of faith forever.

Science only has falsifiable theories. It uses no unfalsifiable theory. It is not data. It is not an observation. It is not a license or degree. It is not a consensus. It is just the set of falsifiable theories themselves.

 

[Rune]

A classic example of the type of Doom and Gloom predicted by the Church of Global Warming.

There is no mass extinctions occurring. The elephants and the bees are obviously still here and doing just fine.

Arguing that a mass extinction event is going to take place due to global warming is again ignoring several important things:

* It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
* No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
* The Sun's output hasn't change significantly. The distance from the Earth to the Sun hasn't change significantly.

Again, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws are simply discarded to preach the Doom and Gloom.

Oh wow.
We are in the midst of the most major mass extinction event of all time.

How could you not know this?

FYI 40% of all bees died last year, giraffes were just added to the endanger ed species lists and elephants are in severe danger.

 

[Into the Night]

It just means you are uninformed and should not be participating in this conversation, if it is news to you that science has experimentally shown and unequivocally proven that CO2 has greenhouse gas properties. This was proven about a century ago.


Its not my job to teach and educate you about widely known and understood scientific principles of earth science and atmospheric science. Especially principles that have been known about for about a century.

Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. It just turn to a closed functional system, such as mathematics, to even gain the power of prediction, for only in a closed functional system does a proof exist. With the power of proof comes the power of prediction.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light, but this is nothing more than the surface cooling itself by heating the atmosphere anyway.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.