New paper shows degree of impact of corporate messaging on public perception of global warming

December 1, 2015 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
Global warming
Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2014, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the annual mean and the red line is the 5-year running mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. Credit: NASA GISS.

(Phys.org)—Justin Farrell of Yale University has published another paper as part of his research into the ways that large corporations are using disinformation campaigns to confuse the public regarding global warming and its cause—just last week he published a paper in Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, offering evidence of large corporations intentionally causing confusion regarding global warming. This time around he offers a report in the journal Nature Climate Change that outlines techniques he's been using that help to gauge just how successful the disinformation campaigns have been.

Not all people in the United States believe that the planet is heating up, or that it is most certainly due to human related . Why this is has been somewhat of a mystery, particularly to people in other countries. In Farrell's paper last week, he reported that he'd found evidence that it has a lot to do with disinformation campaigns led by major corporations, many of which have something to lose if the country switches to alternative energy sources. In his new paper, he reports that he has found a way to measure just how successful those campaigns have been.

By combining several different types of semantic, network and statistical network analysis techniques and using them on data obtained from the public domain (texts, social network sites, trade associations, television networks, presidential speeches, etc.) over the years 1993 to 2013 that involved global warming, Farrell claims he was able to show that over the two-decade time frame, many such texts matched those published by very and some wealthy private citizens, indicating that such entities have been quite successful at getting their messages into the and in stirring the debate over —enough to cause doubt about the evidence coming from the scientific community in many people and that in turn has caused many to doubt that the planet is actually warming, despite overwhelming scientific evidence.

By muddying the waters and causing doubt, the disinformation campaign, he claims, has resulted in inertia on the part of lawmakers, which in turn is preventing measures from being put into place that could help slow the emissions that are causing the problem.

Explore further: Sociologist suggests corporate disinformation at root of climate change polarization

More information: Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement, Nature Climate Change (2015) DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2875

Abstract
Anthropogenic climate change represents a global threat to human well-being1, 2, 3 and ecosystem functioning4. Yet despite its importance for science and policy, our understanding of the causes of widespread uncertainty and doubt found among the general public remains limited. The political and social processes driving such doubt and uncertainty are difficult to rigorously analyse, and research has tended to focus on the individual-level, rather than the larger institutions and social networks that produce and disseminate contrarian information. This study presents a new approach by using network science to uncover the institutional and corporate structure of the climate change counter-movement, and machine-learning text analysis to show its influence in the news media and bureaucratic politics. The data include a new social network of all known organizations and individuals promoting contrarian viewpoints, as well as the entirety of all written and verbal texts about climate change from 1993–2013 from every organization, three major news outlets, all US presidents, and every occurrence on the floor of the US Congress. Using network and computational text analysis, I find that the organizational power within the contrarian network, and the magnitude of semantic similarity, are both predicted by ties to elite corporate benefactors.

Related Stories

40-country survey: Majority support for cutting emissions

November 5, 2015

A survey across 40 countries around the world found most people see global warming as a serious problem, and most of them want their governments to limit emissions as part of a global agreement being negotiated in Paris in ...

Recommended for you

How the Elwha dam removals changed the river's mouth

January 19, 2018

For decades, resource managers agreed that removing the two dams on the Elwha River would be a big win for the watershed as a whole and, in particular, for its anadromous trout and salmon. The dams sat on the river for more ...

154 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (27) Dec 01, 2015
Actually, G+ is flooded with climate change activism, as is this site. There is a rush to enact legislation even though there remains basic science to be done to determine the actual values for climate sensitivity and water vapor feedback. And the ubiquitous climate change marketing online relies heavily on appeals to authority to make its case -- as if people thinking for themselves on the issue is the actual problem being solved.

What is remarkable is truthfully articles like this one which feign confusion at how people do not trust the consensus. Academics should be able to answer these questions without prejudice by simply looking at when attitudes began to shift. Studies have shown that this occurred at Climategate. In other words, the public did not believe the justifications which were offered.

To academics, this "confusion" is apparently reason to just create more papers.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (23) Dec 01, 2015
We are peopled by religious folk. Those kind "believe" what is convenient and feared as well. It is a perverse juxtaposition of feelings, as it is emotion that drive them. Politicians have found easy ways to play these folk, . . just look at how many got suckered by those two draft-dodging cowards, who gave our conservatives the opportunity to kill those of other faiths.

They are the same folk who now preach there is no AGW. Why are they still followed?

Fear, greed and hate.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (24) Dec 01, 2015
We are peopled by religious folk. Those kind "believe" what is convenient and feared as well. It is a perverse juxtaposition of feelings, as it is emotion that drive them. Politicians have found easy ways to play these folk, . . just look at how many got suckered by those two draft-dodging cowards, who gave our conservatives the opportunity to kill those of other faiths.

They are the same folk who now preach there is no AGW. Why are they still followed?

Fear, greed and hate.


glam-Skippy if you want to talk about others instead of the science, please go to facebook or some other site.

Thanks.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (24) Dec 01, 2015
How many times do you suppose Bob Yirka well post an article about Justin Farrell's propaganda? He posted this November 24 with the title "Sociologist suggests Corporate Disinformation at Root of Climate Change Polarization".
axemaster
4.8 / 5 (23) Dec 01, 2015
Paper available at (I will also post to Sapo's):
http://www.nature...2875.pdf

@dogbert
This is a different paper, with different data and analyses.

@Uncle Ira
Amusingly, this may be the one time he can say that and not be off topic.

@HannesAlfven
...There is a rush to enact legislation even though there remains basic science to be done to determine the actual values for climate sensitivity and water vapor feedback...

Boy I'll get right on that. I'll just go into the room with all those 50,000 PhD climate scientists and tell them "Yeah you guys better check on the sensitivity to water vapor. Because, uh, we live on a... water... planet...". Because they're so stupid they haven't thought of that. But HannesAlfven has.
axemaster
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2015
Link for paper on Sapo's:

http://saposjoint...p;t=3887
WhoopdyDo
1.7 / 5 (23) Dec 01, 2015
The corporations have their paid scientists advance their view, and the government has its paid scientists advance its view. But our government has been caught in lies so many times that nobody trusts Washington to tell the truth. So why should government-funded scientists expect to be trusted? Everyday folks are left to go with their gut feeling, so normalcy-bias takes over. Ergo: no global warming.
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (19) Dec 01, 2015
The corporations have their paid scientists advance their view, and the government has its paid scientists advance its view. But our government has been caught in lies so many times that nobody trusts Washington to tell the truth. So why should government-funded scientists expect to be trusted? Everyday folks are left to go with their gut feeling, so normalcy-bias takes over. Ergo: no global warming.


Yeah, because everybody knows that all scientists are American.
WhoopdyDo
1.7 / 5 (17) Dec 01, 2015
Good lord, for a science site, this forum is sure full of snarkers.

Steve, please see 2nd para of article -- it's about the people of the United States. So's my comment. Thanks for your input. Have a great day.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 01, 2015
We are peopled by religious folk. Those kind "believe" what is convenient and feared as well. It is a perverse juxtaposition of feelings, as it is emotion that drive them
-Probably related to the thrill youre addicted to, when your compulsions make you lie about your past and make up facts when talking about subjects you know nothing about.

George had an epiphany when he discovered that he could pretend to be anything he wanted, and that people would fall for it - at least for awhile.

"Human beings have been accustomed to assume that other human beings are - at the very least - trying to "do right" and "be good" and fair and honest. And so, very often, we do not take the time to use due diligence in order to determine if a person who has entered our life is, in fact, a "good person.""

"The truth - when twisted by good liars, can always make an innocent person look bad - especially if the innocent person is honest and admits his mistakes."

-Its obvious what you are.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 01, 2015
Paper available at (I will also post to Sapo's):
http://www.nature...2875.pdf

@dogbert
This is a different paper, with different data and analyses.

@Uncle Ira
Amusingly, this may be the one time he can say that and not be off topic.

@HannesAlfven
...There is a rush to enact legislation even though there remains basic science to be done to determine the actual values for climate sensitivity and water vapor feedback...

Boy I'll get right on that. I'll just go into the room with all those 50,000 PhD climate scientists and tell them "Yeah you guys better check on the sensitivity to water vapor. Because, uh, we live on a... water... planet...". Because they're so stupid they haven't thought of that. But HannesAlfven has.


Tell them about the sun too. They don't know about that either apparently
john_mathon
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 01, 2015
1) I have never seen corporate propoganda against global warming. Could someone point a reference to some link? I really have no idea what the author is talking about. I am not even sure corporations have any interest in getting in on the controversy. I think I could gather about 1,000 corporate messages "against global warming" trivially. So, I find the premise of this article hard to understand

2) I myself believed in AGW when the data supported it, but had reservations. When those reservations turned out to be true I simply followed the logic. I am not saying there is no man-made global warming but I am sure it is less than 1/3 what they said it would be. I am also quite good at remembering what people said and they made some predictions which have turned out to be quite wrong. So, my growing skepticism is based on the unfortunate turn of events you could say or fortunate depending on your point of view that the data has moved away from the theory most remarkably.
john_mathon
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 01, 2015
When I talk to people who believe in Global warming it is usually 99% of the time people who have no idea of the science. They are literally completely buffoons from what I can see. When I mention the simple facts they have no retort, no questions about the data or apparent knowledge.

Since I couldn't find anyone to ask questions I looked for classes and found one at Stanford. I asked the professors teaching the class for evidence for many of the claims made by AGW enthusiasts and even though being quite smart and knowledgeable were unable to offer any significant proof of anything more compelling than the simplest of parts of the theory.

Later the head of Lawrence Livermore Climate model group came to talk. He was unable to provide significant evidence to support high warming. High warming is a theory. A theory that is very much in doubt. He also made statements which are now clearly false such as PDO would stop and MWP was regional.
john_mathon
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 01, 2015
I have yet to find anyone who can explain simply how we get to 2C by 2100. We were told and continue to be told that this is hard to avoid but it seems hard to happen. It would require a massive sudden change which is more reminiscent of what usually is called a miracle. The temperature change of the last 7 decades would have to immediately double or triple and keep going up without stop for 8 decades. While such a thing is possible it is clearly not "obvious." Such a change is not scientific. There is no basis. So, nobody has been able to explain this theory in any detail beyond hyperbole including college professors and leaders of major climate model organizations. It all comes down to "SHUT UP. IT's REAL. IT's CATASTROPHIC and if you keep asking questions I'm going to have you brought up on RICO charges.

What pisses me off the most though is the lack of accountability. They predicted lots of stuff that has failed and they never admit or explain why they were wrong.
Dug
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 01, 2015
The only thing remarkable about this article and the study is their assumption that "corporations" all benefit if climate change is denied. Last I checked the world was full of corporate and political beneficiaries if climate change is accepted. Of course media and sites like this one benefit from the arguments. It would be pretty hard not to find monetary bias on either side.
leetennant
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2015
Yes, mining companies all benefit from us not using what they mine anymore.

Nobody wins from global warming. It's not possible. Only someone inculcated with mining company propaganda would thinks so
WhoopdyDo
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2015
"It all comes down to "SHUT UP. IT's REAL. IT's CATASTROPHIC and if you keep asking questions I'm going to have you brought up on RICO charges."

I agree totally with this. I seriously think climate-changers' fanaticism and complete unwillingness to tolerate or even discuss dissenting views is another reason people distrust them. Instead every mention of climate change opens with the implication, "We're smart, you're stupid, anyone who disagrees with us is a moron or a liar." This despite the fact that the vast majority of scientific hypotheses eventually get overturned as the science and research advances. 500 years ago, these people would have been burning Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 02, 2015
Whoopy can sit there smug and wrong, and the rest of us will have to do the heavy lifting. We are used to the shirkers in this country.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (18) Dec 02, 2015
This despite the fact that the vast majority of scientific hypotheses eventually get overturned as the science and research advances. 500 years ago, these people would have been burning Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun.


One is is wrong with that theory Skippy. 500 years ago the people involved with science and could understand what Galileo was saying agreed with him. It was the church/politicians that were making him the misere, eh? So you kind of got it backwards Cher.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Dec 02, 2015
Link for paper on Sapo's:

http://saposjoint...p;t=3887

Thanks for the link.

That's the beauty of science boys n' girls. You can try to manipulate people by fabricating your own pseudoscientific anylses, but science will beat back by uncovering falsehood using the very same methods these corporations/elites are purporting to use.

And that's where the lies end because they have nowhere else to go. Either they admit they lied - or they attack the real science and thereby implying that their own papers weren't truthful, either.
WhoopdyDo
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 02, 2015


One is is wrong with that theory Skippy. 500 years ago the people involved with science and could understand what Galileo was saying agreed with him. It was the church/politicians that were making him the misere, eh? So you kind of got it backwards Cher.


Well, by calling me "Skippy" and "Cher" you sort of prove what I said about climate-change adherents beginning their arguments with name-calling and character assassination. Where in debate school do they teach that the best way to convince somebody is to start by calling them names?

But besides that, you missed my point. 500 years ago, "science" held that the Sun circled the Earth. (The "Geocentric Model.") Galileo was a skeptic. Today climate-change science has become a religion, and any skeptic is automatically a branded a heretic.
WhoopdyDo
2 / 5 (16) Dec 02, 2015
Whoopy can sit there smug and wrong, and the rest of us will have to do the heavy lifting. We are used to the shirkers in this country.


You know, I could well be wrong, but I'm willing to put forth a position and explain why I feel that way. If you actually read my comments, instead of knee-jerking a response, you might note that I never say climate change is wrong. I don't know if it is or not; that's the whole point, that nobody knows who to believe. You can't even be uncertain without incurring the wrath of the witch-burners.

You, on the other hand, make no argument for your own perspective. Anyone who has a different viewpoint gets simply called names. Please re-read the original comment by john_mathon and do a little introspection, will ya?

I'm coming to the conclusion that what's wrong with "scientists" is that too many of them are like the snarkers on this site. Thought to find some reasoning here, but it's just another forum full of hate. Must look elsewhere.
WhoopdyDo
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 02, 2015
Anybody know a site I can join that relies on science instead of invective?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 02, 2015
No religion here. I got my opinion by earning a Master of Science in this field decades ago. How did you get your opinion? Politics?
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 02, 2015
Well, by calling me "Skippy" and "Cher" you sort of prove what I said about climate-change adherents beginning their arguments with name-calling and character assassination. Where in debate school do they teach that the best way to convince somebody is to start by calling them names?


Well you are on a roll Skippy with the theory making. You got that wrong too. I call my self Skippy. And Mrs-Ira-Skippette I call Chere. And Little-Ira-Skippy I call Cher. So what you think of that Skippy?

Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (21) Dec 02, 2015
But besides that, you missed my point. 500 years ago, "science" held that the Sun circled the Earth. (The "Geocentric Model.") Galileo was a skeptic.


Most science minded peoples held the same view that Galileo did. He just did a good job of explaining. "Science" did not hold to the "Geocentric Model.", the church did. And even that was mostly the church in the Rome part of Italy. What Cher, you never heard of Copernicus, Rheticus, Kepler, The Diggs (father and son)? And all the other science minded peoples before and during Galileo's time?

Today climate-change science has become a religion, and any skeptic is automatically a branded a heretic.


You still got it backwards. The skeptics are the creationists, Tea-Party-Skippys, the politicians (just like in the Galileo's day.)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 02, 2015
Anybody know a site I can join that relies on science instead of invective?


Well sure thing Cher. I can help you with that. Have you tried the "Bully-Tea-Party-Pulpit-Forum-Of-Skippys-Who-Obama-Makes-Crazy"? You would love it there. Now that I think about it, you probably already been there, they like that science-skeptic-Galileo theory of yours. Maybe that is where you got that theory, eh?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. If by chance you have not been there before I suggest it. Don't tell them I sent you over. You might not even want to mention anything about Ira or Skippys or such like. I have been banneded there 12 or 11 times for saying nice things about Obama back in the elections, and if you mention me or something about Skippys, they will slam the door right in your face.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher and let me know how it goes with you there.
john_mathon
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 02, 2015
This argument that "corporations" are supporting the anti-science skeptics is pretty unbelievable.I doubt it because all these corporations must know that if they were exposed for doing that it would be horrific.Nobody has even been able to provide a single reference to any evidence of any corporate funding.I suppose this could all be under the table somehow but I know for myself and the people I know this is basically all personal interest. We have no financial benefit from this. Frankly I don't know anyway you could possibly make money by betting on the "opposite of climate change." Betting on oil companies or something would be extremely doubtful strategy as they go up and down with price of oil etc than any long term belief in climate warming or electric cars. On the other hand making money betting on climate change is easy. There are dozens of corporations making billions from climate change. Research dollars are in the billions. This argument is incredibly upside down.
WhoopdyDo
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2015
No religion here. I got my opinion by earning a Master of Science in this field decades ago. How did you get your opinion? Politics?


Got my opinion from guys like you who skip right over what's written and go straight to demeaning. Read my comment: I didn't say climate change is wrong, I offered an explanation why people think it's wrong. Apparently one can't even do that anymore.
WhoopdyDo
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2015

Well sure thing Cher. I can help you with that. Have you tried the "Bully-Tea-Party-Pulpit-Forum-Of-Skippys-Who-Obama-Makes-Crazy"? You would love it there. Now that I think about it, you probably already been there, they like that science-skeptic-Galileo theory of yours. Maybe that is where you got that theory, eh?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. If by chance you have not been there before I suggest it. Don't tell them I sent you over. You might not even want to mention anything about Ira or Skippys or such like. I have been banneded there 12 or 11 times for saying nice things about Obama back in the elections, and if you mention me or something about Skippys, they will slam the door right in your face.


LOL, you win, Uncle Ira. You make so much sense, I don't know why I tried to have a conversation with you. You are the rightest man on the planet.
john_mathon
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 02, 2015
This is so reminiscent of "the big lie."The fact is there are many many billions to be made by ascribing and trying to buttress climate change propaganda.Governments are handing out the dough in large ladels.Just read phys.org and see the number of research articles published.It seems half the entire spending of research these days is going to climate research.There are also dozens hundreds of companies making alternative this or that you can make money by arguing global warming to enhance their stock.The ratio of money made arguing climate change is huge vs against it must be 1000 to 1.If true then the miniscule amount of money spent by skeptics is overwhelming apparently the 1000 times greater spending the other way.That's astonishing.
I think it's simple.If the temps were indeed 0.5C warmer than they were today as the models predict then we would not be here talking.if the haitus or slowdown had not happened then we would have had a straight up line and skeptics would not exist.
john_mathon
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 02, 2015
The fact is that the average gain is 0.113 / decade or 1.1C / century NOT 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 even 10.0 they told us 25 years ago. Practically as soon as they made their predictions the line flattened! How bad luck, huh? Well, when we had very little data In the beginning there is great uncertainty and you can say it will go almost anywhere. By now we have 70 years of good data and have put quite a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. We have had all kinds of predictions none of which seem to have come to pass or look to be coming to pass. The rope is becoming taught on the leeway the public is willing to give them. The rhetoric gets more and more hysterical indicative that things aren't going well. They come up with more and more hysterical arguments against the skeptics. That is pretty much proof the game is almost up. Already as I said the lack of that 0.5C makes the argument for 2C let alone 3C look impossible. How? How could that happen? Every year it gets harder
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (19) Dec 02, 2015
LOL, you win, Uncle Ira. You make so much sense, I don't know why I tried to have a conversation with you. You are the rightest man on the planet.


I wish I could get Mrs-Ira-Skippette to sit down and let you tell her that.

But if I were you Skippy, I sure would not be making such the big deal with that. There are a whole lot smarter peoples on here than me. Usually if I win that means you should be extra embarrassed. I am not the science school scientist even though you might have made that mistake. I just read a lot books about the real scientist-Skippys doing their work.
HeloMenelo
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 02, 2015
This Circus gets bigger by the month, i now see the usual anti climate change goons with fresh new sock puppets trying to change their strategies pretending to "believe" in climate change with their own agenda's at play that clearly isn't working, the evidence over the years for climate change has been so overwhelming they have no choice but to admit it... anyway let me add a little refresher to everyone as to how the lies by big corporates are spread to flush out the propaganda parade in this comment section:

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
SteveS
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 02, 2015
@WhoopdyDo

Good lord, for a science site, this forum is sure full of snarkers.

Steve, please see 2nd para of article -- it's about the people of the United States. So's my comment. Thanks for your input. Have a great day.


Your comment implies that the American people are only influenced by American scientists. I'm sorry I upset you by pointing this out, but this is a science site so you should expect people to be critical.

So, why would Americans distrust Japanese or Norwegian scientists?
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 02, 2015
Conspiracy!

And it's only a conspiracy when it's perpetrated by corporations, academia and governments never rely on such tactics.

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 02, 2015
Boy I'll get right on that. I'll just go into the room with all those 50,000 PhD climate scientists and tell them "Yeah you guys better check on the sensitivity to water vapor. Because, uh, we live on a... water... planet...". Because they're so stupid they haven't thought of that. But HannesAlfven has


And there is the pathetic appeal to authority, surprise!
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 02, 2015
Hi john_mathon. :)

Until Religious/Capitalist crazies/crooks in US Republican Party politicized the issue, it was going fine as a purely scientific study/observation/modeling of Climate since late 1800's! Then because Democrats supported the science and evolving understanding of threat AGW posed, the Republicans naturally took contrarian stance for political reasons and began campaigns of lies, misrepresentation and 'mercenary scientists/lobbies' to muddy the waters of public discourse/understandings for majority of Americans not at that time fully capable of understanding all the actual science for themselves. But advent of Internet and freely accessible on-line information/discourse, has since made many aware/understand. But many still as ignorant, politically driven as ever because they're Republicans first (and thinking people second----if ever). Corporations/GOP 'commissioned' crooked scientists/studies to 'support' their campaigns/lies. Where have you been, mate? :)
barakn
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 02, 2015
This argument that "corporations" are supporting the anti-science skeptics is pretty unbelievable.I doubt it because all these corporations must know that if they were exposed for doing that it would be horrific. - john_mathon
The fact that you wrote that at the very moment that Exxon is running a smear campaign against fledgling journalists that exposed its early research on and acceptance of the greenhouse effect is simultaneously dismaying and risible. Your cognitive dissonance must be deafening.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2015
Hi john_mathon. :)

Until Religious/Capitalist crazies/crooks in US Republican Party politicized the issue, it was going fine as a purely scientific study/observation/modeling of Climate since late 1800's! Then because Democrats supported the science and evolving understanding of threat AGW posed, the Republicans naturally took contrarian stance for political reasons and began campaigns of lies, misrepresentation and 'mercenary scientists/lobbies' to muddy the waters of public discourse/understandings for majority of Americans not at that time fully capable of understanding all the actual science for themselves. But many still as ignorant, politically driven as ever because they're Republicans first (and thinking people second----if ever). Corporations/GOP 'commissioned' crooked scientists/studies to 'support' their campaigns/lies. Where have you been, mate? :)

Sounds conspiracy-ish, there RC...
HeloMenelo
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2015
Conspiracy!


No, evidence, mountains of solid hard evidence presented by credible scientists is self explanatory as to human induced climate change.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2015
I have never seen corporate propoganda against global warming...This argument that "corporations" are supporting the anti-science skeptics is pretty unbelievable
@john_m
yeah... right
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

follow the money
I myself believed in AGW when the data supported it, but had reservations
this is called a false claim: http://www.auburn...ion.html

the data not only supports it (still), but overwhelmingly does so
Nobody has even been able to provide a single reference to any evidence of any corporate funding.I suppose this could all be under the table somehow but
1- the evidence is in my link
2- study validated
3- they intentionally started hiding the funds (see study) because ...????
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2015
Until Religious/Capitalist crazies/crooks in US Republican Party politicized the issue, it was going fine as a ...blah...blah...

Ah, the unlimited supply of hogwash and lies.
unrealone1
2 / 5 (12) Dec 04, 2015
Vostok ice records clearly show carbon lags heat by 800 years.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 04, 2015
Exxon knows how propaganda works, intimately.

What are we going to do about their lies, the ones they used to stop our attempts to stop Global Warming?

How many goobers here got fooled by Exxon?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (14) Dec 04, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)
Ah, the unlimited supply of hogwash and lies.
Now now, antigoracle, is that any way to talk about what you/GOP/Fossil/Nuclear lobbies have been doing for decades now? Tut tut, I expected more denialist/hypocritical propaganda and ignorance form you today...and you come back with such self-incriminating admissions? Wonders will never cease; especially since you found out Dyson Freeman does acknowledge AGW (that must have upped your cognitive dissonance after having assumed for so long he was 'on your side', hey?). Grow up, mate. Face it like a man not a mercenary stooge arguing while the ship is sinking under you. They don't care about you/your family, mate....just your mercenary/egotistical motives for doing their dirty work/lies for them via the Troll Factory GOP/Fossil/Nuclear lobbies are funding. Shame on you, wasting/betraying your life and intellect for blood money like that. Get real; get honest with yourself and the world around you, mate. :)
Bongstar420
4 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2015
Lets survey only people with +130IQ's and see what those numbers look like....

Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2015
Lets survey only people with +130IQ's and see what those numbers look like....



That would eliminate most of the deniers.
SteveS
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 05, 2015
Vostok ice records clearly show carbon lags heat by 800 years.

CO2 acts as an amplifier to the climate changes caused by the Milankovitch cycles. This effect was predicted over 25 years ago.

http://www.atmos....core.pdf

"changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing"

Another successful prediction by climate scientists
xstos
3 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2015
I'm tired of blog titles referring to innocuous-sounding global warming. Climate change is a subset of humanity's incessant biosphere destruction. Warming the globe portrays trivial negative connotations compared to the epic amount of pain we are inflicting on our planet. Chemicals, toxins, gases, agribusiness, forestry, mining, urbanization, etc. Of all the destruction we've wrought the thermometer going up is probably the least terrifying in trying to convey the urgency of our cancer-like proliferation across the earth.
gkam
2 / 5 (16) Dec 05, 2015
xstos, the Earth has been aggressively assaulted ever since it was infected with Life.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 05, 2015
xstos, the Earth has been aggressively assaulted ever since it was infected with Life.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, we will be rid of the infection that is you.
john_mathon
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 05, 2015
Realitycheck: Its the republicans. The science is going along fine....

Plankton to die from global warming: FALSE (recent study)
Polar Bears to die from global warming: FALSE (population up)
More extreme storms from global warming: FALSE
More storms from global warming: FALSE
Coral Reefs to die from global warming: FALSE (recent study)
More people die from warmer weather: FALSE (Lancet)
Less food in 2080 from global warming: FALSE (common sense)
More malaria from global warming: FALSE (see CRISPR gene)
Temps +3C in 2100 from 1945: FALSE
Temps +2C in 2100 from 1945: FALSE
Temps +1C in 2100 from 1945: Maybe, maybe not
NOTHING THESE PEOPLE SAY IS TRUE.
philstacy9
3 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2015
Justin Farrell is the disinformation campaign to confuse the public.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2015
Vostok ice records clearly show carbon lags heat by 800 years.


And you can, of course, link to the study(ies) that "clearly show" that?

Don't link Barmola et al (1991); they do not clearly show any lag, they only inferred there may be one, and this was overturned by later research, the most recent conducted by conducted by Parrenin et al in 2013: Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming, Science 1 March 2013:
Vol. 339 no. 6123 pp. 1060-1063 DOI: 10.1126/science.1226368

I wonder, do you often try to cite as evidence, studies that are 25 years old? Do you still wonder if they will find planets around other stars too?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 05, 2015
Lets survey only people with +130IQ's and see what those numbers look like....



That would eliminate most of the deniers.

Probably all actually. Except maybe Curry - she seems to revel in being the smartest dummy in a room full of dummies.

PS: You posts are getting really good V, always a pleasure to read your stuff.
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 05, 2015
Hi cantdrive. :)

Mate, why make that insulting and totally irrelevant/irrational response to gkam for his merely putting into a neat nutshell a well-known historical/scientific fact? That is, that at every stage of the abiogenesis of bacterial, to bluegreen-algal, to more evolved/complex lifeforms, the biosphere and its ecological/meteorological/hydrological etc system/dynamics has been profoundly affected one way or another. The question at present is whether these profound effects of the latest stage (humans and their globally significant activities/emissions) are affecting that system/dynamics in such a way as to be NOT favorable or tolerable as it once recently was pre-industrial age.

cantdrive, you don't appear to have the wherewithal in logic/data/objectivity in this topic (Climate science/discussion) as much as you may have in others (eg, Cosmology science/discussion). I suggest, as impartial observer, that you concentrate on the latter. Leave out the insults. Ta. :)
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (16) Dec 05, 2015
Hi Whyde. :)
Sounds conspiracy-ish, there RC...
Not at all, mate. It's simply discovered record of GOP/Fossil/Nuclear lobbies behavior/strategies of denial/obfuscation via 'mercenarily expedient' pushing of 'paid for' corrupted science/scientist 'bogus studies' and 'massaged stats' and 'toturred and perverse logics' etc politically/cynically designed to delay and confuse the public opinion/discourse/action, and which campaigns (similar to those past Tobacco, Asbestos, Pharma, Gun Lobbies etc used/use) has increasingly been exposed and discredited even as we speak. So, no. History/Discovered facts re Fossil/Nuclear/GOP political/mercenary efforts to dissemble and avoid and deny reality/responsibility in order to gain/extend power/profit agendas. Good luck getting the mess straight after they have messed it all up for everyone, mate. :)
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (16) Dec 05, 2015
Hi john_mathon. :)

Here, some FYI:

Polar Bears now have to scavenge on land more to stay alive, because of disappearing/less-contiguous etc sea-ice hunting grounds containing the 'blow holes' of their seal prey...

http://phys.org/n...chi.html

Island communities also being severely/disastrously impacted by disappearing sea-ice 'skirt' previously protecting them against storm surges/waves etc...

http://www.abc.ne.../6975994

Toxic algal blooms due to warming waters on land/seas/ocean regions affecting all living things in the food chain, including human health/recreation/industry...

http://phys.org/n...kes.html

For examples of further effects re storm/drought/flood event severity/persistence/extent/frequency etc, please read links for antigoracle...

http://phys.org/n...oss.html

EnricM
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
s.


People do not trust consensus. Nice, but, science is NOT democratic. Your opinion does not count. Sorry.
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 06, 2015
I hope the criminal corporations that pay moon-howlers to endorse massive human death on this site don't pay them much. Anything above slave wages would be a rip-off considering the low low quality of their work.
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2015
SuperThunder,
I hope the criminal corporations that pay moon-howlers to endorse massive human death on this site don't pay them much. Anything above slave wages would be a rip-off considering the low low quality of their work.


A common tactic is to claim that evil corporations are funding people to comment on sites such as this one. You make that claim. So what corporations are doing this and who are they paying.

Back up your claim with something other than innuendo.
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 06, 2015
A common tactic is to claim that evil corporations are funding people to comment on sites such as this one. You make that claim. So what corporations are doing this and who are they paying.

http://www.thegua...y-groups
http://www.thegua...awmakers
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Now, it's obvious your target audience are moon-howlers who will die before seeing anything rational, while the rational have already written you off, and we both know it, so let's ignore the standard propaganda nonsense and cut to the chase.

http://cdn.phys.o...gytd.png

Look at that image and tell me which one pays you.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (10) Dec 06, 2015
Toxic algal blooms due to warming waters on land/seas/ocean regions affecting all living things in the food chain, including human health/recreation/industry...

More/hog/wash.
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 06, 2015
Information on toxic algae to vainly try and inoculate against the pure weaponized stupid that will gladly kill us all so someone other than them can have more money.

http://www.epa.go...l-blooms
http://www.cdc.go...hsb/hab/
http://www.nwfsc....ndex.cfm
http://oceanservi...rds/hab/
http://epa.illino...om/index
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 06, 2015
SuperThunder,

Your links talk about money funding lobbying efforts and money funding conservatives running for office. There is always money funding both conservative and liberal politicians.

Your claim was that "criminal corporations" are paying people to comment on media sites. You failed to provide any proof that anyone is being paid to present their views on sites such as this one.

Again, what evil corporations are paying people to comment on sites such as this one and who is being paid?

You can't back up your claim because you don't know of a single individual who is being paid to present a view which is not the P.C., AGW view. Nor do you know of any corporation which is paying individuals to express their views against AGW.
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 06, 2015
Your links talk about money funding lobbying efforts and money funding conservatives running for office.

Logical fallacy : half-truth, leaves out that this in relation to climate change. Fail at paid shill, should be fired by corporate masters.
There is always money funding both conservative and liberal politicians.

False dichotomy : Not all money that goes to politicians is used to maximize the profits of corporations at the expense of millions of human lives.
Your claim was that "criminal corporations" are paying people to comment on media sites. You failed to provide any proof that anyone is being paid to present their views on sites such as this one.

Lie. Check links.
Again, what evil corporations are paying people to comment on sites such as this one and who is being paid?

Help me out, I showed you a chart, point out your boss. If it's "other" please give licensed business name. This one's on you. You should be fired you're so bad at this.
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 06, 2015
You can't back up your claim because you don't know of a single individual who is being paid to present a view which is not the P.C., AGW view.

Starts off as a meaningless statement, jumps straight to political paranoia (it isn't really, you're paid to shove in buzzwords for the moon-howlers to feed on).
Nor do you know of any corporation which is paying individuals to express their views against AGW.

Lie. I showed you the chart, which one do you work for?
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2015
SuperThunder,

So you cannot back up your claim. As I thought.

You can call me a liar and you can claim I am being paid. Both lies.

Again, you do not know of a single individual who is being paid to comment against AGW on this site or any other site and you do not know of a single corporation which is paying people to comment against AGW on this site or any other site.

You will, of course, continue to pretend to knowledge which you do not possess. You will continue to make claims which you cannot support since they are unsupportable.

You have been caught making false statements.
indio007
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2015
Blah Blah Blah.... Earth surface temperature data does not have enough fide;ty to draw a conclusion about whether the temp is up or down. You can only interpolate so much.
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 06, 2015
So you cannot back up your claim. As I thought.

Lie.
You have been caught making false statements.

Not even language, just an animal noise, like barking or hiking a leg to mark a lamp post.

Only an idiot would pay you for this comment.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2015
You make that claim. So what corporations are doing this and who are they paying.

Back up your claim with something other than innuendo.
you do not know of a single corporation which is paying people to comment against AGW on this site or any other site
@dogbert
if you don't like superT's links above, try this one
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

it is a study, and it has recently been validated

also note: repeating dogma that is being promoted by the denial camp (regardless of source or pay) makes a person just as liable and complicit in the fraud as the ones being paid and directly under the supervision of the anti-science/climate movement

just because you want to believe in something doesn't make it true any more than standing in a garage makes you a lawn mower
dogbert
3 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2015
Captain Stumpy,
if you don't like superT's links above, try this one
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx


Nothing different in your post. The proponents of AGW are well funded and organizations who do not promote the AGW agenda also receive funding. It is not a new thing to find that political viewpoints are funded.

SuperThunder claimed knowledge that individuals were paid to post anti-AGW commentary on this and other sites. His claim is not a new claim but it is a claim that is simply made up to support a position.

I called him on that claim and challenged him to point out a single individual who was paid to post an opinion against AGW on this or any other site and to point out a single corporation which paid an individual for such a post. Of course, he could not support that claim.

You cannot support that ad hominem claim either.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2015
Hey, Bow-wow, look up Exxon.
dogbert
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2015
gkam,
Hey, Bow-wow, look up Exxon.


Why?

The ad hominem claim is that corporations are paying people to post on this site and other sites against AGW.

Do you claim to know someone who is paid to post comments AGW? If so, name the person and the corporation paying him/her. And provide proof that your claim is true.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2015
It is not a new thing to find that political viewpoints are funded
@dog
except AGW is not a political viewpoint, it is a scientific one
big difference. & before you get all crazy, i am specifically referring to the proven validated science of AGW, not your "alarmist" rhetoric
claimed knowledge that individuals were paid to post anti-AGW commentary
1-
individuals' efforts have been bankrolled and directed by organizations that receive sustained support from foundations and funders known for their overall commitments to conservative causes
2- the links he shared also validate this
3- it is logical to assume that if there are promoters of anti-science being paid as indicated in his links, then they would appear in heavily trafficked sites (like this one)
4- dr roy
5- repeating rhetoric that is fraudulent is the same as the original source, paid or not, and we can show where there are paid supporters promoting a fraudulent belief, therefore it IS proven
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2015
@dog cont'd
in fact, you yourself have promoted anti-science and regardless of your actual status (being paid or not) it makes you culpable and complicit in fraud
more to the point, the fraud extends to the future (should you get your own way and AGW is ignored)

so it IS a payment (of various means), but one of a clique and not always measured in direct financial gain in the moment. some people gain notoriety, some ASSume a prestige from "rubbing elbows" with the [insert adjective here]

this is the KEY point IMHO... payment is not always financial nor is it always directly measurable in remunerative gain as some people act upon a belief for the sake of a different measure of recompense
challenged him to point out a single individual who was paid to post an opinion against AGW
see the above: "paid" does not always equal $$
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2015
@dog last
You cannot support that ad hominem claim either
1- it is NOT ad hominem to demonstrate through evidence that someone is paid to support anti-science: this is your guilt or transference attempting to assuage your actions
2- i will say it again: payment is not always financial nor is it always directly measurable in remunerative gain as some people act upon a belief for the sake of a different measure of recompense
3- the point is proven, and supported by evidence, so it is already demonstrated - problem is, you are throwing out the red herring of "...but they didn't get a $$ payment"
a single individual who was paid to post an opinion against AGW
dr roy; curry, Soon, ... need i forward more?

point of fact: repeating a lie doesn't make it true, and repeating a known fraudulent claim only makes you complicit in the act of fraud

see above for more details about recompense and "paid to post"

dogbert
3 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2015
Captain Stumpy,

You make the ad hominem claim that individuals are being paid to make comments on does such as this site to argue against AGW. When I pointed out that this claim was ad hominem and you had no actual knowledge of any individual being paid to do that and no knowledge of any corporation hiring anyone to do that, you continue to make the claim.

Prove it. Name individuals and corporations doing that and provide the evidence to prove your assertion. You can't do it because it is simply made up. A fabrication meant to mislead people into believing there is some conspiracy against AGW.

RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)
Toxic algal blooms due to warming waters on land/seas/ocean regions affecting all living things in the food chain, including human health/recreation/industry...

More/hog/wash.
Your 'denial-bone' must be getting sore and your mouth weary by now, from bumping into the unfolding reality around you every day now which belies every 'tactic' you now employ in your last ditch effort to convince the gullible and earn your Troll Factory blood money from those lobbies who employ people of no conscience or integrity like you are now betraying yourself more and more every time you come back with that "hog/wash" tactic when you know you haven't a leg to stand on. You must be getting pretty tired of your own ignorance/incompetence by now, surely...or is 'industrial strength' insensibility, plus studied misapplication of your human intelligence to such nefarious/mercenary political/egotistical ends, still keeping you unaware of your own stupidity and malice?
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2015
Nobody is paying anybody anything. No need to.
Just insert a little emotionally driven disinformation in one blog stream and BANG, it brings out the emotional in everyone ELSE...
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2015
Let's be fair and call a spade a spade. Most deniers are wingnuts, idiots or paid-for trolls.

Example;
http://www.thegua...-science
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2015
howhot2,
Most deniers are wingnuts, idiots or paid-for trolls.


Feeling superior and actually being superior is not the same thing. Everyone who does not believe as you believe is not an idiot, crazy or on someone else's payroll. Dogma does not trump reason.

People are beginning to see through the propaganda of AGW. When the preacher on the street corner keeps predicting the end of the world tomorrow and keeps moving the date, eventually anyone can see the scam.
leetennant
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2015
Yeah, I always listen respectfully to those people who "don't agree with me" on the existence of gravity, evolution or the laws of thermodynamics as well. Flat Earthers? Well, since 'everyone who does not believe as you believe is not an idiot' then their 'differing opinion' on established scientific fact is not a sign of ignorance but of a broad mind. So broad their brain fell out.

Hey, did you know the sun is a God's chariot? I hope to ride on it one day. Not an idiot though. Just someone who does not believe as you do.
dogbert
2 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2015
leetennant,

Sounds like you drank the kool aid.

Believing in a flat earth has always been a myth. Everybody is subject to gravity, etc.

Sad. But you have every right to believe what you choose without regard the reality around you.
leetennant
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2015
Yes, we get it, you pick and choose which science to accept and which to reject for arbitrary reasons. I don't. But if you could put through the list of basic facts you accept and reject for our future reference, that would be helpful, thanks. Because anthropogenic climate change? BASIC physics. As basic as gravity. Deal with it.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2015
I really don't need a reference to what you believe and disbelieve. Gravity, flat earth, etc.

When you leave reality, you can just play in your own mind. I don't care argue with you about your fantasies.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2015
When I pointed out that this claim was ad hominem and you had no actual knowledge of any individual being paid to do that and no knowledge of any corporation hiring anyone to do that, you continue to make the claim.

Prove it
@dog
so... not only are you NOT reading the links, but you aren't reading the posts either?
but you are arguing that you're right... how about going back and re-reading those last 3 posts... and when you read the evidence, feel free to refute it: thanks
People are beginning to see through the propaganda of AGW
the science is now propaganda?
WTF?
really?

you can't prove the science is wrong, so your idea is simply to label it propaganda and call it conspiracy... and this is logical to you?

what, exactly, is the propaganda and how is it "wrong"????

you know what?
never mind that
you will not read (or accept) the evidence refuting you, so why bother getting into the conversation at all?

fanaticism reigns, eh?
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2015
Captain Stumpy,
so... not only are you NOT reading the links, but you aren't reading the posts either?
but you are arguing that you're right... how about going back and re-reading those last 3 posts... and when you read the evidence, feel free to refute it


No, you make the claim, it is up to you to prove that claim. You can't. I will repeat what I said:

You make the ad hominem claim that individuals are being paid to make comments on does such as this site to argue against AGW. When I pointed out that this claim was ad hominem and you had no actual knowledge of any individual being paid to do that and no knowledge of any corporation hiring anyone to do that, you continue to make the claim.

Prove it. Name individuals and corporations doing that and provide the evidence to prove your assertion. You can't do it because it is simply made up. A fabrication meant to mislead people into believing there is some conspiracy against AGW.


So prove your claims.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2015
Feeling superior and actually being superior is not the same thing. Everyone who does not believe as you believe is not an idiot, crazy or on someone else's payroll. Dogma does not trump reason.

Well, sure. If you were questioning whether String Theory is actually correct, or whether Gravitational waves exist, then it would certainly be dogma.

But, you are questioning something that has been thoroughly VETTED. You might as well be questioning whether the Moon is made of rock. It's not dogma, when we can easily show it to be happening.
http://climate.na...vidence/
People are beginning to see through the propaganda of AGW.

No, people HAVE BEEN BEING DUPED by disinformation campaigns since Reagan, when Fossil fuel industries noticed that reducing carbon emissions might hurt their bottom line. You are one of them. Congratulations.

The damning evidence is here:
http://www.ucsusa...iers.pdf
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2015
thefurlong,
You take my comment to howhot2 out of context. howhot2 said:
Most deniers are wingnuts, idiots or paid-for trolls.


And I responded to him:
Feeling superior and actually being superior is not the same thing. Everyone who does not believe as you believe is not an idiot, crazy or on someone else's payroll. Dogma does not trump reason.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2015
No, you make the claim, it is up to you to prove that claim
@dog
i did. see above referenced posts as well as links (which was my point- you aren't reading the posts OR the links)
So prove your claims
and again, just because you choose to ignore the evidence doesn't mean it will go away

either you are intentionally choosing to ignore it or you are illiterate: obviously the latter can't be true as you are replying to the posts, so that leaves only the former (unless, of course, you can provide another reason)

or is this really about comprehension?

feel free to let me know so we can go from there
except, of course, if you are going to ignore the evidence
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2015
thefurlong,
You take my comment to howhot2 out of context. howhot2 said
Most deniers are wingnuts, idiots or paid-for trolls.


And I responded to him:
Feeling superior and actually being superior is not the same thing. Everyone who does not believe as you believe is not an idiot, crazy or on someone else's payroll. Dogma does not trump reason.


Well, no, I didn't take it out of context, because part of the context, which you omit, is the implication that the passage above applies to people who act superior to AGW doubters:
People are beginning to see through the propaganda of AGW...

See my comment above. The reality of AGW, and its dire consequences, has been established. Your failure to accept it reflects poorly on YOU, not those who chastise you for questioning empirically demonstrated facts.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2015
Captain Stumpy,

Both of us can post links all day referencing businesses, government agencies and individuals who fund lobbyists, politicians, etc. who are for or against AGW. Another link or video is a a waste of your time and mine.

You say people are being paid to post on sites like this one against AGW. Simply prove your claim or admit you are making it up. Name names here. Provide the evidence here.You won't because you can't. It is just an ad hominem attack.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2015
People are beginning to see through the propaganda of AGW. When the preacher on the street corner keeps predicting the end of the world tomorrow and keeps moving the date, eventually anyone can see the scam.

By the way, what?

1) Science doesn't predict the end of the world is imminent. It predicts that the civilization, and Earth's ecosystems will suffer immense catastrophes that will develop in the next 100 years or so, like temperature rising well over 4 degrees.
2) Where does the consensus keep moving the date? Stop making stuff up.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2015
Both of us can post links all day ...for or against AGW
@dog
Sure, if you accept any random evidence as being legitimate and therefore equivalent to any other evidence: https://en.wikipe...evidence

I don't, and my point is: there are different types of evidence. re-read those posts/links above because it answers your "proof" requirement
a waste of your time and mine
see: evidence link
You say people are being paid to post on sites like this one against AGW
yes, and i named names above: plus i gave you specific information about perpetuation of fraud, which indicates that you, specifically, are in said group

what part about that are you having problems with?
You won't because you can't
and i will say it again: ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away or make it "unreal"
especially when it is right there in black and white & points the finger straight at YOU

perhaps comprehension and intentional delusion are the culprits?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2015
@dog cont'd
there is also the whole "paid" definition. you assume that "payoff" or "being paid to post on sites" is about a singular point (being, financial gain)

however, if you will re-read the posts i put up: there is a lot of other ways to be "paid off"
then, there is the whole barter system of payment (in which financial or other gain might be achieved through non-direct means of exchange)

but lets not forget about cultural cognition and it's "payoff": http://arstechnic...nformed/

you posted fraudulent comments/links and you are basically being paid by inclusion into a selective society of delusional fanatics who's membership requires your intentional ignoring of factual and scientific evidence

this is NO different than religion or a cult (or politics)

this is not opinion, but proven by your own posts/words here on PO
therefore validated BY YOU
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2015
Captain Stumpy,

So you cannot name a single person who has been paid to pay against AGW not a single company who is paying people to post against AGW and you have no evidence that anyone has ever been paid to post against AGW.

But you will continue to present unsubstantiated rumors and continue ad hominem attacks.

Your tactics have been shown to be dishonest and without substance.

I intend to continue to point out the ad hominem attacks.

I suppose you will continue to make them.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2015
So you cannot name a single person
@dog
so you really can't read and are too lazy to go up a few posts and see for yourself?
wow... that means you are being intentionally stupid - not ignorant!
Your tactics have been shown to be dishonest and without substance
really? how is that? you asked for proof and i gave it to you in spades, but you chose to ignore the evidence for the sake of your belief... that is MY fault?
why?
I intend to continue to point out the ad hominem attacks
it's not ad hominem when i can simply state "look up X number of posts for evidence" and you ignore it...

it is proven and validated fact, and says a lot about your reading and comprehension levels

it speaks volumes about your life that can assist in profiling your mental status as well as indicate your susceptibility to fraud/manipulation from others

i repeat: just because you choose to ignore the evidence doesn't mean it will go away or that it isn't real
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2015
@Dogbert

Here's a recent example of two individuals being paid to write against AGW.

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2015
Stumpy,

Again, I point out you can not post here a single name of someone who has been paid to post against AGW nor a single name of a company paying for posts.

If you can type a link, you can surely type a name. But of course, You have no name to type.

Every time you post without naming a name, you show yourself to be making stuff up. Implying a conspiracy which does not exist.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2015
So you cannot name a single person who has been paid to pay against AGW not a single company who is paying people to post against AGW and you have no evidence that anyone has ever been paid to post against AGW.

Stumpy did post about this. Apparently, you don't know how to use CTRL+F because I found it, here.

I have never seen corporate propoganda against global warming...This argument that "corporations" are supporting the anti-science skeptics is pretty unbelievable
@john_m
yeah... right
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

The link is here:
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

And just in case you also don't understand how to use hyperlinks, or peruse a paper, one such organization is Koch Industries.

Jesus Christ!

Amateur.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2015
Again, I point out you can not post here a single name of someone who has been paid to post against AGW nor a single name of a company paying for posts
@dog
and again, i will point out that i already did, provided evidence and then you substantiated it
you really can get help with your literacy problems... are you dyslexic, perchance?
If you can type a link, you can surely type a name. But of course, You have no name to type
& as furlong noted above, if you can type a post, you can use CTRL+F and re-read those three posts i referred you to

Every time you post without naming a name, you show yourself to be making stuff up
is this anything like "every time a bell rings at xmas a fairy gains his wings"???
try reading the above noted 3 posts jeenyus!
LMFAO
Implying a conspiracy which does not exist.
i am implying nothing
the EVIDENCE, however, is validated and PROVES a lot

perhaps you should consider getting a tutor for your problem?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2015
Oh, and dog... just FYI:
I am intentionally NOT re-posting the information for a reason

1- i wanted to see if you could actually read (apparently, you can't. or your software that is reading the pages to you can't be used to find specific posts)

2- your argument has been repeated ad nauseum, without evidence, on PO, so your continuing with the charade is more about delusion than anything else

3- you don't know the difference between evidence and what constitutes a factual claim. you are making opinion and false claims here so far
http://www.auburn...ion.html

4- i rather enjoy watching how people like you think and try to ignore the obvious. it is telling
i am pretty sure that, given a time and your responses, i could profile you accurately (at least to 80-85% minimum accuracy) including location, heritage, culture, religions, political leanings. education and past behaviour, including criminal

post on!
i enjoy it
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2015
Yes, Stumpy. You won't name names because you have no names to name.

thefurlong,

Throwing our the word Koch is meaningless. There are conservative and liberal organizations and they fund lobbyists and politicians. If you have information about an individuak or individuals who are being paid to post against AGW, name them agen and the companies finding them along with your proof. Your link, BTW, gives me a blank page.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2015
Throwing our the word Koch is meaningless.

Um. What?
There are conservative and liberal organizations and they fund lobbyists and politicians.

You asked to name a company that funds denial. I told you Koch Industries. Why are you moving the goal posts?
If you have information about an individuak or individuals who are being paid to post against AGW, name them agen

Well, if you read the paper, you will see that it names several conservative think tanks, including the Heritage foundation as having been paid for this.

Also, it's spelled A-G-A-I-N. Yes, that was petty, and yes, I enjoyed it.
and the companies finding them along with your proof. Your link, BTW, gives me a blank page.

Haha. That's because it's a download, not a page.

And now, you've demonstrated that you are also computer illiterate, which might explain why you can't use the internet to perform 2 minute searches to show you all the evidence for AGW.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2015
thefurlong,

So you don't have the name of any individual who has been paid to post on sites such as this either nor do you have the names of any companies who have paid for those posts and you do not have any evidence to support your claim either.

Saying that there are companies who are conservative or that there are companies who are liberal is not the issue. Of course there are. But the claim is that people are being paid to go on sites such as this one to post against AGW. That claim is simply made up.

So far as your post being a download:
1) It did not come up as a download on my phone.
2) I would be an idiot to download something from you which might contain a virus, etc.

If you want to provide names of people who are being paid to post here and on other sites along with the companies paying them, do so. Neither you nor any of the liberals claiming that have any evidence of that.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2015
earn your Troll Factory blood money from those lobbies

And, there it is, the final stage to confirming what you are.
You started with HOGWASH, then came LIES and now, as I expected, the ignoRANT.

PS. If you know the lobbies willing to pay me, please forward their contact information. This way I can try to make at least one thing you say, truthful. I don't need the cash, so I'll donate it to charity.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2015
@Dogbert

Here's a recent example of two individuals being paid to write against AGW.

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0

Ha..ha.. Forum degenerate and troll, Vietvet, tries to make a post. Please, heed some good advice, and stick to doing what you do best; down voting the heretics.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2015
Yes, Stumpy. You won't name names because you have no names to name
@Dog
as noted above... you're not reading those posts i specifically pointed out to you. they name names AND they also implicate YOU

this is one of the major points i've been trying to get across to you, but you seem to be intentionally avoiding it: why is that?
sensitive to it?
don't want to admit you're culpable?
don't like it because it hits too close to home?
do you honestly believe in the crap you post, or are you just a sheep following the leadership of your advisers?
Your link, BTW, gives me a blank page.
it is a PDF document: you must either open it in your browser or DL it and save it, then open it

this is a perfect example of you ignoring evidence: i've linked that to you at least a dozen times... yet you just now state it is blank?
i can understand your lack of tech-savvy ability because of your obvious education issues but that is getting ridiculous, don't you think?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2015
@dog cont'd
1) It did not come up as a download on my phone
this is typical of the argument given by dung as well... interesting
2) I would be an idiot to download something from you which might contain a virus, etc
by all means, please quit using ignorance (or stupidity) as a crutch
1- http://www.bright...970.aspx

2- most virus protection will keep you safe if you use it, and ANY computer will allow you to read a link before you click it: its a drexel.edu site and it links to HTML downloads of PDF documents, and you can actually look up sites and find the threat level of PDF infection PER SITE!

this is generic basic internet security stuff that any pre-teen already knows... how is it you are ignorant of it?
never mind. you answered that above re: your education and reading/comprehension problems

just because you're education is poor doesn't mean it has to stay that way
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2015
antigoracle,

Your link points to an article about Greenpeace giving or promising to give money to some scientists who supported the use of coal and either wrote or were about to write some articles supporting the use of coal.

1) Seems strange to find Greenpeace supporting coal, but good find.
2) Scientists write articles. Some support the AGW agenda, some don't.

Since the claim is that people are being paid to post comments on sites such as this one against the AGW agenda, your link, though interesting, is not relevant and does not prove anyone is being paid to post comments.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2015
Captain Stumpy,

@Dog
as noted above... you're not reading those posts i specifically pointed out to you. they name names AND they also implicate YOU


I do read your posts and they say nothing except that you claim you are right while continuing to fail to provide a single name of anyone who has been paid to comment on this site or any other such site against AGW. Saying that I am being paid to post here is another ad hominem attack.. You try to dismiss commentary by claiming it is the result of the commentator being paid to post against AGW. Ad hominem attacks, as I have pointed out repeatedly to you.

You have yet to provide any proof of your ad hominem claims, but you continue to scream that you have provided proof.

Do you have difficulty understanding? Do you know what 'ad hominem' means?

A name, just one person's name and the comment he/she made to a site for money.
A name, just one company's name and the amount paid to that person.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2015
@dogbert

You need to work on reading comprehension. Antigoral didn't provide the link to the article about the scientists for sale, I did. Greenpeace hardly promotes coal, they proved anti-AGW scientists
will shill for bucks.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2015
Vietvet,

I was responding to antogorical. He did repeat your link.

It is my experience that everyone works for remuneration, including scientists.

According to the article, Greenpeace went to a couple o scientists who support coal usage and offered them some additional money. One of the scientists refused the money but suggested they find an agency promoting acceptance of CO2.

Nothing important there. Climate scientists are also paid for their work.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2015
I do read your posts and they say nothing
@dog
then you're not reading them. this is obvious, b/c you say
fail to provide a single name of anyone who has been paid to comment on this site or any other such site against AGW
and i left you THREE names of people who were paid to post against AGW, and that same info is spread HERE on PO, which is perpetuating the fraud

so, either you are stupid or intentionally lying: take your pick
You have yet to provide any proof
except that if you read those three posts, i not only PROVE my points, but i also offered a study (recently validated) that supports me

so, it's not "a claim", but validated and proven factual
Do you have difficulty understanding?
i could ask the same about you
A name..blah blah blah amount...
see above

just because you choose to ignore the evidence doesn't mean it will go away or that it isn't real
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2015
It is really tiresome to listen to you deny that you have made claims you cannot support because they you don't know of anyone who has been paid to content against AGW on this site our any other nor do you know of any company who pays anyone to post line that. You do not have any evidence that this has ever happened.

You continue to make unsupported claims.

Continue. Every time you declare your incompetence.

I am tired of repeating myself.

My further response will I be "No names, no evidence".

Continue to lie. Everyone should be getting
as tired of it as I am.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2015
It is really tiresome to listen to you deny that you have made claims you cannot support
@dog
i've been saying this about you and your kind since i came here to PO... problem is: i have evidence (above) whereas YOU do NOT have evidence
You continue to make unsupported claims
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true, especially when there is evidence inblack-&-white above your making you look stupid
just because you are too lazy to search for it doesn't mean everyone else is (that whole CTRL+F function works on ANY windows based computer, and there are similar functions on EVERY other computer)
I am tired of repeating myself
so am i

here is the whole basic problem you have: you don't WANT to believe the evidence, so you ignore it
the evidence is above you, but you CHOOSE not to see it

so my continued response will be

"(CTRL+F) plus validated evidence = you're a LIAR, dogbert"
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2015
No names, no evidence.

I have told no lies, and of course, in calling me a liar, you also have no evidence.

Keep it up.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2015
@dog
(CTRL+F) plus validated evidence = you're a LIAR, dogbert
I have told no lies... you also have no evidence
uhm... actually, i DO have evidence, especially that you lied
I do read your posts and they say nothing except that you claim you are right while continuing to fail to provide a single name of anyone who has been paid to comment on this site or any other such site against AGW...
You have yet to provide any proof of...
I am tired of repeating myself
You continue to make unsupported claims...
you also have no evidence...
all of these are demonstrated, by my posts above (especially the ones i references) that you are a liar (or post false claims - see: http://www.auburn...ion.html )

so i can provide evidence because anyone who takes any time to CTRL+F the above for names will find the evidence (including you)

therefore, you lie, & continue to do so

keep it up!
dogbert
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2015
Instead of constantly repeating that you have said something you haven't and acting like Ctrl + F will magically say something for you, why don't you simply write a name, the post you claim that person made, the company which paid him or her and the amount paid for the comment?

You never have and you can't.

No names, no evidence.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2015
Instead of constantly repeating that you have said something you haven't
(CTRL+F) plus validated evidence = you're a LIAR, dogbert, all you gotta do is search above
why don't you simply write a name, the post you claim that person made, the company which paid him or her and the amount paid for the comment?
the better question is: why are you ignoring the evidence i already posted above?
why are you intentionally trying to redirect this conversation when i answered your questions?
why are you intentionally ignoring the evidence that is in front of your face?
You never have and you can't
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true: the reason i am NOT repeating the above is simple - i've repeated it here on PO at least 200 times
No names, no evidence.
(CTRL+F) plus validated evidence = you're a LIAR, dogbert
repeating your lie doesn't make it more true any more than calling yourself a faerie is true, regardless of how much you believe it
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2015
@dog cont'd
i think i know the reasons you are ignoring evidence
you claimed
why don't you simply write a name, the post you claim that person made, the company which paid him or her and the amount paid for the comment?
and yet, i did exactly as you asked & in the three posts i referenced above, i answered your question... so why would you ignore that?

i think these are the biggest reasons:
-you would be forced to admit failure

-it would force you to stop the circular reasoning that trolls. conspiracist ideation followers, pseudoscience advocates and cult religious fanatics use

-it answers your question, and you can't find any information to refute it, so you go in circles

-it challenges your perceptions about reality

-you're uneducated, & you can't find sites to argue your point
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

http://journals.p....0075637

dogbert
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2015
Captain Stumpy,

So, again, you cannot support your claim with actual facts.

You would rather embarrass yourself with constant lies than to simply admit that you made a claim that you simply made up -- that you have no ability to back up with facts.

There is no evidence that anyone has ever been paid to post comments on this site or any other site against AGW. You know that and I know that.

Thanks to your inability to support your conspiracy claims, the ability to use such tactics against reasonable discourse has been revealed for the farce it is.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2015
So, again, you cannot support your claim with actual facts
@dog
so again, you can't actually use the search function to re-read what i posted... and apparently neither can noumenon, who completely missed it as well!
Nou doesn't surprise me, because that is how nou makes his argument, by subjective reasoning based upon personally biased interpretation and tactics
You would rather embarrass yourself with constant lies
you really are making yourself look bad when you make a claim and it is debunked (at this point) halfway up the page
this is especially true when you say
Thanks to your inability to support your conspiracy claims
when you apparently can't read what is posted (in the same three consecutive referred to posts from 5 days ago)

repeating your lies doesn't make them more true... it only serves to cement the circular reasoning in your own head

(CTRL+F) plus validated evidence = you're a LIAR, dogbert, all you gotta do is search above
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2015
You can have the last word Stumpy.

Your lies are not worth the continued effort to get you to admit them.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2015
Your lies are not worth the continued effort to get you to admit them
@dog
except that you can't prove a single lie on this thread

in fact, if you would simply use CTRL+F you would see that not only did i answer your question, i also gave a study reference as well as demonstrated your culpability in perpetuating a FRAUD

therefore, the only effort you've actually expended is the wasted effort of trying to perpetuate a KNOWN FRAUD as well as justify your own biased non-evidence based delusional belief

this is the methodology of ALL cults, religions, conspiracist ideation, politicians, criminals and philosophers as noted by the links shared above
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2015
Stumpy,

You can have the last word and you can continue to scream that you never said what you said and that you provided evidence you did not provide.

You cannot have to last word when you call me a liar or try to implicate me in your conspiracy theories.

Let it go.

I really don't think the moderators want us to keep this up indefinitely.

Just stop.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2015
You cannot...call me a liar ... implicate me...conspiracy theories
@dog
1- if you spread false data and perpetuate a fraud, you implicate yourself. it doesn't matter how many times i point this out - it is still YOU implicating yourself
2- you still can't prove i lied once on this thread
3- it is not a theory if there is evidence: and the evidence i linked not only contains a study, but a validated study that demonstrates the facts
I really don't think the moderators...
if the mods read this, i would suggest they actually search my posts above and read the evidence for themselves

if they contact me via PM, i would suggest they specifically permit a reply or give an e-mail and i will re-quote ALL the evidence stated above to them

for you... i aint gonna go thru the trouble b/c you IGNORED it the first time
repeating it will only make you ignore it again
repeatedly
ad nauseum

like you've done on PO from the beginning

repeating your lies don't make them true
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2015
Hi dogbert, SuperThunder. :)

From SuperThunder:
I hope the criminal corporations that pay moon-howlers to endorse massive human death on this site don't pay them much. Anything above slave wages would be a rip-off considering the low low quality of their work.


Response by dogbert:
A common tactic is to claim that evil corporations are funding people to comment on sites such as this one. You make that claim. So what corporations are doing this and who are they paying.

Back up your claim with something other than innuendo.


An FYI for, dogbert...

http://www.abc.ne.../7015140

A retired sociologist paid for whatever lies his paymasters expect in return for their blood money. He admitted it but tried to pretend it was "academic freedom"! Sick. He was exposed as a money-for-lies 'writer' betraying every academic ideals/integrity. These Fossil etc lobbyists pay handsomely! Shameful. :(
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2015
RealityCheck,

Case in point. Your link is about an academic (a scientist) who publishes work supporting carbon industries. He receives pay for his work as do scientists who support the AGW agenda.

The claim is that people are being paid by corporations to post anti-AGW comments on sites such as this one. There is no such evidence and neither you, Stumpy nor anyone else has backed those claims with data: Name of individual, contents of post, name of corporation and the amount paid for the comment.

The claim is simply an ad hominem attack. When logic cannot win the argument, some people will simply make up claims to support their position. It is a known logical fallacy.

Now, if Stumpy actually had such data (which he does not), then he could correctly make his claims and they would not be conspiracy claims.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2015
... (which he does not)... they would not be conspiracy claims
@dog
1- i DO have evidence: (CTRL+F) plus validated evidence - all you gotta do is search above

2- the study i linked (recent;y validated) also contains evidence specifically about "the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations"

3- i named names, per your request

4- this is an ad nauseum ongoing refusal to acknowledge the evidence that has been linked to PO repeatedly by yourself and most other deniers

5- it is not ad hominem when there is empirical validated evidence proving the point

6- repeating your lies only works to support your circular reasoning; it doesn't make it more true

7- perpetuating a fraud makes you every bit as culpable as the originator of said fraud

so again:
(CTRL+F) plus validated evidence = you're a LIAR, dogbert, all you gotta do is search above
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2015
Stumpy,

Liars say liar a lot. You say it almost every post.
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)
Your link is about an academic (a scientist) who publishes work supporting carbon industries. He receives pay for his work as do scientists who support the AGW agenda.
Follow the money trail, dogbert. :) Have you so quickly forgotten what Tobacco, Asbestos, Pharma lobbies (paid by those industry bodies) did to corrupt science/scientists to produce 'studies/claims' by their paid-for liars so as to go before official inquiries and repeat those lies as a basis for their 'belief' contrary to well proven damaging effects from their products? Either you're naive, or one of those lobby shills/trolls. Are you? :)

True scientists work with duty TO science FIRST, not to whom they are being paid by to corrupt same. That sociologist was ignorant of complexity involved in AGW physics. He was paid-for-lies; mercenarily corrupted academic/scientific ideals to 'write' for blood money from Fossil/GOP lobby trying to delay/confuse public understanding/action re AGW. :(
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2015
RealityCheck,

You can believe that scientists who work for something you don't want are shills and liars, but I don't care to make that assumption. The AGW science is being used to promote a social agenda, but I believe that, for the most part, the scientists actually believe what they say. For the same reason, a scientist who says that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and is nothing to be concerned about is likely to believe what he says.

But again, that is not what I was talking about. What I was talking about is the propensity of this site and others to accuse anyone who does not believe in the AGW agenda of working for the oil or coal industry. That is simply not true and is not supported by any evidence at all. It is a ploy to attack the messenger rather than the message. It is called and ad hominem attack.
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)

I understand what you're getting at. But, it's all of a piece. Scientists were observing/working re AGW/climate long before any politicizing by fossil/GOP interests trying to stall/avoid the obvious for political/mercenary motivation putting profits before science and humanity's interests. Like I pointed out, that retired sociologist made no pretense to know the AGW evidence, and lied as necessary to confuse the issue and give fossil/GOP lobbies/interests some 'cover' for their own blatant lies and denials. Did you not learn from the recorded/historical MO of such GOP/Tobacco etc lobbies exposed/proved in the past? That you make such hairsplitting excuses to avoid the elephant in the room is telling of your own complicity in what has gone on, and the MO employed. The point is that real scientists observed and reported objectively. Later reviewers collated studies/conclusions. Whereas corrupt 'lies-for-money' stooges used by GOP/Fossil interests. Undeniable. :)
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2015
PS: Anyhow, dogbert, the world is finally awakening to the real problem (decades late thanks to past GOP/Fossil bastardry, lies and mercenary/political motives/cynicism which set us back many years re action). Now the discussion should turn to what we can do as soon as possible, since we have lost much time thanks to corrupt industry/political delaying everything. If you are a troll factory stooge paid by the fossil/nuclear/GOP bastards, then you've just lost your nasty job. Good luck in your future career (hopefully not involving denial and hairsplitting etc etc as part of the 'duty statement' for your next job).

But that's all moot now. No need to belabor things anymore; the world has united and will move towards co-operative action to give us all a better, cleaner more sustainable future. Best wishes in that for you and yours too, dogbert. Let's bury the past and move on together in the evolving reality...in science, humanity, reason and compassion, hey? Cheers. :)
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2015
RealityCheck,

1) I am not working for any coal, oil, etc. company and I have not lost my job. My position on the AGW agenda comes from the fact that it is being used to promote a social agenda for the redistribution of resources.

2) The world is certainly not in agreement. There are many world leaders who have met to present the appearance of agreement (notice that the agreement is not binding on the participating countries). The agreement will not be ratified by the U. S. congress either.

The efforts to use the climate for social redistribution will continue. And the world will continue to use such energy resources as are available to produce food, light, transportation, etc.
RealityCheck
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)
I am not working for any coal, oil, etc. company....
Good to hear it; I'll take your word for it. :)
My position on the AGW agenda comes from the fact that it is being used to promote a social agenda for the redistribution of resources.
Mate, every Nation-Building exercise/effort involved reallocation of resources to meet need/challenge facing any nation. This is even accepted practice when the 'free market' fails and the 'entrepreneurs in trouble' go to govt to bail them out 'for the sake of the national economy' etc (they decry 'socialism' when not in their profiteering interests; but when 'socialism' saves them from themselves in free market failures/busts, suddenly 'socialism' is 'great'! LoL).
The agreement will not be ratified by the U. S. congress...
You don't understand what the agreement entails. Some elements are legally enforceable via international agreements; and some not enforceable legally. Reasonable balance to start. :)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2015
why don't you simply write a name, the post you claim that person made, the company which paid him or her and the amount paid for the comment?

When we write names, you act like we haven't.

So, here, I will give you another name:
Wei Hock Soon
http://www.nytime...oon.html

From the article:
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as "deliverables" that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.


Now, here is a person, explicitly paid by the fossil fuel industry to provide, in his own words, "deliverables."

I don't know what more you could want short of a video of Soon cackling evilly while giving a villain soliloquy about how he will deceive everybody. I am sure, even then, it wouldn't be enough for you.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2015
thefurlong,

Now, here is a person, explicitly paid by the fossil fuel industry to provide, in his own words, "deliverables."
I don't know what more you could want


Someone who has been paid to post anti-AGW comments on this site or other such sites, not a scientist who has been paid to publish papers.

Try to read this: The claim on sites such as this is that anyone who posts a comment against AGW is doing so because he is being paid by some corporation to make that post.

You and Stumpy keep posting links to scientists who were paid to publish. Most scientist publish and most are paid for their work (including climate scientists).

The fact is that neither you nor Stumpy know anyone who was paid to post anti-AGW comments. You cannot provide, as I said:
a name, the post you claim that person made, the company which paid him or her and the amount paid for the comment


NOT a scientist publishing papers. A person making a comment.
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)

Tying up some loose ends...

Mate, just as those now-exposed/named/shamed so-called 'scientists' paid-for-lies long ago effectively 'identified' themselves by their actions/lies in betrayal of all objective scientific integrity/personal honor, the Troll Factory types posting on many social media/science sites have effectively identified themselves also. Such Troll Factories exist. If you deny that fact then you ipso facto will be self-identifying as in the pay of deniers/dissemblers 'hired-to-lie' by the fossil/GOP etc lobbies/interests.

Consider how long some trolls have been denying all evidence and spammed 'pre-paid propaganda' lies/distortions? If they were NOT 'paid troll factory types' then they must be seriously brainwashed/gullible 'parrots' and/or silly egotistical twits deluding themselves they have anything sensible to offer the objective discourse on the issue/science. If you are none of those, then you can easily pick them out too. Good luck. :)
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2015
RealityCheck,

Countering an ad hominem attack with further ad hominem attacks doesn't make any sense.

If you really have knowledge of anyone who has been paid to post anti-AGW comments on sites such as this one, simply provide:
a name, the post you claim that person made, the company which paid him or her and the amount paid for the comment


Otherwise, say something like "I believe there are paid shills, but I have no evidence to support my belief".

RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)

By their dishonorable actions/denial of reality they are known. All else is quibbling for sake of quibbling. If you really are 'conflicted' about the fact these troll factory types do exist and do post paid-for lies-and-propaganda spam, then perhaps you are not as objective as you claim? Either way, the game is up for deniers, whatever their motivation, be it ego-personal and/or mercenary-political and/or just plain ignorant-malice. The GOP/Fossil/Nuclear lobbies funding these trolling types/campaigns in the past will eventually be forced to face the enormity of the disservice they have done, to science and humanity both, with the lies/campaigns which have lost us valuable time which could have averted much of the now-higher costs/dislocations which haste now will entail; but could have been avoided if we had acted earlier on global scale/co-ordination.

Troll Factories exist; Fossil/Nuclear/GOP/Religious have funded same. You deny that? Yes/No? Q.E.D. :)
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2015
RealityCheck,

Got it. Your pseudonym does not reflect your actions. You will continue to make ad hominem claims despite the lack of knowledge of a single instance.

You are at least honest in your fallacious claims. You can promulgate conspiracy theories, but be prepared to be called on your claims.
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)

We have a choice: Go with evolving reality or deny it and take consequences. And pretending troll factory types haven't been employed by fossil/GOP/Nuclear/Religious interests/lobbyists is taking denialism to a whole new level way above that of AGW denialism. You deny paid-for-lies deniers even/ever exist on these boards?

I read your posts in that DM-search/experiment discussion, and found them to be sound, properly skeptical. :)

That's why I don't see you as a denier; but a skeptic at heart, like myself, especially when the topic is fraught with dubious claims/understandings etc.

But realize, climate science/reality evolving around us as we speak is not fraught with dubious claims/understandings. The real evidentiary/predicted effects are being confirmed by observations of unseasonal/extreme/widespread/incessant rolling-disaster of AGW-exacerbated floods, droughts, storms, diseases, pests etc events/frequency etc around globe NOW.

Good luck, mate. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2015
Stumpy,

Liars say liar a lot. You say it almost every post.
@dog
CTRL+F
i don't need to say a thing
the evidence is up there... just as furlong repeats
When we write names, you act like we haven't...Wei Hock Soon
now, you claim
The fact is that neither you nor Stumpy know anyone who was paid to post anti-AGW comments
and yet you completely IGNORED every name i posted, focused on the papers from soon, but ignored all his "comments", and then completely ignored all the fraudulent regurgitation of a known fallacy by not only YOURSELF, but others

like i said: you ignore the evidence in your face when it is presented, but somehow you want everyone to keep repeating the evidence you will ignore

how is that logical?
you want to keep repeating the exact same thing and tactic expecting different results every time
as though it will be more true?

too bad your reading/literacy program can't search the thread
you would see just how ludicrous you look
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2015
@dog cont'd
now you want to play a semantic GAME?
not a scientist who has been paid to publish papers
lets talk about this clearly, in small monosyllabic words you can understand
lets look at your ORIGINAL CLAIM
A common tactic is to claim that evil corporations are funding people to comment on sites such as this one. You make that claim. So what corporations are doing this and who are they paying
dec 6 -so i answered you with evidence
what did you do? IGNORED IT

so you changed the game, AND I ANSWERED WITH EVIDENCE
what did you do? IGNORED IT

so now you are attempting to repeat the same stupidity above that was answered and repeated

what will you do?
i can predict this one, easily, because you've demonstrated it above: YOU WILL IGNORE IT

this isn't about word games: https://en.wikipe.../Comment

this is about your failure to recognize evidence in your face because of bias, fanaticism and lack of education
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2015
RealityCheck,

I am somewhat skeptical about AGW. The models keep failing to predict. Data, such as the hiatus, which is simply embarrassing since none of the models predicted it and none explain it, has been simply eliminated by selectively changing the data and then passing the data through an algorithm designed to eliminate it.

True science does not work that way. You don't cherry pick data which supports your preferred outcome and you don't change data to obtain your preferred result.

By changing where and when temperatures are taken, large variations in the outcome are possible as well.

Climate, like everything else, is subject to natural variation and the small changes claimed for the climate are insufficient to eliminate simple error.

Continued...
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2015
RealityCheck,

Continued...

I don't see these small changes alarming.

Mostly, though, the use of AGW as a mechanism to promote social redistribution of resources, shows it to be something other than a scientific reality. At every instance where the scientists and political entities recommend action, that action is taxing and redistribution. Carbon credits and such are at the base of any discussion of intervention.

When AGW stops being used for the growth of socialism, it is possible that it will become an actual science worthy of the time and funds being spent on it. It is also possible that removing the agenda from it will show that it is all agenda.

It seems more likely that CO2 will be eliminated than the agenda.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2015
Someone who has been paid to post anti-AGW comments on this site or other such sites, not a scientist who has been paid to publish papers.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I concede that, at this time, I can't produce a specific person who has unequivocally been paid to comment on an internet site about global warming. Yet.
Try to read this: The claim on sites such as this is that anyone who posts a comment against AGW is doing so because he is being paid by some corporation to make that post.

That's a straw man. We are NOT claiming ANYONE who does this is being paid. We are claiming that social media is being unduly influenced by corporations, as indicated by the article.
Most scientist publish and most are paid for their work (including climate scientists).

Of course climate scientists get paid. That doesn't mean they are being paid FOR PROMOTING AGW. They are being paid to do research. Contrast this with scientists like Soon who ARE PAID to promote denial.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)

Mate, I am again very busy and this may be my last post for a few weeks. So briefly...

Your obsession with socialism-under-the-bed is disturbing; as it appears to bias your otherwise reasonable mindset/observations.

Consider: All national economy/law/society is built on socialism precepts (not communism, not capitalism, not religionism etc because they are just 'versions' of 'business/power organization' not of 'human society'). And any worthwhile accomplishment by nations is built upon 'society' and socialist' principles/actions which have always involved re-allocation of resources (even capitalism/communism re-allocate resources (in the former 'by decree' and in the latter by 'market'...and BOTH may FAIL, as history shows all too well and frequently....and the populace/society ends up paying anyway...and hence there is always a re-allocation of resources no matter which system you may 'prefer'). Please drop politics and think/see objectively.

[cont...]
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2015
[...cont]

dogbert, the global AGW related consequences reality is now gone beyond denial. All models/predictions will always be in evolving state from crude imperfect towards better imperfect and towards best imperfect. Such evolving analysis constructs will have early on missed factors and made errors which eventually are corrected by further study/observation/data/analysis. That is even how YOUR own mind works day to day. You wake; you see/read news; you digest same/compare to previous understandings/knowledge; you make subconscious 'modeling/predicting' according to your now-improved understandings/knowledge. See? That's how ANY observational/predicting process operates/evolves.

Anyhow, global evidence/occurrence of predicted extremes/frequencies/costs etc have made 'modeling/predicting' MOOT now. The reality has moved on to the point that NOW we must decide/act regardless of ongoing 'fine-tuning' to always-imperfect models/predictions.

Good luck. Bye all. :)
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2016
WhoopdyDo said
..you might note that I never say climate change is wrong. I don't know if it is or not; that's the whole point, that nobody knows who to believe
There's a key point, "belief" either one way or another isnt a helpful base as it implies a yes/no ie a Deterministic certitude. What does improve understanding of the base probabilism is obtaining essential education in underlying Physics
https://en.wikipe...transfer
Summarised
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
graphically shown
http://cbc.arizon.../sim/gh/

Shouldn't be underestimated, base Physics known for >100yrs with precision of confirmation advanced even more last ~60yrs.

ie Evidence shows CO2 is adding extra heat 1.5Watts/sq m on average all over the Earth, now this heat gets distributed unequally due to
https://en.wikipe...capacity

Probability any of this is wrong reduces each passing year, symptotically becomes yes/no

What to do ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.