Support WhoWhatWhy
FRESH TAKES | news, content and perspective you might not find elsewhere

Which Is More Likely? (A conspiracy of millions, or oil companies doing what they do?)

 

More and more people angrily declare Climate Change a fraudulent concept. Apparently, all environmental groups and scientists are in cahoots to rob us of our very comfortable current lifestyle….Or not.

This handy chart offers a handy little exercise in logic.

 

 

GRAPHIC: http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/395940_842169154111_1010664_37712606_1688554057_n.jpg


Comment Policy:
Keep it civil. Keep it relevant. Keep it clear. Keep it short. Identify your assertions as fact or speculation. No typing in ALL-CAPS. Read the article in its entirety before commenting.

Note: As a news site dedicated to serious inquiry, not a bulletin board, we reserve the right to remove any comment at any time, especially when it appears to be part of an effort to push a deceptive, unscientific, false or narrow ideological line. Posts that scapegoat by ethnicity, gender, religion or nationality will also be removed.
  • Alvie Hughes

    Are we so full of self we cant see that there is something greater then self? Would this greater self let us destroy what it has but for us to use? I say self for if we are then it is. Instead of showing how smart we are and how we know so much we could be humbling ourselves and in this way find out just how great it is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-A-Lewis/100002053666699 Michael A. Lewis

    But then, logic has little to do with human affairs. 

    In fact, your environmental scenario is mistaken. It is not regional environmental groups and community activists who are promoting global warming, it is Big Green organizations and prominent politicians. It is science organizations, such as the IPCC that focus grant monies on a preferred interpretation of climate variation.

    Regional and local environmental effort is focused, well, regionally and locally. We have real pollution, habitat loss, species extinction, fresh water and soil depletion to deal with in the here and now. The focus nationally and internationally on climate change takes away from our efforts to work on the local and regional scene. We don’t have time, energy or resources to apply to something that may or may not happen a century from now.

    Yes, energy corporations do what they have always done, and we have always struggled against their overweening power and influence. The Exxon Valdez oil spill, that I personally experienced, occurred largely because the oil company consortium that managed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the Alyeska Marine Terminal Facility successfully lobbied state and federal government to reduce its oversight of the pipeline and marine terminal facilities and procedures.

    Conspiracy theorizing obfuscates the very real processes that operate in human society. If one tears away the veil of emotion and hyperbole and researches recent history, it is very clear that the enormous resources applied to climate change are the result of failure of environmentalism to meet the needs of the global “sustainable development” effort, an economic redistribution program to bring development monies to small and less powerful nations in a case of reverse colonialism. The “Big Scare” of global warming is used to justify the transference of funds from large countries to smaller ones.

    Look at the outcome. Follow the money.

    • Russ Baker

      That’s a pretty wild either-or scenario you got there. Forget about the possibility that we’re eradicating all life on earth, and focus on community gardens. With that interpretation, and your implication that all large institutions and elected institutions are sinister, and that we should be against raising the standard of living throughout the world, I’m going to take a risk here and guess: “Libertarian”? In the end, it’s all about my keeping my money, isn’t it? Such a grand vision of what it is to be human. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-A-Lewis/100002053666699 Michael A. Lewis

        Excuse me? Libertarian? Where does that come from? I don’t recall any Libertarians working beside me during the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

        We are not eradicating all life on earth. Please use your exemplary research skills and present data to back up this wild statement!

        You’ve extrapolated to absurdity on what I actually said, without justification. I said nothing about community gardens, all large institutions or the standard of living. Are you sure you haven’t confused my post with someone else?

        Who said anything about keeping my money? Where did THAT come from?

        This is what happens when we caricature others in order to dismiss their ideas. This straw dog approach is disingenuous and counter productive. Frankly, I’m sorely disappointed.

        I’ve enjoyed your books Russ, but this is off the charts!

        • Mr. M

          Great answer.  I was sorely disappointed with Mr. Baker’s answer as well.  I expect that from the Establishment Left and Right.  I never thought I”d type this, but Mr. Baker sounded like Mark Levin there.  The environmental movement has been co-opted.  The corporations have taken over the green movement, and now we’re to pay a ‘tax’ to the globalists and they’ll distribute  it to the good guys.  The founder of Greenpeace, who left his organization because it had been taken over by the Hard Left, speaks on this better than I do.

        • Mr. M

          oop – forgot to  mention – Mr. Baker never says “let me guess – libertarian” when he’s interviewed on Lew Rockwell’s site.  I wonder why….

      • http://www.facebook.com/bobbrew Bob Brewer

        Russ, Might you be exposing your true colors when you attack one of your contributors, falsely, for their political leanings?  Community gardens are a good thing.  Large institutions and Governments can be bad, and will be bad without citizen oversight.  

        If your concern is about eradicating human life and climate change, why not ask career navy submariners their opinion on safe and environmentally benign solutions to our energy problem?  Don’t go off on bogus waste storage scenarios – those are controlled by the selfish and sinister institutions  you alluded to above.  

        There are many  environmentally friendly energy options that are not being considered by the moneyed power hungry  Environmental Theocrats we’ve elected to office.  Theocracy is not limited to conventional religion and is it’s most sinister when it seeks control of 7 billion people using Environmental mysticism. 

        • james

          When does “… I’m going to take a risk here and guess: “Libertarian”? translate to an “attack” on a contributor?

    • Eddie

      Good point, Michael. I have one question for you, and the question is beyond WHO is trying to work on WHAT agenda. It is a simple matter of risk analysis.

      What do you say, after watching this video (which, given how well informed you seem to be – no irony here – you probably already have watched) ?

  • Mcdonagh4

    i believe based on on a superficial read of the science that climate change is real, however having al gore as the spokesperson for scientist was a terrible idea. and has had deleterious results for scientific neutrality. after inventing the internet al gore stood by and with only a murmmer allowed bush to have himself appointed pres. . this is not a man who’s up for a struggle, the term limosine liberal springs to mind. i should add that when they nominated kerry in 84 i thought  they had cloned gore, sadly it turned out i was right.

    • Russ Baker

       Mc, these are not tweets. As a courtesy to readers, please clean up your spelling, capitalize names and the first word of sentences, etc. Grown-up time! Thanks.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OKEONAMLFIOS5WI7MPQY6SXBCQ IRMO

      No scientist chose Al Gore for that role. Al Gore chose himself.

  • Rcb1918

    Russ with the majority of your work and your book you hit the nail right on the head but I think you are somewhat wide of the mark on this one. 

    It’s not true to present this in terms of brave environmentalists versus big oil. The man made global warming theory is being funded by the major international institutions like the UN and EU – both utterly corrupt and undemocratic. In the UK the entire elite, BBC, etc., backs the climate change narrative and they have an insane plan to shut down what little power generation remains and rely on wind turbines. Who does that benefit? Not the old lady in a freezing public apartment who is paying inflated energy bills to fund transfer payments to people like the Prime Minister’s father in law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, Baronet, who “earns” 5,000GBP a day for having wind turbines on his land, whether the wind’s blowing or not. 

    No kidding a lot of scientists back the theory. Where do their grants come from? Governments, for whom taxing CO2 emissions will be very lucrative. You’ve no doubt heard of the climate gate emails, which no matter how sympathetic you are, can’t possibly be interpreted in any way that shows the team in a good light.

    Sorry Russ, but to me this looks just like another “beneficial crisis”. I hope you focus your efforts elsewhere in future – they are needed.

    • Russ Baker

      Say what you will. It’s at least ten degrees and as much as 30 degrees warmer in NYC this February compared to a decade ago. I can practically go out in shirtsleeves some days. I’m not going to leave it to your assurances that everything is going to be alright, and I doubt your fairness when you impugn all scientists as if they are deliberately lying for funding. While you’re at it, please prove that the vast majority of scientists who take a position on this (a) get direct government funding rather than, say, educational institution salaries (b) say the opposite of what they in their hearts really believe (c) the human nature of thousands of individuals can be so neatly summed up

      • Rcb1918

        I never said all scientists lie for funding, but which is more likely: (a) research shows what the person who pays for it wants it to say, or (b) research is always completely independent and objective. 

        What would you think of the objectivity of research funded by the tobacco lobby or armaments industry? Why should research funded by government entities be any less partial? You regularly highlight governments creating fake crises to justify war, most recently against Iran. 

        In the UK they had the ‘dodgy dossier’ used to justify the war in Iraq that a child could have debunked in 5 minutes. 

        Yet on this particular issue you feel we should trust our lords and masters and that – in this case only – their motives are completely altruistic and for the good of mankind. 

        If that’s true then funding independent and objective research into the climate would likely be the only time in history where politicians have done anything that was not motivated by a desire for money and power.

        • http://www.facebook.com/bobbrew Bob Brewer

          Sorry Russ, Rcb1918 is on the mark.  Global Warming is just more global power politics.  

          Recently I attended the 50th anniversary of my Graduate School Oceanography Department where the chief editor of the IPCC report was the keynote speaker.  His introductory slide had 7 typos !  If you want me to believe the science summarized by a senior editor that careless, who is directing energy policy for the entire earth, it just ain’t gonna happen.  If a keynote speech is that riddled with errors, can you imagine the quality of the data he is summarizing?The sad part of my revelation was the fact that Senior Researchers that were there 35 years ago have been blinded to the facts by the flooding flow of funding that gets them to believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change.  We are ignorantly presumptuous to believe Celestial Change can be accomplished by modification of man’s behavior on earth.

        • slowriøt

          So it’s just a coincidence that all of these drastic changes are occurring right now? 

        • slowriøt

          Also, how do you explain the phenomenon of global dimming? Surely you agree that this dimming is Man’s contribution? 

      • Barbara

         If nature does not vary its temperature through time, why have there been ice ages followed by warming periods?  It’s so annoying when people claim “everybody” believes a certain way, and if you don’t you’re an idiot.  You’re a smart guy, Russ, why do you push this?

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OKEONAMLFIOS5WI7MPQY6SXBCQ IRMO

          The ice core and tree ring record shows that the transitions between ice ages and warm ages have never been as abrupt as what we are seeing right now. 

        • ArtofARC

          Non sense

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OKEONAMLFIOS5WI7MPQY6SXBCQ IRMO

      When you get a grant to do science, some of it goes for equipment. Some of it goes for time share fees on supercomputers. And the rest goes towards funding the graduate students who do the gruntwork (And who do not take kindly to being stopped from engaging in objective research) None of it goes towards a vacation in Aruba.

      But when you’re paid to speak at a Heartland Institute conference, it’s a $5K speaker fee, with no questions asked how you use it. 

  • slowriøt

    “Sorry Russ, but to me this looks just like another “beneficial crisis”. I hope you focus your efforts elsewhere in future – they are needed.”Alex Jones,Glenn Beck and the many right-wing propagandists have done an excellent job. 

    Michael A Lewis, I appreciate your environmentalist work and also where your heart is, but you seem to be proving Russ’ point. 

    Here in Minneapolis you can feel the timidness with which a reporter simply tells of the records being broken daily in terms of climate.  It seems to me that this politicization and of the climate benefits the polluters and just about no one else. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Oso-Xiong-McBear/779968688 Oso Xiong McBear

    With this convenient over-simplification of the climate debate, “Carbon Dioxide Will Kill the Planet” vs. “It’s Not Getting Hotter The Liberals Made it Up”, The oil companies and banking cartels win both ways.  On the one hand, the “Cap and Trade” carbon-trading allows pollution to become yet another global currency that the super-rich can exploit.  Activists focus their energy and spin their wheels enabling this new concentration of wealth, meanwhile the two major earth systems that convert CO2 to breathable oxygen are being destroyed (ocean phytoplankton and tropical rain forests).  Soon we will have to pay to breathe…. perhaps with carbon credits.

  • Haze

    Russ: A few years back it was a consensus that string theory was the right way to unify gravity and quantum mechanics. It was “the only game in town”. Of course, the more times goes on we see that this consensus had more to do with sociology than hard science. What do we learn from this? That it does not take a conspiracy for 80-90% of climate scientists to boldly claim that “the science has been settled”. It just takes sociology and egos.

    This comment apply to *young* research fields such as climate science for the effects of sociology and ego’s have yet to be neutralized.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OKEONAMLFIOS5WI7MPQY6SXBCQ IRMO

      Climate science is about 100 years old now. 

    • Hazed

      God people don’t understand science. Haze: the difference is that string theory HAD NO DATA. None. Nor any way to really measure data that would test it. Still doesn’t. That’s why a book in critique of it was written called “Not Even Wrong”. Some physicists were excited about it because they thought it might lead to breakthroughs. Climate change has TONS of data. But anti-climate change is now a religious idea. And religion is impervious to reasoning.

  • Rob

    Your logic is perfectly reasonable IF we limit the factors involved to the ones you’ve outlined in your chart. What if we were to consider another factor? 

    What is more likely? Governments(G) or Oil Companies(O); 

    G – are pouring massive amounts of money ( $79 billion 1989-2009 )
     
    O – are taking their obscene profits to bribe scientists ( $23 million by Exxon over the same time period ) instead of reinvesting into a line of business that is becoming exponentially more expensive to operate in

    G – to fund a gravy train based on pseudo science which gives them yet another excuse to spend money they steal from us

    O – to pay off any scientists they can find who are brave enough or crazy enough to pretend to be a lone voice of reason in a debate where the issue has already been settled

    G – to feed into a self reinforcing, symbiotic relationship where scientists and government create a need for each other, and as funding from government grows, the level of “consensus” grows right along with it.

    O – using their limited funds, albeit large in comparison with most other industries, to skew a scientific debate about a problem that we won’t know or see the true extent of the damage from for decades to come, instead of using these same funds to skew government environmental policy on much more immediate issues, such as deep water drilling in the Gulf to name one example.

    See how a change in the factors can change the outcome? So which is it? Well, that’s where things get a lot more complicated. To use a paraphrase of a statement from your recent radio interview as an analogy, when it comes to the JFK assassination, its not as simple as saying the CIA did it. Its much more complicated than that. Same goes for the corrupting of climate science. There are many factors at play here to look at and decide if the science has merit or not. 

    I know you have an interest in this subject because you’ve touched on it several times. I would strongly encourage giving the skeptics’ side of the argument a good look because they have made a lot of valid points.

    The paper where I borrowed those funding figures from is a good place to start: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html

    ( Sorry, this post is so long )

    • Guesticles

       Yep, still O.

  • Gus

    No one denies (maybe I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen it) that the earth is warming.  What many question (myself included) is why this is happening.  Has it happened before?  Why, yes it has.  Climate is always changing, throughout the history of the earth, long before humans were even present.  The amount of money being poured into “man made global warming” research is incredible.  The amount of money that many elites stand to make from the carbon exchange (most notably Al Gore) is quite large.  Probably far larger than the profits of oil companies.  Are those oil companies paying whatever skeptics of the “consensus” of global warming they can?  Of course they are, anyone would be surprised if they were not.  It is what they do.  You write a great deal about what governments do, and I find it strange that in this instance, you are willing to defend this “consensus”.  Climate science is a very young field.  It is being grown very rapidly with government and private money.  The oil business is not growing, and the companies and interests involved in it are cashing in as much as they can before it is gone.  There is no doubt we need new, cleaner energy sources.  There is much doubt, however, that humans are responsible for the changing climate.

    • slowriøt

      So it’s just a coincidence that all of these drastic changes in climate began occurring when they did? And how do you explain global dimming? 

    • John_king

      “No one denies… that the earth is warming.”

      Uh, yes they do.  What bubble do you live in?  Just ask any of the hundreds of Europeans who have died from the coldest winter in recent memory how that ‘global warming’ thing is working out for them.

  • slowriøt
  • Craig

    For the life of me, I have never understood the man-made climate change skeptics argument that the government, academia and international organizations stand to “profit” from the science of climate change.  

    1.  The federal government already collects a tidy some of taxes from carbon-emitting industries (oil, automobiles, coal, gas etc.).  Since the federal government takes orders from the wealthiest oligarchs and big corporations, why would the government want to kill thousands of CO2 industry jobs around the country and hurt profits for the top .01 percent of Americans?  Why kill the goose that lays the golden egg? 

    2.  Those climate science researchers are greedy bastards aren’t they?  An environmental scientist scores a $25,000 grant from the National Science Foundation.  Cha-Ching, baby!  Not.  The money was awarded so the scientist can find an answer to a vexing scientific problem.  The money is spent and he has zero dollars left once the research project is over.   If he does have money left over, it goes straight back to the grant-making agency.  His research paper may be published or not.  His research may earn him tenure at a university or not.  There are no guarantees here.  But I don’t see this scientist using grant money as a debit card for luxury items and exotic vacations. 

    Scientists who accept money from CO2 emitting industry firms and special interest organizations…the incentives might be a weeeee little different. 

    3.  The United Nations.  Holy flashback to black helicopters and One World Government Domination theories from the 1990s.  Am I to believe that the United Nations has a vested interest in destroying the CO2 production and consumption economy in the world? 

    If you destroy the carbon-based industrial system, you wipe out whole national economies. 

    If you wipe out whole national economies, you cause internal political and social instability. 

    If you have internal political and social instability, this could lead to drastic changes to the governing structure of the nation (rise of fascism, communism or other some other nasty “ism”). 

    If you have a nasty “Ism” dictator in power, he will promote violent military conflict across national borders to distract the natives from their economic plight. 

    Then, you have wars erupting all over the world with lots of genocide and human suffering of an almost apocalyptic scale.  And how does the UN benefit from this scenario?

    • slowriøt

      How much did the Illuminiati/Al Gore/The Ghost Of Theodore Roosevelt/That one hippie at the protest about the thing/The Kenyan in the White House/and Clint Eastwood pay you to make that comment? Ron Paul and Alex Jones 2012!
      Good points Craig, I share your sentiment, and I thank you. Sorry Russ, that wasn’t very pro. 

      • ArtofARC

        These Gov’t dupes are sad and pathetic.The sheeple are clueless.

  • Sprachnessmonster

    What about the billions of dollars that are paid to Universities and the UN for Global Warming Research? Ultimately, this money makes it to the researcher’s level in the form of salaries. No warming, no money, no salary. Again, I’m talking billions. If I said it was $80 billion this year from the US I would probably be exaggerating, but I know it’s at least $40 billion.
    Oil companies “donate” to both sides of the debate. And why wouldn’t they. It’s an old trick. Just like bankers finance both sides of every war…and both sides of every Presidential race…hence all but one candidate are anti-Constitution and pro war…as well as not willing to take down our real enemy…the Federal Reserve. Instead, we spend
    trillions killing innocent Muslims. Further more, what do “they” propose? To get more money out of us for Carbon Taxes – a complete hoax…a scam.
    We currently are suffering with some of the lowest CO2 levels ever measured. 30 million people starve every year in part because of this. At one time, our atmosphere contained no oxygen, and 30% CO2. Yet we never hit a tipping point of ever increasing feedbacks. Don’t forget, Greenland was green.
    Man made Global Warming is a bad joke. It’s a hoax. Get over your hurt egos for supporting bad science…for being lied to. Be angry at those that did the lying…Not at those of us with enough of an education in Physics who knew the computer model math made no sense.
    Lastly…peer review publications. You will find over 900 peer reviewed papers that do not support the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. Just google 900 peer reviewed papers that… It will come up. Seriously folks…this horse died long ago. Beating him won’t bring him back. We even had Climate Gate II recently with far more damaging evidence, yet our media would not cover it. The Poles are not melting, The seas are not rising. The Polar Bears are not disappearing and I’ve never been abducted by aliens or Rand Paul and the Aqua Buddha  Bandits. Get over it. Move on. Realize this last important revelation: Governmental and Non Governmental Organizations are composed of people. People lie for their reasons not yours. They lie to get us into Wars – like the Spanish American War – Vietnam – Iraq…twice! – Libya – Iran…probably. They lie to sell products like tobacco and aspartame. They lie to win Political Office.
    The lie and care not if you find out because they can always buy or rig elections or hide behind corporate veils. They lie even while posing as  “authorities” or “officials”. Just because you believe that you wouldn’t get away with it does not mean they concern themselves with what the Plebes think. After all, they work for us but they act like we are stupid slaves. They do not care about us, they view us as a liability while they use their self proclaimed immunity from prosecution for insider trading on businesses they pave the legal highway for…many of them are green investments that would not make them rich if they did not get huge subsidies.
    We now live under a Fascist dictatorship…thanx to the Patriot act and NDAA. We now have laws making it legal for our government to do things the Nazis were afraid to put in writing. Yet, our media will still try to distract with Chicken Little cries about AGW, while producing no evidence.
    But, don’t take my word for it. Check the temps yourself @ http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
    You will find 10 years of sat. temp data here. You will also find the truth – AGW is only one of the biggest lies ever told. And once you realize that, you will begin to accept the fact that you are lied to even when the truth would have served just as well…. that much of what you know is wrong…and if you ever find even 10% of these truths you’ll be rightfully pissed off.

    • ArtofARC

      The sheeple are indoctrinated and brainwashed. They are authoritarians and follow the herd of mindless sheep. Sad cases. Pathetic.

  • https://plus.google.com/118376752237626707461/about Matt Prather

    The elite oil-finance-policy chieftains of the 20th century realized that the oil supplies that they dominated are past-peak and running out in the 21st century, and decided that the best way to stay dominant was to force energy-rationing on the economies they control under the guise of protecting the environment.

    Yes, the oil companies are the ones who WANT the most-mainstream climate change “solutions” forced on the world population, because they intend to have the power that comes from rationing oil, gas, and energy. They aren’t giving control of the energy profits and control of the energy supplies over to academics and politicians. They intend to have all the real power as puppet masters in the next century just as they did in the previous.

    Carbon dioxide, even with all of it that we have pumped out from petrochemical energy conversion, still makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere#Composition

    Carbon as a “pollutant” is the paper-thin pretext for their intended energy-rationing infrastructure. AGW is probably real in many ways (certainly man’s pollution affects his environment), but you have GOT TO REALIZE that the same a-holes who developed these carbon-”polluting” petrochemical resources as rapidly as possible throughout the 20th century are the same ones giving us the policies that will “save us from AGW” in the 21st. They don’t give a damn about the environment. They never have. They just want to control our lives.
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rockefeller-family-members-urge-exxonmobil-to-reconnect-with-founders-vision-by-appointing-independent-chairman-to-tackle-changing-energy-realities-57549267.html

    . . .

    It’s not a conspiracy of millions of intelligent scientists and literate public activists, it’s a conspiracy of the oil men and the money men to keep themselves in power as their past-peak oil supplies dwindle and their money system starts to collapse under unpayable debt and over-priced assets.

    As JFK skeptics, we ought to know that public perception, including that of 90% of the scientific community, CAN be managed through media control, information control, and the direct or indirect budget control of scientists and industrialists.

    . . .

    PLEASE DON’T DENY THE VALIDITY OF MY POINTS HERE.

    It is vital to understand that mainstream climate change solutions are just pretexts to control our lives by the same people who control it already. We need more thought and effort than just buying into their pre-packaged green-policy lies if we are going to really stop polluting the earth and preserve any semblance of freedom from autocracy.

    • The Agency

       BWA HA HA!

      Your post has been intercepted and cataloged.  We know who you are Mr. Prather and we know where you live.

      • https://sites.google.com/site/themattprather Matt Prather

        damn, I thought this tin-foil I wear was supposed to PROTECT me!
        :’(

  • Anonymous

    Angry people are overrated.

    Here is some Russian scientific interpretation of data: http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

    Curious.

  • Barrashee
  • Barrashee

    anyone who can read and comprehend a graph can see that AGW is a fraud, even with the EPA’s own data!

  • steinsvold2

    An Alternative to Capitalism (if the people knew about it, they would demand it)

    Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: “There is no alternative”. She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.

    I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: “Home of the Brave?” which was published by the
    Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:

    http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm

    John Steinsvold

    “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
    ~ Albert Einstein

  • boom

    I love how global warming has been accepted every where but in US…

  • Pingback: Unscientific America — Denying Science at Our Peril | Contrary Brin

  • Pingback: David Brin: What can we do about the GOP war on science?

  • Anonymous

    You present a false dichotomy. There are many more permutations of  the problems than we are aware of.

  • mish

    There is no conspiracy.  Research scientists simply go where the money is. Get your facts straight and look how much money goes to research to promote global warming versus the skeptic side.  For one dollar that goes to the skeptic side (by the evil oil companies as you say), about 1000 goes to the other side.

  • mish

    There is no conspiracy.  Research scientists simply go where the money is. Get your facts straight and look how much money goes to research to promote global warming versus the skeptic side.  For one dollar that goes to the skeptic side (by the evil oil companies as you say), about 1000 goes to the other side.

  • Irish usa

    THE SUN is cause of Earths heating and it does not do an even job over time. TG the earth spins so we get more evenly done but not quite

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Ryan/1805572966 Ken Ryan

    What a bunch of fools. a scientists main motivation is for truth and if he/she has a personal one it’s for recognition of your work. You get more of both by disproving an accepted truth. 

    • ArtofARC

      Truth does not trump money. Most “accepted truths” are simply lies.

  • DrDon

    Of course, some people are immune to logic–it makes their brains overheat.

  • james

    Excellent, Russ. The answer is simple and you tell it simply.

  • james

    Excellent, Russ. The answer is simple and you tell it simply.

  • james

    Excellent, Russ. The answer is simple and you tell it simply.

  • IAmDigitap

    What’s more likely is that 15 guys discovered that you can get an eighth of a million dollars for a two-week ‘peer reviewed’ paper that is built on math that makes hockey sticks,

    and “treemometers”

    and the belief in Apocalypse by ever more urgent hotness and wetness.

    The fact they all have cushie government jobs makes it even MORE likely since government employees are notorious for their utter disregard for ethics when it comes to finding reasons to sterilize all the ‘extra’ people – not white men like them of course.

  • IAmDigitap

    Indeed British Petroleum FOUNDED C.R.U.

    • Anonymous

      And Royal Dutch Shell.

  • Anonymous

    Which is more likely: A trace gas measured in parts per million controls the earth’s temperature, or the sun and earth go through natural cycles in which the earth warms and cools? 

    Which is more likely: Billions of government dollars spent over a 20 year period on an assortment of policies, grants to universities for the study of CO2 caused climate change along with green stimulus subsidy plans creating a gravy train for anyone who wants to line up at the trough (as long as their research finds that CO2 is the culprit and there are alternative energy sources needing to be  subsidized) or a few million spent by fossil fuel companies funding the occasional skeptic (and let’s not forget the fossil fuel money going to green and environmental organizations!). If you really want to follow the money, follow the money going into funding climate change, not the money funding skepticism.

    • Edwcorey

      Your false reasoning is proven by your declaring the current steroid weather on “natural cycles.” Natural cycles don’t jump by eight degrees above normal. I trust scientists. You trust energy companies. Common sense says you are wrong.

      • Anonymous

        “Natural cycles don’t jump by eight degrees above normal.”

        Please provide links to NASA, NOAA, CRU, or any official data you have that proves the eight degrees that you are claiming. Not models, Observed data. And those degrees would be in Centigrade since that is the scientific norm.

        • ArtofARC

          The “official” conspiracy theories are bull. brainwashed sheep

      • Anonymous

        “Natural cycles don’t jump by eight degrees above normal.”

        Please provide links to NASA, NOAA, CRU, or any official data you have that proves the eight degrees that you are claiming. Not models, Observed data. And those degrees would be in Centigrade since that is the scientific norm.

      • Anonymous

        USHCN is the The U.S. Historical Climatology Network (NOAA)

        The USHCN claims +0.245 C/decade from 1973 to 2012.

        The CRU Tem3 claims +0.198 C/decade from 1973-2012.

        Here’s the 20th Century per the USHCN, in Fahrenheit. 1934 and 1998 appear to be within a hair of each other:
        http://tinyurl.com/6qnrgg8

      • Anonymous

        USHCN is the The U.S. Historical Climatology Network (NOAA)

        The USHCN claims +0.245 C/decade from 1973 to 2012.

        The CRU Tem3 claims +0.198 C/decade from 1973-2012.

        Here’s the 20th Century per the USHCN, in Fahrenheit. 1934 and 1998 appear to be within a hair of each other:
        http://tinyurl.com/6qnrgg8

    • Edwcorey

      Your false reasoning is proven by your declaring the current steroid weather on “natural cycles.” Natural cycles don’t jump by eight degrees above normal. I trust scientists. You trust energy companies. Common sense says you are wrong.

    • Good Shepherd

      Which is more likely: that the world is made of tiny things you can’t see, that can teleport, can be particles or waves, need advanced math squiggles and PhDs to understand ALL SUPPORTED BY GOV’T MONEY(!), or, the TRUTH that science is just a giant conspiracy designed to roll in trillions of dollars (think nuclear weapons development!). We all know that things are made of earth, wind, water, and fire. At least we can SEE those!

      Follow the money, sheeple! Science is one, giant fraud. Did your grandmother come from a monkey? Didn’t think so. Do you think they really went to the moon? Then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

      Don’t you see that the sun and moon go AROUND THE EARTH, and yet they have brain washed you into believing calculus squiggles on paper and fake data show the Earth goes around the sun! Have you seen a ROUND earth? And I don’t mean fake space photos from fake space ships. Did you see a ROUND EARTH with your own eyes? Didn’t think so. It’s flat, just look out your window. WAKE UP PEOPLE. Lies upon lies. Climate change is just the most recent lie!!
      Don’t even get me started on the inside job that is 9/11.

      We need to start by burning the Satanic science textbooks.

      Then, I say, lynch the conspiring scientists!

      • http://www.facebook.com/CalGeekGrl Heather Kimbrough

        What? Are you trying to be funny? Because this is just one long mash-up of idiocy and conspiracy theory gone horribly horribly wrong….

  • Anonymous

    Russ, can you publish who was able to prove the Climate Sensitivity argument, whether it’s high or low? That should seal the discussion one way or the other.

  • Anonymous

    Why is pollution lumped in with Climate Change? And don’t tell me it’s CO2, which is .03% or .04% of the atmosphere. I want clean air and water no matter what the climate does, and THAT is preventable.

    My generation (Baby Boomer) wanted sated gullets with the purest water, so we dumped countless billions of plastic water bottles into the environment. Did we fix the public water supply for the benefit of everyone, the benefit of the poorest among us, for undocumented workers working in the fields? No. Only for our selfish selves. And now the Pacific Ocean has a plastic garbage patch the size of Texas destroying the sea fauna it touches.

    Take a look at the pollution our craze for wind turbines is causing. Do we give a damn about who it’s destroying? Nope. Just so long as we have a wind turbine so we can feel absolved.
    http://tinyurl.com/72lpbqu

    Wait until you see the pollution the newly announced Chinese solar factory and solar farm is going to produce in Loughlin, NV. The Chinese are no fools. They’re spreading it around. NIMBY is going to be IMBY and maybe people will wake up.In the meantime, the only ones getting rich on this are the global carbon tax kings, who are using The Precautionary Principle as the statutory law (EU) to get it accomplished.Oh yeah, BTW, take a look at this October 2010 proposal for the Environmental Sciences department at the University of Calgary to combat CO2. And while you read the first few pages of this (all you have to look at, just get to Page 6) remember that sulphur was taken out of diesel fuel BECAUSE of the danger to humans. This is the Geoengineering response–now called Climate Remediation to fool everyone–a supposed “Green” response to CO2. Absolute utter insanity.
    http://tinyurl.com/72lpbqu
    And these suggestions are being proposed without public debate, right now, by both the US and UK govts.

  • http://twitter.com/KeimgMeg Keimh3reg Peh2u Meg

    Total BS.

  • http://twitter.com/KeimgMeg Keimh3reg Peh2u Meg

    You don’t need a dime if the UN is on your side.

    It is not just a bunch of NGOs pushing this, it is corrupt governments the world over.

    The NGOs are usually headed by former government and UN officials.

    A lot of their money comes from grants and favors, rather than donations by sincere environmentalists.

    The profits are not obscene, oil companies are simply selling more oil more effectively. Most of the price at the pump covers the costs to get it there, including meeting standards set up by mindless bureaucrats. Most of the remainder is taxes. Then you get to the actual profits.

    Aren’t oil companies also pushing the climate change crap?

    90% is pure BS.

    The chart has nothing to do with logic. 

    Even if the non-sarcastic statements it made were true, it is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    This chart is very cute, but is total pap.

    • PI

      You poor anticlimate change sheep.

  • James Laframboise

    This graphic is totally bogus, and doesn’t represent reality in the slightest. The vast majority of “90% of the global scientific community” is funded through politically-appropriated money, or charitable contributions from NGOs with just as much of a political agenda.

    Not that I disagree with the influence of Big Business, but this just isn’t accurate, and reeks of its own agenda. 

    And since when does being in the majority make you right?

  • https://sites.google.com/site/themattprather Matt Prather

    NT Times Concedes on Global Warming?

    http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/44-energy-and-environment/1876-ny-times-concedes-on-global-warming

    This week, The New York Times ran its own article entitled “What to Make of a Warming Plateau.”[1]

    “As unlikely as this may sound,” it began, “we may have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.”

    Well, it wasn’t “unlikely” to anyone living outside the global warming echo chamber. And “lucked out” is apparently its euphemism for “been completely, embarrassingly wrong.”

    Regardless, this amounts to a milestone mea culpa from one of global warming orthodoxy’s loudest trumpets:

    “The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the past 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace. The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists… [G]iven how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.”

    [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html

  • Pingback: Hurricane Sandy, Climate Change, and Denial | WhoWhatWhy

  • Pingback: Grupo Salvaje (en el laboratorio) | Español noticias