#1 By: Cory Doctorow, December 23rd, 2013 21:12
#2 By: Kevin Thoman, December 23rd, 2013 21:20
Don't worry, the polar bears will be fine if they get enough Coke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL5KAvKcUQ4
#3 By: Jewels Vern, December 23rd, 2013 21:24
Could someone please explain why climate change is or should be a political issue?
I understand why it's an issue. I want to know why it's a political issue.
#4 By: gilbert wham, December 23rd, 2013 21:33
That seems remarkably obtuse. It's because we're assholes.
#5 By: Jeremy Erwin, December 23rd, 2013 21:36
Why should we pay $40 to read a single article, when we can find a free copy
#6 By: wil9000, December 23rd, 2013 21:41
Billionaires spend money suppressing and denying science?
#7 By: Jeremy Erwin, December 23rd, 2013 21:44
Speech just isn't as effective unless it can be plausibly disowned.
#8 By: Mellivora Capensis, December 23rd, 2013 21:47
It's not political, it's spiritual. Jesus hates Al Gore.
#9 By: Mellivora Capensis, December 23rd, 2013 21:48
In before the sock trolls earning their share of that $1B...
#11 By: El Mariachi, December 23rd, 2013 21:55
…and just in the nick of time.
#12 By: Martin Pedraza, December 23rd, 2013 21:58
and in a more general sense, please check his post history. This guy has a seriously specific interest in science.
#13 By: kmoser, December 23rd, 2013 22:11
It's very simple: don't trust organizations with "Freedom", "Heritage", "Patriot" or "America" in their names.
#14 By: Jeremy Erwin, December 23rd, 2013 22:16
Donors capital will be glad to help you dream up a more innocuous name for your front organization
#15 By: gilbert wham, December 23rd, 2013 22:17
Wat? And, for minimum post length restrictions, O RLY?
#16 By: Nick, December 23rd, 2013 22:34
Among the recipients of the funds are several charitable groups that are supposedly neutral on climate change, including the American Enterprise Institute (the top recipient of the funds) and the Heritage Foundation.
This statement implies that the study identified funds designated for the purpose of CCCM, which organizations like AEI and Heritage accepted counter to their stated goals, but that is not what the study is saying.
The study started by looking at a list of 118 organizations and they examined reported income for those organizations. AEI and Heritage were included because the study authors decided to do so, and I have not seen the authors provide the coding sheets for individual organizations that would allow us to investigate why they were determined to be "CCCM" organizations.
In addition it appears that the majority of the organizations are coded as purpose level 2, which means that they do many different things. the 1B dollar figure is the total income for all organizations, so it would be wrong to presume that all of that went to CCCM activites.
#17 By: nonfer, December 23rd, 2013 22:44
...and calling it climate change instead of pollution and its likely effects.
#18 By: Melted_Crayons, December 23rd, 2013 22:46
That big money buys ready response: always on the lookout, always at the ready, to confuse people who are about to understand the truth of what's really going on. We know they are always at the ready on the web.
That's the advantage of money; if you have enough you can maintain your will via others who are on the job every day.
But those who desire the truth do not have money to spend that way, which is why truth is often covered over by deception.
#19 By: Nik From NYC, December 23rd, 2013 22:52
Banksy to the rescue indeed:
Hey, where's my Big Oil money check?
#21 By: Drew_Gehringer, December 23rd, 2013 22:58
Because if climate change exists, parts of the economy that currently make a lot of money will have to spend a lot of money to change or will just stop existing entirely.
#23 By: phk, December 23rd, 2013 23:07
Yes, it is... what's worse, a 1b/y "denial" secret network or a 700+b/y state-sponsored money-burning machine that doesn't even need to hide?
And honestly, the worse thing that will happen is that the entire human race disappears and in a couple of hundred thousand years the whole planet will be lush forests again. "The planet" doesn't need saving - the political/scientifical career of those that have based everything on announcing ever more catastrophic computer simulations and their absolute truthfulness does, however.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I'll not get an "oh your arguments are convincing, I'll reconsider my views". Let's go research the German Waldsterben together, okay?
next page →