121–130 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is flooding a consensus forming process with information that is known to be false possibly helpful with improving the accuracy of the process?
Precisely because “known to be false” is debatable. Known by who? To what certainty? Etc.
There is a great book: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" Two things to learn from the book: 1) The are same people and organizations behind many science related denials: DDT, tobacco, SDI defenders, acid rain, ozone hole, and climate change denial are linked to same group of people. They try to "maintain the controversy" and "keep the d…
While I don’t doubt your assertion that a select few are responsible for the bulk of the push-back on such issues, I think it’s good to have some resistance. Humans are so prone to wishful thinking and following consensus, it can be healthy to keep the debate alive longer than one might think necessary. It helps one clarify your position to yourself, for one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a group of people is allowed to consistently get away with not paying their taxes, then fairly quickly, just by the operation of the monetary system, they will be the only people with any money. The real question is, are these really the people you want in control?
It's not about "getting away", it's about the governments being broke. There is no way to repay the 100% of GDP in debt for the Western governments, and the current pension and welfare programs are doomed. They can tax the hell out of companies but that will turn the West into a quaint XVIIth century villageland with horse-carriages while Asia becomes the epicenter of technology, industry and civilization. The climat…
They introduced loan securitization a few years ago, and their system does not have anywhere close to the flexibility or tolerance for dissent they are going to need to deal with the issues that is creating for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fossil fuel companies purchase politicians on both sides of the isle. Several prominent democrats, including former and current Democrat presidential candidates have ties with fossil fuel companies. Your argument is weakened by focusing on one political party.
Only one side acknowledges the existence of a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how perspectives can be so different. I feel like the GOP has been politely waiting for the DNC to come to terms with the fact that nuclear is really the only path forward to provide clean stable grid power.
Been of the same thought myself. I see tons of pro-nuke Republicans waiting for the other side to show up. Meanwhile the Dems are off cancelling all of the waste repository projects (yucca mountain) and then turning around and complaining about all of the dangerous radioactive waste sitting around the country. This isn't a Burger King.
The underlying study is misleading, and the article’s characterization of the findings is outright deceptive. The article claims that “nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement.” That billion dollars is the total funding flowing into a variety of conservative and pro-market organizations, which advocate on a wide variety of issues. The underlying study and the artic…
This is a flat-out false representation. The Heritage Foundation has sown the seeds of denialism many times.
https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif...
https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-... (section titled "climate change realities")
https://www.desmogblog.com/heritage-foundation
Some of the problematic articles are from years ago, you say. Well, where is the retraction? The damage of denialism (and their credibility) has already been done... Redemption would not be trivial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you actually just label a decently researched article quoting The Guardian and PBS as Nazi propaganda? Wow, that's a new low for HN.
I referred to the era more than the nazis but you are essentially correct. Other than the decently researched part which others have done a good job breaking down in the other threads
It's surprising to me that you did not foresee that the emphasis, for the reader of your comment, would be on the word Nazi, which brings to mind propaganda that is far more disconcerting than the Smithsonian article.
The underlying study is misleading, and the article’s characterization of the findings is outright deceptive. The article claims that “nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement.” That billion dollars is the total funding flowing into a variety of conservative and pro-market organizations, which advocate on a wide variety of issues. The underlying study and the artic…
Sure there is. But doesn't the title of the article read like nazi era propaganda? Not very professional or scientific or to call anyone on the other side a 'climate denier'. I'm sort of in that camp but am not paid and kind of dont mind debating it
Yes, and you're going to get down voted below the fold. But it's historical dangerous to say "well ALL the good scientists and government scientists think X is true. Anyone who disagrees is on the take." That means you Galileo.
The comparison seems a stretch to me but I'm no expert on the life and times of Galileo so I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Been of the same thought myself. I see tons of pro-nuke Republicans waiting for the other side to show up. Meanwhile the Dems are off cancelling all of the waste repository projects (yucca mountain) and then turning around and complaining about all of the dangerous radioactive waste sitting around the country. This isn't a Burger King.
I think we need to convince everyone to watch the Bill Gates documentary on Netflix. It's a not-so-subtle pitch to save the world with a gen 4 nuclear power plant that uses all that old nuclear waste as its fuel. So it's clean nuclear energy which is designed to be impossible to melt down and it literally eats the pollution from previous generation nuclear plants.