this post was submitted on
10 points (66% like it)
20 up votes 10 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

all 31 comments

[–]publius_lxxii[S] 0 points1 point ago

Relevant - the Reader Background thread linked at the top of this blog.

[–]OortCloud 0 points1 point ago

This story was posted on several subs by the usual gang. I wanted to comment on the absurdity of it, but I restrained myself and offered comments only here and on R/politics. I thought for sure that people at R/pol would take an objective view. Wrong, of so very wrong. I'm currently engaged in discussion with far more people than I have the time for. I'm finding that some fundamental points of the skeptic side are news to a lot of people.

The point that I've made re this incident is that $1.6 million allocated by Heartland is nothing compared to the billions spent to promote AGW. Many at R/pol seem to believe that skeptics, using money provided by Big Oil, have outspent the UN, IPCC, and the US government. I fear that the propaganda campaign is just ramping up.

[–]JRugman 3 points4 points ago

OK, lets discus this. How much have Big Oil spent on lobbying and policy work vs legitimate scientific research when it comes to climate change? How much have the UN, IPCC, and the US government spent on lobbying and policy work vs legitimate scientific research when it comes to climate change?

Comparing the total combined budget for decades of public spending allocated to climate change - which covers funding for satellites, alternative energy research, mitigation and adaptation scenarios, and countless peer-reviewed papers - with a fraction of the budget from a single group for a single year, is such a blatant attempt to spin this incident that its no wonder that you're having trouble getting people to feel sympathetic to your view.

[–]JRugman -4 points-3 points ago

That doesn't even start to answer my question. You're comparing a lobbying budget from a single advocacy group on a single issue to various budgets for legitimate multi-departmental research or global environmental campaigning.

Let's try this again. How much have Big Oil spent on lobbying and policy work vs legitimate scientific research when it comes to climate change? How much have the UN, IPCC, and the US government spent on lobbying and policy work vs legitimate scientific research when it comes to climate change?

[–]OortCloud 1 point2 points ago

Well I know that they haven't paid me a dime. I wonder if they have a form I can fill out for doing consultancy work. Seriously, governments and NGOs are required to report while private corps are not. You ask me for numbers from Big Oil which you must know I can't provide. However, the numbers that I can provide are news to you and they seem to go against the notion that AGW has been promoted on a shoe-string budget by poverty-stricken reasearchers.

We can get a good idea of the money spent towards AGW promotion but we would have to rely on the honesty of individuals for other numbers. Big Oil is not in the business of climate research. If the numbers for donations from BO in the Heartland doc are typical then we would have conclude that the money spent on funding alternate research is minimal.

[–]gabefair -2 points-1 points ago

Haven't paid you a dime? Why are you working for free?

[–]penGuiner -1 points0 points ago

Despite the claim, I've never seen any real evidence (and if they had it, it would be shared) provided that shows any BIG OIL supports any skeptical science or PR for that matter. Its all talking points.

By why should they, its not like wind or solar represent any real threat to them. Anyone with a little lick of sense and nominal research can tell that supposed "green energy sources" lack the energy density, reliability, ROI and portability of fossil fuels by FAR.

Its also because BIG OIL isn't really the target of the CAGW movement. Its goal is to establish taxation, financial instruments (carbon credits) and favored markets (said "green energy") which can be manipulated and profited off of by governments and their favored corporate/banking constituency.

[–]JRugman 0 points1 point ago

You don't see how regulating CO2 would affect the bottom line of oil companies, and help encourage alternative methods of transportation energy?

Evidence of how the oil industry has attempted to skew the way climate science is communicated goes back a long time. I'd recommend reading 'Merchants of Doubt' by Naomi Oreskes.

The case of Philip Cooney is a particularly blatant example.

Its also because BIG OIL isn't really the target of the CAGW movement. Its goal is to establish taxation, financial instruments (carbon credits) and favored markets (said "green energy") which can be manipulated and profited off of by governments and their favored corporate/banking constituency.

O... K... so are you saying that the scientific consensus is incorrect?

[–]moirende 1 point2 points ago

What a silly apples-to-oranges way to look at it. If you want to make any sort of reasonable comparisons here it should include:

  1. How much are environmental advocacy groups spending on this issue vs. skeptical advocacy groups? I think the numbers Oort provided through the link above give a pretty good idea there, though obviously it's not entirely accurate as each of the organizations involved do things besides AGW advocacy. Nonetheless, we can see there is a huge discrepancy in dollars on one side vs. the other

  2. How much money is government spending on pro-AGW advocacy vs. skepticism? Difficult to parse out but again it's clearly "a lot" vs. "almost nothing"

  3. How much are advocacy groups on both sides spending on "research"? Surely if a scientist takes dollars from "big oil" and it means this slants their research, then taking dollars from Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc. etc. means the same thing. So what are those numbers? Would post-secondary institutions be willing to reveal all their funding sources?

  4. How much is being spent on AGW-themed research by government funded agencies vs. other forms of climate research or research done by skeptics?

[–]nolotusnotes 0 points1 point ago

And as of this post, we've moved off of science entirely.

Actually, it happened before your post. But there is no science here.

It' all politics at this point.

[–]JRugman -4 points-3 points ago

Those are all good questions. I'd love to see the answers to them, and hear how they have relevance to the observed evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change.

[–]moirende 3 points4 points ago*

Those are all good questions. I'd love to see the answers to them

Me too, though I doubt anyone would be all that surprised to discover what I think we all kind of already know: one side spending orders of magnitude more than the other in all cases.

and hear how they have relevance to the observed evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change.

Most "climate skeptics" I know (or at least pay attention to) are far more interested in understanding the degree of AGW vs. natural causes and in disputing the claims of "catastrophic" AGW, for which there is no observed evidence and thus remains on far shakier ground.

Continually pretending skeptics are attacking the first thing (AGW) instead of the second (CAGW) simply cheapens the whole debate. Most level-headed people can see through those kinds of dishonest bait and switch tactics, and no doubt that is one of the reasons advocacy groups such as Heartland are so effective. They don't have to make up stuff to make alarmists look bad, alarmists do it to themselves.

EDIT: "they don't have to make UP stuff", was missing that word in original.

[–]JRugman -3 points-2 points ago

Well I guess if we all kind of already know we don't need evidence and stuff.

one side spending orders of magnitude more than the other in all cases.

Well, obviously.

Most "climate skeptics" I know (or at least pay attention to) are far more interested in understanding the degree of AGW vs. natural causes and in disputing the claims of "catastrophic" AGW, for which there is no observed evidence and thus remains on far shakier ground.

There is no consensus over "catastrophic" AGW. The IPCCs WG1 conclusions, which form the basis for most policies currently enacted or under consideration, is based on sound physical principles and supported by observed evidence.

[–]moirende 1 point2 points ago

Well, obviously

Then why do y'all keep bitching about the nefarious influence of "big oil"? Particularly when they were noticeably absent from the Heartland donors list? You guys are going to need to find a new bogeyman.

Agreed on lack of CAGW consensus. Wow. I... I never thought that would be so easy. As for the rest I'll give you physical principles, but observed evidence is not going to fly.

[–]JRugman -2 points-1 points ago

Then why do y'all keep bitching about the nefarious influence of "big oil"?

Because they're the ones spending more on propaganda? Oh dear - neither of us specified which side we thought was the highest spender... how embarrassing.

Particularly when they were noticeably absent from the Heartland donors list?

Do the Koch brothers mean anything to you?

observed evidence is not going to fly.

The observed evidence that supports AGW:

All of this and more is summarized in a report from the NAS that reviews the likely degree-by-degree impacts of warming.

Here are a few more important papers referenced by the Working Group 1 in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

Climate sensitivity is estimated to be around 3 degrees Celcius for a doubling of CO2. This depends on the existence of positive feedbacks to warming in the climate system. These positive feedbacks are supported by observed evidence:

  • Climate change theory predicts that warmer temperatures would lead to reduced summer sea ice extent, which would cause a feedback from changes to the earth's albedo. This has been observed.

  • Climate change theory predicts that warming permafrost would release increasing amounts of methane, which would cause a feedback from increased atmospheric GHGs. This has been observed.

  • Climate change theory predicts that increasing temperatures would increase the level of atmospheric water vapour, which would cause a feedback due from increased atmospheric GHGs. This has been observed.

[–]Roh234 2 points3 points ago

Compare the 'climate awareness' vs the 'skeptic climate awareness' budget.

[–]JRugman 0 points1 point ago

How? Is that info publicly available?

[–]counters -3 points-2 points ago

I'm finding that some fundamental points of the skeptic side are news to a lot of people

They're also wrong.

[–]OortCloud -1 points0 points ago

Yes, those people are wrong.

[–]JRugman -1 points0 points ago

We are chemists, engineers, programmers, physicists, astronomers, medical professionals, meteorologists, statisticians and even climate scientists. We are not the ones who are uninformed in the debate, we are the ones who are qualified to read the science and where appropriate – disagree.

Nothing wrong with that statement at all, in principle. The problem is that a lot of the disagreement from 'skeptics' over the fundamentals of climate science is undoubtedly inappropriate... demonstrating that they are, in fact, uninformed (or even wilful providers of misinformation) in the debate.

A prime example would be the continued insistence that the US surface temperature record is unreliable, despite several peer-reviewed studies (including one from Professor Watts) showing the opposite.

[–]ahippyatheart -2 points-1 points ago

You're not allowed to be skeptical of skeptics in this subreddit.

Stick to pejorative terms like warmists.

[–]EyesfurtherUp -1 points0 points ago

If climate change was mainly influenced by human behavior and there is this urgency then those who pollute the most would curtail their behavior by force if not voluntary. I don't see it. We need to treat our home with more consideration.

Speaking any update on gulf coast?