Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Hey Mono. Glad you checked in.
Any luck on those top three recipients and the documentation supporting the funds they spent on denier efforts.
In case you're unsure about what I'm talking about, the other day you posted:
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
I replied:
$558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations?
Let's see the top three recipients and the documentation supporting the funds they spent on denier efforts.
Any luck with that?
Or... perhaps you believe (like I do) the author played a little fast and loose with the facts.
Then again, why bother defending your posts, when personal attacks can offer a convenient distraction.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Are you having trouble reading the graphs or going to the full paper, Sketch?
I know, Sketch, deny, deny, deny, and claim fabrication. Too bad Sketch doesn't apply the same standards of proof of others to his own postings.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
I did some research on Brulle's donors and recipients. I looked for funds from the largest donor, Donors Trust/Donors Capital, to the largest recipient, AEI.
I found DT/DC gave just under 3 million dollars to AEI in '09 and '10. You know... before it all went dark. So the connect from the largest party in each of Brulle's pie chart are in cahoots for 3M/yr.
Then I checked out the AEI site. On their front page, they a "Latest Content" section, which takes up about 1/2 the page. I scrolled down through the stories, looking for a climate change story. I gave up after the first 20 stories. Not a single climate change story.
Like I said before, I think Brulle may have played a little fast and loose with the facts.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Are you having trouble reading the graphs or going to the full paper, Sketch?
I know, Sketch, deny, deny, deny, and claim fabrication. Too bad Sketch doesn't apply the same standards of proof of others to his own postings.
Easy there, Mono.
Neither the graphs nor the paper provide the info I requested. Feel free to produce the details and prove me wrong.
I expect that's above your ability. It's above mine. But then again, I wasn't the one posting 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010. It's not mine to defend.
More than likely, you'll just offer more snark.
C'est la vie
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
And that's your proof, Sketch?
LOL!
Boy Howdy.
3 million vs. 558 million
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
I realize I made mistake, thinking everything went "dark" after 2010. But then I saw where Brulle claimed funding went "dark" after 2007.
So I looked at DT/DT funding to AEI in 2006. According to Conservative Transparency, DT gave AEI a whopping $17,500 in '06.
That's right....
SEVENTEEN THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS!!!
Someone alert the media. This is big news.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Troll on mighty Trolumbia!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2015 - 07:33pm PT
|
Let's see the top three recipients and the documentation supporting the funds they spent on denier efforts.
"I asked you a question and you're not answering me! [stomp stomp]"
Say, do you mind if I call you Eddie?
I expect that's above your ability. It's above mine. But then again, I wasn't the one posting 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010. It's not mine to defend.
Talk about being snarky.
Eddie, maybe you should take this up with Scientific American. After all, they published the quote that seems to be causing you so much trouble:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
Let us know how your conversation goes with them.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 6, 2015 - 05:16pm PT
|
Alongside an announcement by The Guardian's editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger on Friday in which he said climate change stands out as perhaps the single most important issue now facing humanity—one he says his outlet could have done a more aggressive job of covering in recent years—the newspaper has kicked off a new series of special coverage on global warming by publishing an excerpt from author and activist Naomi Klein's latest book, This Changes Everything, alongside a sneak-peek of the documentary film by the same name directed by Klein's husband, Avi Lewis.
"I believe the movement we need is already in the streets; in the courts; in the classrooms; even in the halls of power – we just need to find each other. One way or another, everything is going to change. And for a brief time, the nature of that change, is still up to us."
This link has a clip of the flick:
On Climate, Humanity Must Rise Up Against 'Collective Shrug of Fatalism'
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
UAH updated their lower-troposphere temperatures this week. Here's a plot of 12-month averages through February 2015. Even in the satellite data you have to squint harder to see a "pause" these days.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
and by squinting you mean - squinting so hard your eyes shut and your brain shuts down.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
But what about sea ice, you're probably all wondering. It's a turnaround time of year, close to the minimum down south and the maximum up north. Right now the Antarctic ice area is well above normal, reflecting mainly a huge area frozen in the lee of the Antarctic Peninsula. Along other coasts it's closer to normal or even well below.
Meanwhile Arctic ice area is well below normal, especially in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. That could easily change with new storms moving in, and perhaps still some weeks before melt season.
Things to watch.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Meanwhile Arctic ice area is well below normal, especially in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. That could easily change with new storms moving in, and perhaps still some weeks before melt season.
After a strong minimum in 2014, I was hoping to see a strong maximum. The recent maximum looks exceptionally weak. It will be interesting to see how next six months play out.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Interesting note, jr. It's written around a rant by Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams, who evidently complained about "science" without being clear what he means. The writer, more thoughtfully, tries to sort this out.
Around the middle of the article, Adams finally asks a question that shows where his problem really originates. It’s a problem many of us share: “How is a common citizen supposed to know when science is ‘done’ and when it is halfway to done — which is the same as being wrong?”
How indeed? In the scientific journal papers I read, I rarely (if ever) encounter a scientist who claims anything like “this topic is now closed.” For one thing, such bald-faced egotism would be career suicide in the scientific community — and for another, a claim like that would fly in the face of the whole spirit of scientific work, which is founded on the ongoing aim of (as Adams himself writes), “being more right over time and fixing what it got wrong.”
If scientists themselves aren’t making claims like this, then where are they coming from? Who’s selling people like Adams the ideas that all carbs are inherently dangerous; that they should drink 10 liters of water a day; and all manner of other unproven nonsense; as if it’s scientifically proven?
The root of the problem
Twenty years ago, we could’ve just blamed pop-science journalists and left it at that. And while overblown science headlines are still a major aspect of the problem, many of your friends and relatives — and most likely, even you — are now implicated in this onslaught of misinformation.
"Even you" are implicated because you're reposting crap on Facebook, etc. Fair enough, but more relevant here might be another seemingly limitless source of scienceyness -- the pseudoscience bloggers who feed so many people the talking points they yearn to hear and repeat.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
yes, I saw that and thought it was pretty damn funny. and reposted it regardless, maybe because of it. in and of itself, though, it's not a scientific paper, soooo... I feel exonerated from any liability to entertain such sciency truthiness.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
To be clear, by "even you" I was quoting the article, not pointing fingers at jr. :-)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!