Oil Giants Are Dealt Major Defeats on Climate Change as Pressures Intensify

That source is extremely partisan, and an opinion piece on top of that. Once again, difficulty exists to be overcome.

We either do this, or we force ourselves into extinction. I shouldn't have to tell you how incredibly emasculating going extinct is, Lc89.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
Another insult to the very concept of "institute" just like the Marshall one. I'm thinking of another word ending with "-stitute" to qualify those kind of organization, and it is a rather offensive one.
"Heartless institute" would also be a more appropriate name.

It is a shame such crap still exists.
 
Last edited:
dannydale said:
That source is extremely partisan, and an opinion piece on top of that. Once again, difficulty exists to be overcome.

We either do this, or we force ourselves into extinction. I shouldn't have to tell you how incredibly emasculating going extinct is, Lc89.
Click to expand...

"partisan" is too kind of a word to design it, I would say.
 
Oh, the Marshall institute was similar. And the Cato one, too. And probably a bunch of others.

What really happened in the late 80's was that an "alliance of evil" happened between
- the threatened tobacco industry (because cancer)
- the threatened paleoconservatives (because of the fall of the Berlin wall, they lost their "best ennemy" )
- the threatened oil industry (because global warming)

The tactics were the same: denial, hysteria, lies, lobbying, falsify the data, and also: attack the scientists (Hansen, Mann...)

It is one of the most outrageous and shameful bucket of lies of the last three decades. Sickening.

See attached document... well worth a read.
 

Attachments

  • Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes (z-lib.org).pdf
    3.2 MB · Views: 1
On one hand, we have thousands of scientists building a coherent model based on lots of data. All of this is testable. Other scientists have done lots of tests to find flaws in the model, and haven't found any.
On the other side we have handwaving and gut feelings, powered and financed by people who don't want to pay for the damage they're causing. If you want to change the direction we're going, you have to build a coherent model based on lots of data, and convince scientists their current model is wrong. In science, this happens all the time: Newton's theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein's superior model, for instance. The scientific method is based on trying to prove everybody's models and theories wrong. But to do that, you have to provide data, and a model that fits that data.

People who deny climate science (just like people who deny that smoking causes cancer) don't do that. They handwave and bluster, but they provide neither data nor models that fit their narrative. You can't treat these sides as equals because they aren't.
 
Four decades ago, the Club of Rome (a group of liberal scientists, economists and industrialists that was founded in 1968) predicted looming economic collapse in its iconic report The Limits to Growth.



In 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus famously predicted that short-term gains in living standards would inevitably be undermined as human population growth outstripped food production, and thereby drive living standards back toward subsistence.


2012 End-of-the-World Countdown Based on Mayan Calendar Starts Today​


By Suzan Clarke December 21, 2011
 

Attachments

  • 1984_lp_Cover_900px.jpg
    1984_lp_Cover_900px.jpg
    276 KB · Views: 1

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom