CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Nor I, but it still remains unanswered as to who funds such fat cat salaries for climate scientists. Remember, these are the very people who are telling the proletariat that we are all doomed, yet future life-long and lucrative careers within this circle are being aspired too. Something doth not add up correctly here.

In the words of our lord and saviour Al Gore, we can always 'follow the money'. But lordie, how that backfired on himself. Akasia likes to bring up the Koch Brothers influence on science when it science he does not agree with, but ignores that very same influence on the agenda he agrees with.

This is a shocking post. Stop 'asking questions' and start providing evidence

Fat cat salaries???
Am i talking to a parody account?
Al Gore???
Is this the straw man Olympics?
Nobody has given a single sh1t about al gore in more than a decade and nobody on this thread has cited him or any of his work

Akrasia

And Danno i gave you the benefit of the doubt for not posting stuff directly from shady sources but you have been thanking these posts consistently. Before you thank a post, you should check its sources

MOD NOTE: No backseat moderation, please.

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

That's a debate for yourself and Oneric. I have no problem with Climate scientist funding, regardless if they are supportive of AGW or not. I'm not blinded to the fact that either side have financial motive when publishing works.

The quoting was hardly to take credit, it was merely an example of lack of consensus regarding IPCC.

It's also not quoted from your link or poster within that link. No doubt you googled it and choose the site that furthered your agenda, which is to attack the poster and not the post. The quotes were compiled in years before your link.

Also most of the scientists you are applauding don't directly contribute to the IPCCs recommendations.

You have no problem with climate science funding. Good, but what about funding for shills pretending to be independent climate scientists like Fred Singer?

These are paid advertisements, not scientific opinions

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a shocking post. Stop 'asking questions' and start providing evidence

Fat cat salaries???
Am i talking to a parody account?
Al Gore???
Is this the straw man Olympics?
Nobody has given a single sh1t about al gore in more than a decade and nobody on this thread has cited him or any of his work

This, from a conspiracy theorist. :eek:

Do tell us more about the Koch Brothers, or corrupted scientists, or funding by fossil fuel companies and all other nefarious goings on behind the scenes.. now do.

Akrasia

You're the one who believed that the coronavirus was a bioweapon released by the Chinese
That is a conspiracy theory
A 'conspiracy theory' is defined by encyclopaedia Britanica as "Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/conspiracy-theory

What is not a 'conspiracy theory', is that vested interests will fund PR campaigns to influence public opinion

What is not a Conspiracy theory, is that some people will take money to say things that they don't really believe (it's the cornerstone of a multi billion dollar industry called marketing and PR)

What is not a conspiracy is that certain specified individuals, like Fred Singer, had been working as a paid shill for the Tobacco Industry when they needed a scientist to claim that there was no link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer, and then got paid by the CFC industry to say there was no link between CFCs and Ozone depletion, and that this same individual then worked with the same PR companies to do the same job for the energy industry

It's also not a conspiracy theory to say that the Koch brothers have spent many tens of millions of dollars funding conservative lobby groups because these are established facts.

Nor is it a conspiracy theory to say that the Russians attempted to meddle in the US presidential election. Again, this is an established fact that both sides of the US political system agree with. (they're resorting now to arguing over whether it was ok to expose this in public)

Conspiracy theorist is a pejorative term used to describe people who believe in gand conspiracies where there is little or no factual evidence to support that theory.

It does not mean that no conspiracies have ever taken place. Every time a husband cheats on his wife, that is a conspiracy if the other woman knows he is married.

Akrasia

Just one example of many

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

"A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.

The documents draw new attention to the industry’s efforts to block action against climate change – including President Barack Obama’s power-plant rules."

Thargor

Akrasia wrote: »

Just one example of many

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

"A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.

The documents draw new attention to the industry’s efforts to block action against climate change – including President Barack Obama’s power-plant rules."

Just have a Google of a few of the names on Dannos list of beacons of truth from the previous page, #1 Dr Robert Balling:

Between December 1998[13] and September 2001[14] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[15] In 2001, while it was directed by Balling, ASU's office of climatology received $49,000 from ExxonMobil.[16]

From 1989 to 2002, Balling received more than $679,000 from fossil-fuel-industry organizations; as of 2007, he also had received more than $7 million in research funding from the National Science Foundation and the EPA.[17] He has also come under scrutiny because he was listed as a tentative author of the Heartland Institute's NIPCC report; however, ASU's vice president of public affairs, Virgil Renzulli, pointed out that this did not imply that Balling had been receiving money from Heartland. Balling himself added that his prior involvement with the Heartland Institute's activities amounted only to appearing at a luncheon they held in 2008.[18]

On February 24, 2015, Arizona State Representative Raúl Grijalva wrote letters to seven universities where climate skeptic scientists (including Balling) worked, citing concerns about these scientists' conflicts of interest and non-disclosure of corporate funding. In these letters, Grijalva requested records on the funding and testimony prepared before a government body.[19][20]

Nice little earner if you're prepared to abandon all your principles and whore your reputation out to whoever wants to add legitimacy to their lies. Seems like the quickest way to Onerics "fat cat" status is to be another lying denier rather than slaving away in academia for years to end up on <$100k wages...

Nabber

Thargor wrote: »

Just have a Google of a few of the names on Dannos list of beacons of truth from the previous page, #1 Dr Robert Balling:

You didn't cite the source of your quote. Akrasia do you work pal, educate Thargor on the etiquette of sources.


Nice little earner if you're prepared to abandon all your principles and whore your reputation out to whoever wants to add legitimacy to their lies. Seems like the quickest way to Onerics "fat cat" status is to be another lying denier rather than slaving away in academia for years to end up on >$100k wages...

But you can't have your cake and eat it.
You're implying that the fossil fuel adds a motive, yet Arkasia plays that the funding from WWF, Greenpeace, IPCC plays out differently with no bias and to add a cherry on top it pans out quite the opposite, we are in the age of prophets answering the higher calling. Where the IPCC have to 'downplay' the findings, doing the Lords work so we pleebs don't cause anarchy. Where only the believers can handle the truth /s

So taking funding to prove AGW is the higher moral ground, taking money to suggest alternatives is sinister.
Scientist working on proving AGW are in it for the cause only, with no bias and no influence from the persons funding them?


The reason the funding is such an issue it that you trace motive. Fossil fuel funding is going to go to those who are looking for alternative theories to AGW.
The fact that there is little to no allowance made to fund these alternative theories from the IPCC is shocking, a governmental body should show no bias.
Bur it's clear there is an agenda with in IPCC.

There is very little debate on the topic, even looking at the first responses in here, it was to diminish the OPs original post and move to name calling.

The main champion of the thread currently uses the same tactics, albeit with a little more craft. But offering very little to the topic of what's the next steps?

Live the exact same lifestyle only you enjoy the bliss knowing you that you believe and the rest are right wing nut jobs?
Green energy doesn't work, costs the environment more harm.

Reduce our excessive life style perhaps? Who determines that?

Nabber

Akrasia wrote: »

The purpose of citing your sources is to allow others the benefit of checking them. The most basic requirement for anyone who considers themselves a sceptic on anything

Interesting considering you base a lot of your arguments on proclaimed facts that you never cite or provide evidence of such.

I provided the authors of the comments, clearly quoted. Simple research like when you googled and subsequent reaction in picking a link to further your narrative could be done by anyone.
This is a crude deflection much like commenting on grammar or spelling

Thargor

Yes Im sure all the "research" provided by your favourite fossil fuel shills are just as reliable as NASA and the various government environmental agencies, they're all as bad as each other Joe!

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

Interesting considering you base a lot of your arguments on proclaimed facts that you never cite or provide evidence of such.

I provided the authors of the comments, clearly quoted. Simple research like when you googled and subsequent reaction in picking a link to further your narrative could be done by anyone.
This is a crude deflection much like commenting on grammar or spelling

You plagarised the post, just admit it and move on.

I didnt 'pick a link' i found the original source of the post that you plagarised
I have no idea which blog you got it from because you didnt post a link
I'm fairly confident that its not a particularly trustworthy source either

If you want to learn a little bit about why you need to provide sources and check other peoples sources, theres a nice little video about it here
https://youtu.be/LdnZ1l5TxJk

And i almost always post a source to back up any claims i make and i try to make it a good quality source from either a respectable journal or a broadsheet newspaper (if its not a scientific claim)

Oneiric 3

Tick tock, tick tock...

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

You're the one who believed that the coronavirus was a bioweapon released by the Chinese
That is a conspiracy theory
A 'conspiracy theory' is defined by encyclopaedia Britanica as "Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/conspiracy-theory

What is not a 'conspiracy theory', is that vested interests will fund PR campaigns to influence public opinion

What is not a Conspiracy theory, is that some people will take money to say things that they don't really believe (it's the cornerstone of a multi billion dollar industry called marketing and PR)

What is not a conspiracy is that certain specified individuals, like Fred Singer, had been working as a paid shill for the Tobacco Industry when they needed a scientist to claim that there was no link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer, and then got paid by the CFC industry to say there was no link between CFCs and Ozone depletion, and that this same individual then worked with the same PR companies to do the same job for the energy industry

It's also not a conspiracy theory to say that the Koch brothers have spent many tens of millions of dollars funding conservative lobby groups because these are established facts.

Nor is it a conspiracy theory to say that the Russians attempted to meddle in the US presidential election. Again, this is an established fact that both sides of the US political system agree with. (they're resorting now to arguing over whether it was ok to expose this in public)

Conspiracy theorist is a pejorative term used to describe people who believe in gand conspiracies where there is little or no factual evidence to support that theory.

It does not mean that no conspiracies have ever taken place. Every time a husband cheats on his wife, that is a conspiracy if the other woman knows he is married.

Everything you say here are just the same tired, old, sterile political talking points of NeoLib that are 4 a penny, but while I actually don't disagree greatly with a couple of them, the fact they you focus solely on one side and not the other is telling.

Nabber

Akrasia wrote: »

And i almost always post a source to back up any claims i make and i try to make it a good quality source

You win, I'm tapping out of this thread.

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

You win, I'm tapping out of this thread.

It’s a pity, I’ll miss your informative, well researched posts and incisive observations

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Everything you say here are just the same tired, old, sterile political talking points of NeoLib that are 4 a penny, but while I actually don't disagree greatly with a couple of them, the fact they you focus solely on one side and not the other is telling.

I’m very far from a neoliberal politically

I’m much closer to Chomsky than Tony Blair on that spectrum but when it comes to science, I have to go with the evidence

If you have evidence that I m saying things that aren’t true then please provide it. I’m genuinely asking this because I have been wrong plenty of times before and I am more than happy to change my mind if I see actual evidence that shows my old opinion was mistaken

Birdnuts

Thargor wrote: »

Yes Im sure all the "research" provided by your favourite fossil fuel shills are just as reliable as NASA and the various government environmental agencies, they're all as bad as each other Joe!

Alot of "research" by the other side is being funded by large corporations pushing the likes of wind/solar energy, often in environmentally sensitive areas like peatlands etc, as folks down the country know all too well - which as Michael Moores recent documentary has shown, much so called "green" energy is more about "greenwash" and milking subsidies that the rest of society picks up the tab for.

Thargor

Large corporations are not funding NASA and the various governments environmental agencies I mentioned in the post you're quoting. Why are they near unanimous in their findings about where the planet is headed if we keep pumping greenhouse gas into the atmosphere? There is no "other side". Green energy companies are not funding fake research that the planet is warming the way the current vested interests are funding widespread climate denial.

M.T. Cranium

When it comes to conspiracy theories, the Russian collusion business is not as claimed widely accepted by all sides, nor is the debate mostly about whether to mention it in public. The debate is about whether it had any effect, and to what extent its significance has been over or under estimated. One side clings to the notion that Russians under the direction of Putin did everything in their power to elect Donald Trump and prevent the victory of Hillary Clinton. A skeptic would ask, how did they manage to convince her never to campaign in Wisconsin, Iowa or Michigan, and how did they get her to act as unlikeable and haughty in public while at the same time showing signs of serious alcohol dependency? That was some mean feat of Russian bloggers to get those results (not to mention the Benghazi fiasco).

On the other side, I think many accept that some Russian internet "trolls" had some activity during the campaign, whether it had any actual effect on real voters is a different question, personally I don't think some Russian internet post would suddenly induce a person to vote for Donald Trump out of the blue, the number of votes possibly swung by this may have been anywhere from dozens to a few thousand tops. After the fact it appeared more accurate to say that Russian internet "trolls" were posting popular memes that millions of non-Russian actual voters had also been posting, so did that make any difference that they also posted these memes? And apparently the strategy was to sow general discord implying that some internet activity may have been meant to harm Donald Trump. From my perspective, if Vladimir Putin wanted a weakened America, he would probably have supported Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump. So the whole thing as a conspiracy theory makes little sense any way you choose to regard it. I don't think it's made up that Russians tried to interfere, it's in their nature to do so and will happen again (has probably happened since in other contexts). But as to the effect of it, back in the days of Soviet propaganda, you could often get a laugh out of people by repeating USSR talking points, they were often clumsy and transparently fake, rather like Chinese government talking points today, which is why I am surprised to see such bland dismissals of the so-called virus conspiracy theories which seem eminently almost self-evidently plausible.

As to some distinction between neo-liberals and socialist-globalists, these two camps seem to have reached more than just a truce in recent years, they are more or less one large entity but I do acknowledge a lot of chaos in the modern political spectrum, temporary alliances between right-anarchists and left-liberals on some issues, then total disagreement on others. Trump is a phenomenon that managed to create a stable coalition of several groups that could with weaker candidates offered split up into feuding camps. Many evangelical conservatives have decided to support him even though on a personal basis he may have seemed offensive to their values (especially in early stages of his political foray). In any case, Trump is a former NYC liberal democrat who apparently saw enough corruption and danger to national interests to consider a late-in-life change of political beliefs but I think he brought along some of his political heritage and does not really govern like let's say Ronald Reagan who was more of the classic small-government libertarian conservative. Where there is overlap is in a desire to get disentangled from the never-ending war machine favoured by neo-liberal or neo-con hawks like the departed McCain or the Bush-Cheney administration. By and large I think Trump would prefer to leave Middle eastern politics to the region's people and governments and not waste American blood and treasure there, but he's rather stuck in a few situations handed on to him by yet another neo-liberal warmonger posing as a peace advocate.

If Obama deserved the Nobel peace prize then I am probably in line for the literature prize just for this post on the internet.

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

When it comes to conspiracy theories, the Russian collusion business is not as claimed widely accepted by all sides, nor is the debate mostly about whether to mention it in public. The debate is about whether it had any effect, and to what extent its significance has been over or under estimated. One side clings to the notion that Russians under the direction of Putin did everything in their power to elect Donald Trump and prevent the victory of Hillary Clinton. A skeptic would ask, how did they manage to convince her never to campaign in Wisconsin, Iowa or Michigan, and how did they get her to act as unlikeable and haughty in public while at the same time showing signs of serious alcohol dependency? That was some mean feat of Russian bloggers to get those results (not to mention the Benghazi fiasco).

Trump told his son, son in law, and campaign manager to meet with Russian agents with the express purpose of getting dirt on his political opponent
He also called on Russia to hack into Clinton's email server to find some missing emails whch they attempted to do that same day

“Russia, if you’re listening,” said Trump, looking directly into a television camera, “I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” — messages Clinton was reported to have deleted from her private email server.

Actually, Russia was doing more than listening: It had been trying to help Republican Trump for months. That very day, hackers working with Russia’s military intelligence tried to break into email accounts associated with Clinton’s personal office.
https://apnews.com/3c4bc6e9aa6c4fb18bc9603fb082af65

That Trump sought to collude with Russia is established fact and it is in the Mueller report and whether or not they gave him enough dirt to actually swing the election or whether Clinton's poor campaign strategy was the primary cause of her defeat is actually irrelevant to the question on whethr Trump tried to collude with the russians to get himself elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting
The only reason we're talking about this on this thread, is because Oneric is trying to accuse Michael Mann of being a conspiracy theorist for talking about Russian interference in US politics.

Michael Mann wrote a book where he talked about the other Russian interference, the hacking of the CRU emails and their release to try to discredit climate scientists prior the Copenhagen Climate summit. Mann has very good reason to believe that that cyber attack was orchestrated by the Russian Intelligence services https://medium.com/@iggyostanin/exclusive-climategate-email-hacking-was-carried-out-from-russia-in-effort-to-undermine-action-78b19bc3ca5a and then distributed to the climate change denial blogsphere who I am going to suggest did not know they were working for the Russians and just functioned as puppets to distribute the propanda

Birdnuts

Thargor wrote: »

Large corporations are not funding NASA and the various governments environmental agencies I mentioned in the post you're quoting. Why are they near unanimous in their findings about where the planet is headed if we keep pumping greenhouse gas into the atmosphere? There is no "other side". Green energy companies are not funding fake research that the planet is warming the way the current vested interests are funding widespread climate denial.

Industry funds alot of so-called "research" these days in academic institutions here and elsewhere.

Akrasia

Birdnuts wrote: »

Industry funds alot of so-called "research" these days in academic institutions here and elsewhere.

If the research goes through proper peer review in a reputable journal, any potential conflicts of interest are declared properly, then the source of the research funding doesn't really matter that much

What we see with scientists acting as paid shills for the energy industry, is that they are used to deliver speeches at conferences, to write opinion pieces, to go on TV and Radio and blogs giving contrary opinion that is not based on any peer reviewed research they have done. They are used to deny and obfuscate and cast doubt rather than do any actual research
Why is this? Because when they tried to create actual research, they kept getting the 'wrong' results
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
https://theconversation.com/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist-49855

Do you have any evidence or examples of research scientists acting as shills for the clean energy industry?

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

I’m much closer to Chomsky than Tony Blair on that spectrum but when it comes to science, I have to go with the evidence

Yeah, sure you are. Perhaps though, you would agree with Chomsky regarding this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html

Or does it suit your agenda more to regurgitate neocon/neolib talking points that are constantly pushed by 6/7 figure 'journalists' in the corporate media, simply because you don't like Trump?

Funny though how you have the face to claim that Mann is not pushing a conspiracy theory (which he is) when it comes to Trump, yet you totally ignore his similar accusation about Michael Moore.

Isn't it also funny how Mann, that great intellectual heavy weight, automatically points his finger at Russia when his own agenda is put under the spotlight? From emails to Michael Moore to Trump etc. Perhaps he will sue Russia in time, as he seems to have a thing for suing people who dare challenge him for some reason.

But isn't it further funny that while you speak of Russian interference and collusion etc when it comes to 'Conservatives', you ignore totally that these same accusations were put against Bernie Saunders and Tulsi Gabbard that were once again pushed by the self-interest, corporate media during the recent Democratic primaries?

As more than one commentator noted at the time, isn't it just a bit too convenient that accusations of 'Russian connections' are nearly always thrown at American politicians who, for the large part, are anti-war/foreign intervention; for the working class and against corporate hegemony? To wit: everything Hillary Clinton and the corporate Dems stand for... or should that be 'against'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

I was going to footage of the death she was laughing at here, but it would probably get me banned such is the savagery of it.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Yeah, sure you are. Perhaps though, you would agree with Chomsky regarding this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html

Actually I would, but this is wildly off topic for this thread (even though Chomsky rightfully identifies Climate change as one of the most serious threats facing mankind)

Or does it suit your agenda more to regurgitate neocon/neolib talking points that are constantly pushed by 6/7 figure 'journalists' in the corporate media, simply because you don't like Trump?

Where are you getting this from? I don't follow any specific journalists in the 'Corporate media' and I don't regurgitate talking points, I do support the Guardian financially, but they're not 'Corporate Media', they are owned by a Trust and are not run by a profit motivated corporation or wealthy individual

I didn't bring up Russia, you did
I dislike Trump because of what he does and says, not because of what the media say about him, and I think he tried to collude with the russians because thats what he actually did do

I know nothing about Mann's spat with Moore apart from what you've posted, but looking into it, Mann seems to be focusing on Moore's threat to release some hacked emails he is in possession of, and he is connecting this with the CRU email hacking incident which he is extremely familiar with, and he has a very good reason to believe had Russian involvement

I didn't watch Moore's documentary but I will watch it tomorrow and get back to you with my opinions

Funny though how you have the face to claim that Mann is not pushing a conspiracy theory (which he is) when it comes to Trump, yet you totally ignore his similar accusation about Michael Moore.

Isn't it also funny how Mann, that great intellectual heavy weight, automatically points his finger at Russia when his own agenda is put under the spotlight? From emails to Michael Moore to Trump etc. Perhaps he will sue Russia in time, as he seems to have a thing for suing people who dare challenge him for some reason.

He was referring to Moore threatening to release hacked emails

But isn't it further funny that while you speak of Russian interference and collusion etc when it comes to 'Conservatives', you ignore totally that these same accusations were put against Bernie Saunders and Tulsi Gabbard that were once again pushed by the self-interest, corporate media during the recent Democratic primaries?

As more than one commentator noted at the time, isn't it just a bit too convenient that accusations of 'Russian connections' are nearly always thrown at American politicians who, for the large part, are anti-war/foreign intervention; for the working class and against corporate hegemony? To wit: everything Hillary Clinton and the corporate Dems stand for.

People can make accusations all they want, but there was no good evidence for those accusations which makes them completely different to the Trump accusations

Thargor

Birdnuts wrote: »

Industry funds alot of so-called "research" these days in academic institutions here and elsewhere.

Im sure there is, but I dont understand what point are you making exactly? My company is involved in funding a research project with Trinity college to develop better rapid diagnostics tests for a couple of diseases for one example, is that what you're talking about? You think because there are many projects like this in the world that it means that the fake research paid for by fossil fuel companies to their shills for the purposes of climate change denial is equivalent to the peer reviewed research from accredited institutions that governments use to try and prepare for and mitigate climate change?

Please try to articulate what point you are trying to make when you quoted my post if you are disagreeing with its content.

Thargor

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Yeah, sure you are. Perhaps though, you would agree with Chomsky regarding this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html

Or does it suit your agenda more to regurgitate neocon/neolib talking points that are constantly pushed by 6/7 figure 'journalists' in the corporate media, simply because you don't like Trump?

Funny though how you have the face to claim that Mann is not pushing a conspiracy theory (which he is) when it comes to Trump, yet you totally ignore his similar accusation about Michael Moore.

Isn't it also funny how Mann, that great intellectual heavy weight, automatically points his finger at Russia when his own agenda is put under the spotlight? From emails to Michael Moore to Trump etc. Perhaps he will sue Russia in time, as he seems to have a thing for suing people who dare challenge him for some reason.

But isn't it further funny that while you speak of Russian interference and collusion etc when it comes to 'Conservatives', you ignore totally that these same accusations were put against Bernie Saunders and Tulsi Gabbard that were once again pushed by the self-interest, corporate media during the recent Democratic primaries?

As more than one commentator noted at the time, isn't it just a bit too convenient that accusations of 'Russian connections' are nearly always thrown at American politicians who, for the large part, are anti-war/foreign intervention; for the working class and against corporate hegemony? To wit: everything Hillary Clinton and the corporate Dems stand for... or should that be 'against'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

I was going to footage of the death she was laughing at here, but it would probably get me banned such is the savagery of it.

What is this gibberish doing in a climate change thread in the Science forum?

Are you going to start pushing hydroxychloroquine as a cure for Covid-19 for your next trick?

Oneiric 3

Thargor wrote: »

What is this gibberish doing in a climate change thread in the Science forum?

Are you going to start pushing hydroxychloroquine as a cure for Covid-19 for your next trick?

Nice try, but why direct that question solely to me, and not M.T and Akrasia? Afraid of taking on the big boys? They are the ones talking at length about Russia, not I... which, I might add, I did not 'bring up' as falsely (yet again) claimed by Akrasia.

All I did was post a Michael Mann tweet that indulged in the conspiracy.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Actually I would, but this is wildly off topic for this thread

Of course it is, except, of course, when you talk about it in order keep the conspiracy alive and post links to Wikipedia by way of source.

Bad faith actor.

Thargor

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Nice try, but why direct that question solely to me, and not M.T and Akrasia?

Because their posts were legible and not screaming lunacy like that mess^ and your David Attenborough animal sadism theories?

Oneiric 3

Thargor wrote: »

Because their posts were legible and not screaming lunacy like that mess^ and your David Attenborough animal sadism theories?

What 'lunacy' exactly? Be more specific. Otherwise, stop attempting to be something you are not.

Whether their posts are legible or not, they were still 'off topic'. At least have the manners to show some consistency.