As climate change deniers face growing scrutiny and skepticism, a new undercover investigation by the environmental group Greenpeace shines new light on academics-for-hire, who are willing to accept secret payments from fossil fuel companies to sow doubt about global warming.
Props to Greenpeace for going undercover to shine a light on this -- what else can one call it -- evil.
How much of the production of academia is corrupted in similar, or less clear-cut ways, by the deep institutional corruption of the larger political economy?
And yet, still: How can any individual quite literally sell out the world, for thirty pieces of silver?
"Our breath is not that different from a power plant."
I've experienced very bad breath, the intimate morning waking up variety however nothing quite as bad I suppose as being in bed with a power plant. These people are the lowest of the low, taking a buck to block efforts to save a livable planet.
Totally aside from the profound damage they have done by delaying action on climate change, such corrupt scumbags do irreparable damage to the very integrity of the scientific method itself in the eyes of the (no longer adequately educated) general public. They literally threaten to move us back to the times of Gallileo , where along with the damage already done by the zeitgeist of "postmodernism", science becomes reduced to just promotion of one ideology or another.
Have they been fired from their universities in disgrace yet?
What bothers me about this kind of article here on a Wednesday before my third cup of coffee, is that I do not know the data. I do not know the details nor the theories. What I would appreciate from the authors of these types of articles is some kind of piece that documents what the guy says, then a link to the debunking, much like the Dawkins Foundation and creationism/Answers in Genesis. I just don't find these things helpful in my journey to understand and help the situation. It just pisses me off. And that doesn't help ....
But more seriously - we don't eat and drink and metabolize coal or oil or other forms carbon stored away in the earths crust over hundreds of millions of years. The CO2 in our breath comes from recently grown plants (through mediation of a plant-eating animal in the case of meat). Exactly the same amount of CO2 gets taken back up back up into their tissues of the subsequently planted crops and forage (We would face famine and starve to death otherwise). So human exhalations are nothing like the emissions of a car or power plant.
And the idea that a scientist and professor at a supposedly prestigious university would not understand that is simply not believable, so the guy must be a paid mercenary peddling lies.
Where do you think the universities get much of their money from? The whole system has been bought long ago and is rotten through and through.
That is why we have to pull out all stops to support Bernie Sanders, the only person with integrity in sight and available. There is another one, Elizabeth Warren, but she is not running.
Here is our best chance to do a lot for Bernie’s candidacy with a few clicks of the mouse in less than a minute:
DFA'S ENDORSEMENT PROCESS
Democracy for America was founded out of the presidential primary in 2004. Our goal is to empower our members to vote — and to get out the votes of their friends and family — to decide which presidential candidate DFA should endorse in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary process.
Here's how DFA's presidential endorsement process works:
The endorsement vote is live right now and will end at 11:59pm Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 15.
Just like in a real election, you will need to work hard to maximize support for your candidate if you want them to win this endorsement. That means getting your friends, family and other like-minded progressives to cast their votes for your candidate as well — on Facebook, Twitter, over email, on the phone, or however you want to spread the word!
DFA will only endorse in this presidential primary if there is overwhelming support for one candidate. That means that, just like in 2007 when we last conducted an official presidential endorsement vote, we will only endorse if one candidate reaches DFA's super-majority threshold of 67% (two-thirds of votes cast, or 66.67% to be technical about it).
On Thursday, December 17th — after a complete security review of the votes — we will announce the results. UNQUOTE
You can join the endorsement process on behalf of Bernie here: http://2016.democracyforamerica.com/?akid=7018.270485.U2II26&rd=1&t=2
That monster's face even ** looks** evil!!
"How can any individual quite literally sell out the world, for thirty pieces of silver?"
Judas went out and hanged himself after having done that. This involves more than thirty pieces of silver. Psychopaths do these things on a regular basis. It's part of their MO.
My question is... How do grandparents sell out the world for a little bit of money?
In that case, then shouldn't you be concerned that the predominant climate scientists producing the conclusions regarding global warming are paid-off too?
I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater - there are scientists and academics that do have integrity.
What do you need to know? These so-called "scientists" agreed to produce a "research" paper with conclusions already made and customized to the funders specifications and the "research" cherry-picked to support it. This is a scandal regardless of the specific topic under "study".
But as far as climate change denial debunking, There are numerous sites - you can try here:
or the more technical:
Here is a link to reports page at the site for Union of Concerned Scientists. Each report in turn has bibliographic references, and each report referenced has its bibliographic references.
Enjoy your coffee.
I should apologize in advance of my remark for always making comparisons with the Nazi's but...I enjoy it so.
If you read Mueller-Hill's diary, The True German, he says that late in the war there was a significant portion of the officer corps who pretty much knew that the cause was lost but were just hoping against hope that things would turn around merely to protect their salaries and privileges thereby condemning untold hundreds of thousands of civilians and fellow soldiers to death.
I can't figure it either but some people will not only sell themselves for absolute evil but will do it for comparative chump change.
On top of everything else, this guy is from Princeton and he is so rude, so declasse, so banal. Hmmm, banal, that rings a bell...
Arguably Judas did a service otherwise where would Christianity be now? But these slime balls have no justification and are far worse than Judas. Speaking of which did you ever see Wormwood by The Residents? Absolutely brilliant deconstruction of the biblical myths and especially Judas who knew what God was asking him to do even though he loved Jesus. Made you want to cry for his sacrifice. If you believe any of it.
Seems to be Hannah Arendt's comment you are referring to but I must admit for a moment I thought you were referring to a recent comment here by someone who used that term against another post on the election outcome in Venezuela.
I was referring to Arendt's banality of evil.
Of course they have! See here http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
It is so disheartening to see yet another situation where money trumped morality or income obliterated integrity and in the supposed hallowed halls of academia. Having spent more than two decades at a research university, I observed myriad instances of professors and prefectors (low-paid instructors without tenure) selling their souls for research grant money and submitting inflated accounts of how that money was spent (the new 4-wheel drive SUV's were not mentioned nor were the trips to foreign destinations with families....). In turn, the University coincidentally grants tenure to the professors/instructors that have any number of grants and are "published" in journals or write textbooks. A university that calls itself a research institution caters to any number of corporations and government entities to acquire the plums known as research grants, which are not renewed if the outcomes of the research are not what the grantors preferred. Corporate money has corrupted so many colleges and universities (on both the academic and athletic sides), especially in the last 30+ years. No surprise...BAU.
It is also a very sad state of affairs if a "sting" by Greenpeace was the way that the malfeasance was exposed. What happened to transparency and all universities (public) required by law to make their records PUBLIC via any public record request submitted?
So, who is "paying off" the large number of real climate scientists - Mann, Hanson, Ramsdorf, Gavin Schmidt, Pachuri, and hundreds of other scientists who are publishing in real, not fake journals, and why would they be paying them off to produce fake research?
I think you viewpoint is too cynical - and may be affected by postmodern belief that that there is no such thing as "right" and a "wrong" construct for reality, and all forms in inquiry and resulting theory - all the way down to Newton's laws, are political in origin.
I do not have to be 'cynical' to condemn the "scientists", which have been bought and corrupted by the corporations. The true scientist, you mention, did not want or need bribes. Their concerns for the planet were enough, to make their voices heard.
Please read my post for what they are saying.