15 ms·

I have no connection with Exxon or anything in climate studies. Instead, my interests are well represented here on HN. I have never gotten even one penny in r

I have no connection with Exxon or anything in climate studies. Instead, my interests are well represented here on HN. I have never gotten even one penny in research grants from anything having to do with climate in any sense. So, the claim of the Web site at your URL that Exxon is funding 'skeptics' is irrelevant to me. There's nothing significant against Exxon at that Web site, certainly nothing like your "organized disinformation campaign". Maybe Exxon funded some 'climate science', although the Web site gave no evidence. Well, how'd the whole 'global warming' thing get started anyway? Sure: VP Al Guru told the NSF, etc. to fund his buddies for 'climate alarmism'. That's how the 'closed community' of 'climate science' alarmists got started: They all reviewed each other's research papers and grant proposals, and they all knew that there was only one source of money, Al Guru, and that that source wanted only one answer -- human CO2 raising temperatures. Now that they are on the back of that tiger, and could not have a career in science anywhere else, they have to just keep riding that tiger. But your URL has alarmist nonsense about extreme weather -- droughts heat waves, etc. There's essentially no connection between such things and the arguments about global warming, at least not for decades or centuries. So, the increases in temperature over the past few decades are so small that they are tough to measure or to show an increase, but even without showing an increase in temperature we are supposed to believe that the increase, too small to measure, is causing massive climate 'change' now, as with the tornadoes this spring? Total reeking BS. But when the predictions for global warming clearly didn't happen, there was a memo to talk about climate 'change'. While global 'warming' can be characterized by just average temperature, say, over the planet, over a year, measured by, say, satellite, and while some temperature records go back hundreds of years and some temperature evidence, say, ice core data, goes back hundreds of thousands of years, climate 'change' is MUCH more difficult to evaluate, e.g., compare with the past. While the past temperature record is nothing like what we can measure today, the climate 'change' record is much worse. So, the climate change screamers can keep screaming, as for the tornadoes this spring, without much comparison with the past. For the funding corrupting science, f'get about Exxon and concentrate on Al Guru. That is, the LESS data they have, the MORE screaming they are free to do. We just should refuse to listen. Besides, the usual media, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, just LOVE the morality play of evil humans doing transgressions and causing retribution and the drama of tornadoes. Grab'm by the gut, and their eyeballs will be sure to follow, and then get the ad revenue. Those media outlets are in the ad business and will push anything at all, any sewage -- crime, scandal, blood, danger -- that can be turned into drama to grab people by the heart, the gut, and below the belt. E.g., what was the frequency of tornadoes in the area of the present state of Kansas each year over the past 400 years? Not a chance of getting good data. And, heck, the media won't even report such frequency data over the past, say, decade. Why not? The data would show no significant change, have no drama, and would kill the made up story with drama. So, the tornadoes this spring can be screamed to be from 'climate change' from evil humans, as we have heard. You are spouting just alarmist nonsense. The data for human caused significant global warming is BS; for climate change, much worse. You have no serious evidence. You didn't take my advice just to relax and f'get about Al Guru. How much are YOU getting paid?

leot 15y ago
I never implied you had anything to do with Exxon. I'm not getting paid anything, by anybody, to talk about global warming. I have no conflicts of interest w.r.t. climate science. Are you suggesting that climate science is more remunerative than the fossil fuel industry? I'd wager that the top two or three oil execs make more than every climate scientist in the whole world, combined. > There's nothing significant against Exxon at that Web site, certainly nothing like your "organized disinformation campaign". Huh? So, what does qualify as an organized disinformation campaign? I mean, did you actually look at the website? http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php We know: a) Exxon, and many other companies besides, makes less money if cap-and-trade is instituted or a carbon tax levied. These are multi-billion dollar industries that can afford to throw employees and tons of money at their problems. b) Exxon has given lots of money to think-tanks that spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about climate science. See the URL above. c) FUD works. It's cheap and doesn't need to be true. Witness how effective creationists have been in getting the media and schools to present "both sides". It has delayed action on things like tobacco use, acid rain, and ozone depletion. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt Scientists don't want catastrophic climate change -- lots study it because they're genuinely worried about the planet and their kids' future. Many feel that, if climate change is real, it's their ethical duty to make sure that people in power know this. And media organizations would rather cover celebrities and sex scandals. The fact that there is a media narrative about some story doesn't imply that the narrative is the cause of the story's coverage in the first place. If you're so sure of yourself, though, perhaps you should engage people that know far more than me? Go propose edits to the Global warming article on Wikipedia -- they have extensive archives of debate that form the basis for the article's content. I would be surprised if much of what you have said hasn't already been directly and more thoroughly addressed. All this said, though, perhaps the bigger question is: what would convince you that global warming is a big problem and that it's being caused by people?
- NY_USA_Hacker 15y ago
  Again, I saw nothing at your URL negative about Exxon. Your claim that three energy industry executives make more money than all the climate science research is likely false: A research grant in science to a research professor goes for about $500,000 a year. The university grabs about 60% for 'overhead' (help support the English department, etc.). The rest covers or helps cover the prof, travel, photocopying, lab equipment, grad students, etc. Add up 100 such profs and have $50 million a year. But nearly all the Fortune 500 CEOs are just hired managers and, surprisingly, are not so well paid if only because typically they don't last more then 5 years as CEO. So, maybe they make $10 million a year, for a few years; then they don't go start again in the mail room and, instead, just retire. After the taxes, considering how few years they were CEO and long they might continue to live, a guy who owns, say, 10 McDonald's can do better if only because he can keep his business for decades. So, for your three CEOs you are up to maybe $30 million which is less than the $50 million for the profs. Sure, a given CEO might some year cash in some stock options and make $50 million, but that's a one-time thing. Instead of such salaries, the big bucks are from owning something not worth much and then making it valuable. Why? Because only a tiny fraction of the people can evaluate the tree that might grow from a seed or help such a seed grow to a tree. E.g., relevant here on HN, there's hardly a single venture partner anywhere in the US who will even try to evaluate the chances of a particular project becoming another Google. Instead, for any investment amount enough to support a few people for a few years, say, over $1 million, they will invest in something simple such as 'traction' and do so on the basis if the track record of 'traction'. For 'another Google', they will be happy if it happened but will make no effort toward that goal. So, entrepreneurs such as discussed on HN some hedge fund managers, especially J. Simons, can make much more. On all of Wall Street, there is exactly one person who understands what Renaissance Technologies does and has good reason to know why it makes money: Simons. Period. But, that some oil company executives are making money says nothing about global warming or really that Exxon is funding FUD. A lot of the global warming hysteria is from stimulating the desire of people to have a religion. With the major organized religions in decline, Communism, global warming, etc. can find some fertile ground. There is also general paranoia such as made the morality plays popular going way back in the history of 'story telling'. "All this said, though, perhaps the bigger question is: what would convince you that global warming is a big problem and that it's being caused by people?" Right, that's the bigger question. The answer is simple and the same for global warming, climate change, dying of anthrax, having Yellowstone blow again and put a layer of ash 10 feet thick over much of the US, have the earth hit by an asteroid, etc. Same for all of them: Look for good data and good arguments, especially good science. E.g., for the asteroids, yes, the various belts of asteroids are unstable so at any time a bump can cause an asteroid to leave the belt and head for earth. Right. So, for a fairly good first cut, dangerous asteroids will arrive like a Poisson process. But we have a very good estimate of the arrival time: The rate is less than once per 65 million years. So, for the next few years, the probability is tiny. And that's why I don't worry about asteroids. For anthrax, we have good public health data and we understand anthrax. So, for my life in the burbs, no worries, mate. Etc. For global warming and climate change, the data is total BS, and the science is worse. So, flush it. No worries, mate. Easy enough. Done. For you, again, relax.

leot 15y ago

I never implied you had anything to do with Exxon. I'm not getting paid anything, by anybody, to talk about global warming. I have no conflicts of interest w.r.t. climate science. Are you suggesting that climate science is more remunerative than the fossil fuel industry? I'd wager that the top two or three oil execs make more than every climate scientist in the whole world, combined. > There's nothing significant against Exxon at that Web site, certainly nothing like your "organized disinformation campaign". Huh? So, what does qualify as an organized disinformation campaign? I mean, did you actually look at the website? http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php We know: a) Exxon, and many other companies besides, makes less money if cap-and-trade is instituted or a carbon tax levied. These are multi-billion dollar industries that can afford to throw employees and tons of money at their problems. b) Exxon has given lots of money to think-tanks that spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about climate science. See the URL above. c) FUD works. It's cheap and doesn't need to be true. Witness how effective creationists have been in getting the media and schools to present "both sides". It has delayed action on things like tobacco use, acid rain, and ozone depletion. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt Scientists don't want catastrophic climate change -- lots study it because they're genuinely worried about the planet and their kids' future. Many feel that, if climate change is real, it's their ethical duty to make sure that people in power know this. And media organizations would rather cover celebrities and sex scandals. The fact that there is a media narrative about some story doesn't imply that the narrative is the cause of the story's coverage in the first place. If you're so sure of yourself, though, perhaps you should engage people that know far more than me? Go propose edits to the Global warming article on Wikipedia -- they have extensive archives of debate that form the basis for the article's content. I would be surprised if much of what you have said hasn't already been directly and more thoroughly addressed. All this said, though, perhaps the bigger question is: what would convince you that global warming is a big problem and that it's being caused by people?

NY_USA_Hacker 15y ago
Again, I saw nothing at your URL negative about Exxon. Your claim that three energy industry executives make more money than all the climate science research is likely false: A research grant in science to a research professor goes for about $500,000 a year. The university grabs about 60% for 'overhead' (help support the English department, etc.). The rest covers or helps cover the prof, travel, photocopying, lab equipment, grad students, etc. Add up 100 such profs and have $50 million a year. But nearly all the Fortune 500 CEOs are just hired managers and, surprisingly, are not so well paid if only because typically they don't last more then 5 years as CEO. So, maybe they make $10 million a year, for a few years; then they don't go start again in the mail room and, instead, just retire. After the taxes, considering how few years they were CEO and long they might continue to live, a guy who owns, say, 10 McDonald's can do better if only because he can keep his business for decades. So, for your three CEOs you are up to maybe $30 million which is less than the $50 million for the profs. Sure, a given CEO might some year cash in some stock options and make $50 million, but that's a one-time thing. Instead of such salaries, the big bucks are from owning something not worth much and then making it valuable. Why? Because only a tiny fraction of the people can evaluate the tree that might grow from a seed or help such a seed grow to a tree. E.g., relevant here on HN, there's hardly a single venture partner anywhere in the US who will even try to evaluate the chances of a particular project becoming another Google. Instead, for any investment amount enough to support a few people for a few years, say, over $1 million, they will invest in something simple such as 'traction' and do so on the basis if the track record of 'traction'. For 'another Google', they will be happy if it happened but will make no effort toward that goal. So, entrepreneurs such as discussed on HN some hedge fund managers, especially J. Simons, can make much more. On all of Wall Street, there is exactly one person who understands what Renaissance Technologies does and has good reason to know why it makes money: Simons. Period. But, that some oil company executives are making money says nothing about global warming or really that Exxon is funding FUD. A lot of the global warming hysteria is from stimulating the desire of people to have a religion. With the major organized religions in decline, Communism, global warming, etc. can find some fertile ground. There is also general paranoia such as made the morality plays popular going way back in the history of 'story telling'. "All this said, though, perhaps the bigger question is: what would convince you that global warming is a big problem and that it's being caused by people?" Right, that's the bigger question. The answer is simple and the same for global warming, climate change, dying of anthrax, having Yellowstone blow again and put a layer of ash 10 feet thick over much of the US, have the earth hit by an asteroid, etc. Same for all of them: Look for good data and good arguments, especially good science. E.g., for the asteroids, yes, the various belts of asteroids are unstable so at any time a bump can cause an asteroid to leave the belt and head for earth. Right. So, for a fairly good first cut, dangerous asteroids will arrive like a Poisson process. But we have a very good estimate of the arrival time: The rate is less than once per 65 million years. So, for the next few years, the probability is tiny. And that's why I don't worry about asteroids. For anthrax, we have good public health data and we understand anthrax. So, for my life in the burbs, no worries, mate. Etc. For global warming and climate change, the data is total BS, and the science is worse. So, flush it. No worries, mate. Easy enough. Done. For you, again, relax.