Barack Obama Goes Full Stalin - The attack on Dr. Willie Soon is in full swing

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,698
Reaction score
28,859
Points
2,180
Jo Nova has the details of that Dear NY Times Re Willie Soon Character assassination is not science. JoNova

Dear NY Times Re Willie Soon: Character assassination is not science.

This is about much more than just Willie Soon. The fans of man-global warming know they can’t win a polite science debate. They know the biggest threat to the green gravy train is for competitive research, free debate, and independent funding for scientific research. The anti-science brigade want to stamp out and starve independent research. Where once companies would be lauded for their philanthropy, now they are forced to hide it knowing they’ll be targeted, and no matter how good the research work and publications are the results won’t even be discussed if smear-fans can talk about “funding” instead.

Welcome to the dark world of manufactured petty smear campaigns against scientists.
  • Where was the outrage when a lead author of an IPCC report was paid by Greenpeace?
  • Do the puritans of science funding care when GE lobbies for renewables subsidies, or owns parts of media outlets? GE makes $21 billion a year on “Clean Energy”.

What we need is a science debate, but if “science writers” want to talk money, I say Yes Please. Lets talk about the wall of money distorting science from
monopolistic government funding. This one vested interest is running at almost 100% purity in climate science. How many grants are there for skeptical scientists to audit, check, and critique one intergovernmental committee report issued from Geneva? None. But there was $30 billion (plus) from the US government to find a crisis.


Other monster conflicts distort the public science debate: Big Bankers had a carbon scheme worth nearly
$200 billion a year until it went out of fashion and shriveled. Financial houses hanker for the broking profits of the 2 trillion dollar global carbon market. Bank of America even promised to spend $50 billion to save the world — but it’s all selfless philanthropy, right? No questions asked. The numbers get exponentially silly. In 2012 Big-Renewables were getting nearly a billion dollars a day in investments, much of which depended on government subsidies, and the EU improbably promised 20% of it’s whole budget to control the weather
But Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the New York Times, and Susanne Goldberg of The Guardian don’t worry about these influences and conflicts, instead they are “shocked” when an independent thinker indirectly receives 0.003% of the money dished out by the biggest vested interest in the game
Thank goodness some corporate giants want to fund independent science

We need more independent funding, not less. Praise those companies




Real fans of science would applaud more independently funded science.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,737
Reaction score
3,625
Points
290
Location
Washington State
You are making the assumption that the government has a vested interest in finding green energy better than other forms.
 

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
Clean energy is deadly. Dirty energy is healthy. Ingesting toxins and carcinogens make you stronger.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,433
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Just where in that silly article did it say that the President had anything to do with the whole article?

There are many scientists that get private funding, but the acknowledge that funding in their papers. The BEST study was a good example of that. All that donated were acknowledged, including the Koch Foundation. Soon did not acknowledge his funding, even though that was part of the agreement in the journals that published his findings.
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
Won't happen. Corporations won't fund science 1/1,000,000 of what our tax dollars can. It's worth it to use some of our resources to fund real science.
That is so mind-boggling stupid.
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,698
Reaction score
28,859
Points
2,180
You are making the assumption that the government has a vested interest in finding green energy better than other forms.
The government has a vested interest in anything that justifies tax increases and more government, and AGW certainly does that.
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,698
Reaction score
28,859
Points
2,180
Just where in that silly article did it say that the President had anything to do with the whole article?

There are many scientists that get private funding, but the acknowledge that funding in their papers. The BEST study was a good example of that. All that donated were acknowledged, including the Koch Foundation. Soon did not acknowledge his funding, even though that was part of the agreement in the journals that published his findings.
You've been hammered several times already for posting slander about Dr. Soon. It appears you're on the crew assigned to destroy him. Whenever I see libturds attack the source of some critic's funding, I automatically assume it's bullshit because that is a fundamental part of their modus operandi.
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,698
Reaction score
28,859
Points
2,180
Clean energy is deadly. Dirty energy is healthy. Ingesting toxins and carcinogens make you stronger.
No one is ingesting toxins or carcinogens from fossil fuels, and having heat and electricity is sure a lot healthier than freezing in the dark.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,433
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Go to Somolia if you are so against any kind of government, you silly little bastard.

But the thread is not about government, it is about a pseudo-scientists that is in trouble with the journals he published in for an quid pro quo agreement with the energy corperations, and failure to reveal that agreement to the journals at submission of his papers. Soon is going to lose this in a big way. And another skeptic goes down as a lying clown.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,433
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Clean energy is deadly. Dirty energy is healthy. Ingesting toxins and carcinogens make you stronger.
No one is ingesting toxins or carcinogens from fossil fuels, and having heat and electricity is sure a lot healthier than freezing in the dark.
Once again, you are a lying little bastard.

Coal is the largest energy source for generating electricity at U.S. power plants. There are approximately 1,200 coal-fired generators at 450 facilities in the United States. They generate about 44.6 percent of the country's electricity.

There are approximately 125 coal-fired power facilities in the Southwest. Texas generates more electricity from coal-fired power plants than any other state in the country.

Coal-fired power plants are among the country's greatest sources of pollution. They are the biggest industrial emitters ofmercury and arsenic into the air. They emit 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as posing a threat to human health and the environment.

Coal-fired power plants also emit cadmium, chromium, dioxins, formaldehyde, furans, lead, nickel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. They emit volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, and xylene. Emissions include acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. Small amounts of radioactive materials such as radium, thorium, anduranium are also emitted.

Burning coal in power plants emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides react with precipitation in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Burning coal also produces particulate matter.

Coal-fired and oil-fired power plants are also called fossil-fueled power plants. Oil-fired power plants generate only 1 percent of the country's electricity.

About 60 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 50 percent of mercury emissions, and 13 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions come from fossil-fueled power plants. Coal- and oil-fired power plants also account for about 60 percent of arsenic emissions, 30 percent of nickel emissions, and 20 percent of chromium emissions.

Coal-fired power plants account for 81 percent of the electric power industry's greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and climate change. The most significant greenhouse gas emitted by coal-fired power plants is carbon dioxide. They also emit smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide.

The hazardous air emissions from coal-fired power plants cause serious human health impacts. Arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium compounds, TCDD dioxin, formaldehyde, and nickel compounds are listed as carcinogens in theThirteenth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program. Furan and lead are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" in the Thirteenth Report on Carcinogens.
Tox Town - Coal-Fired Power Plants - Text Version
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,512
Reaction score
12,476
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Clean energy is deadly. Dirty energy is healthy. Ingesting toxins and carcinogens make you stronger.
No one is ingesting toxins or carcinogens from fossil fuels, and having heat and electricity is sure a lot healthier than freezing in the dark.
Once again, you are a lying little bastard.

Coal is the largest energy source for generating electricity at U.S. power plants. There are approximately 1,200 coal-fired generators at 450 facilities in the United States. They generate about 44.6 percent of the country's electricity.

There are approximately 125 coal-fired power facilities in the Southwest. Texas generates more electricity from coal-fired power plants than any other state in the country.

Coal-fired power plants are among the country's greatest sources of pollution. They are the biggest industrial emitters ofmercury and arsenic into the air. They emit 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as posing a threat to human health and the environment.

Coal-fired power plants also emit cadmium, chromium, dioxins, formaldehyde, furans, lead, nickel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. They emit volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, and xylene. Emissions include acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. Small amounts of radioactive materials such as radium, thorium, anduranium are also emitted.

Burning coal in power plants emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides react with precipitation in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Burning coal also produces particulate matter.

Coal-fired and oil-fired power plants are also called fossil-fueled power plants. Oil-fired power plants generate only 1 percent of the country's electricity.

About 60 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 50 percent of mercury emissions, and 13 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions come from fossil-fueled power plants. Coal- and oil-fired power plants also account for about 60 percent of arsenic emissions, 30 percent of nickel emissions, and 20 percent of chromium emissions.

Coal-fired power plants account for 81 percent of the electric power industry's greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and climate change. The most significant greenhouse gas emitted by coal-fired power plants is carbon dioxide. They also emit smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide.

The hazardous air emissions from coal-fired power plants cause serious human health impacts. Arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium compounds, TCDD dioxin, formaldehyde, and nickel compounds are listed as carcinogens in theThirteenth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program. Furan and lead are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" in the Thirteenth Report on Carcinogens.
Tox Town - Coal-Fired Power Plants - Text Version
Old Fraud posts the totally debunked and shown to be ridiculous rants of the enviro-wacko bunch that made that propaganda. "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" Old fraud you missed that they cant prove anything because they have not done the science necessary to prove it, just like 120ppm of CO2... Its nothing more than conjecture..
 
Last edited:

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,898
Reaction score
23,478
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
You are making the assumption that the government has a vested interest in finding green energy better than other forms.
The government has a vested interest in anything that justifies tax increases and more government, and AGW certainly does that.
How is that supposed to infer a Stalinist approach?
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,698
Reaction score
28,859
Points
2,180
Clean energy is deadly. Dirty energy is healthy. Ingesting toxins and carcinogens make you stronger.
No one is ingesting toxins or carcinogens from fossil fuels, and having heat and electricity is sure a lot healthier than freezing in the dark.
Once again, you are a lying little bastard.

Coal is the largest energy source for generating electricity at U.S. power plants. There are approximately 1,200 coal-fired generators at 450 facilities in the United States. They generate about 44.6 percent of the country's electricity.

There are approximately 125 coal-fired power facilities in the Southwest. Texas generates more electricity from coal-fired power plants than any other state in the country.

Coal-fired power plants are among the country's greatest sources of pollution. They are the biggest industrial emitters ofmercury and arsenic into the air. They emit 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as posing a threat to human health and the environment.

Coal-fired power plants also emit cadmium, chromium, dioxins, formaldehyde, furans, lead, nickel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. They emit volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, and xylene. Emissions include acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. Small amounts of radioactive materials such as radium, thorium, anduranium are also emitted.

Burning coal in power plants emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides react with precipitation in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Burning coal also produces particulate matter.

Coal-fired and oil-fired power plants are also called fossil-fueled power plants. Oil-fired power plants generate only 1 percent of the country's electricity.

About 60 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 50 percent of mercury emissions, and 13 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions come from fossil-fueled power plants. Coal- and oil-fired power plants also account for about 60 percent of arsenic emissions, 30 percent of nickel emissions, and 20 percent of chromium emissions.

Coal-fired power plants account for 81 percent of the electric power industry's greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and climate change. The most significant greenhouse gas emitted by coal-fired power plants is carbon dioxide. They also emit smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide.

The hazardous air emissions from coal-fired power plants cause serious human health impacts. Arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium compounds, TCDD dioxin, formaldehyde, and nickel compounds are listed as carcinogens in theThirteenth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program. Furan and lead are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" in the Thirteenth Report on Carcinogens.
Tox Town - Coal-Fired Power Plants - Text Version
The amount of mercury and selenium emitted by coal fired power plants is totally swamped by natural sources. As for the rest of your litany, the amounts emitted are too small to have a noticeable effect. Just because quantity X causes cancer, it doesn't follow that quantity X/10,000 causes cancer, and that's what eco-nutburgers like you and the EPA would have us believe. No one has ever documented an increase in cancer or any other illness near a coal fired power plant. No one has ever identified a single additional death in the vicinity of a coal fired power plant. Claims about disease and death are all based on extrapolating from the effects of large amounts of the toxins mentioned, and this extrapolation has never been scientifically justified.

In other words, you're a fraud and a quack.
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,698
Reaction score
28,859
Points
2,180
You are making the assumption that the government has a vested interest in finding green energy better than other forms.
The government has a vested interest in anything that justifies tax increases and more government, and AGW certainly does that.
How is that supposed to infer a Stalinist approach?
Attacking Soon's reputation is the Stalinist approach. Old Fraud is a tireless practitioner of that approach.
 

Iceweasel

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
43,343
Reaction score
6,432
Points
1,870
Location
Washington State
The ecozombies are shutting down the only coal plant here, providing 10% of the states power. And lots of jobs. You can bet our bills will reflect it. The smug bastards in their electric cars get me, they think the electricity to charge the batteries got there by magic. As well as disposing of and making batteries.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top