Leaked Heartland Institute Documents Reveal Opposition To Science 615
New submitter bheerssen writes with an excerpt from an article by The Bad Astronomer: "The Heartland Institute — a self-described 'think tank' that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle 'Heartland Insider' has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute's strategies, funds, and much more."
At least one site has the documents in question.
Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:5, Insightful)
Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing a curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain--two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.
Wow, they didn't even bother to put the "science" in quotation marks. Guess they *really* never thought these documents would get out. Pretty dumb to use that kind of language, even in purely internal communications. About all they can say at this point is that it was a poorly-proofed typo (that they *meant* to say "bad science" or something). But even that would qualify as a Freudian slip of the fingers, methinks.
Even creepier is the way they capitalize "the Anonymous Donor." Makes me think of a guy petting a cat in a secret island compound somewhere.
Re:Pay no attention (Score:5, Insightful)
Who am I kidding? FOX isn't going to run this at all.
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:2, Insightful)
"the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science"
From that, it sure sounds like they want to dissuade teachers from teaching science.
It's not an especially well written sentence, but jumping on it as proof that they are anti-science seems a bit of a stretch. Unfortunately both sides of this subject have gotten far too emotional to even consider the possibility that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Re:Pay no attention (Score:5, Insightful)
Ha, you'll be lucky if *CNN* even runs it. They're way too busy showing important interviews with Whitney Houston's maid to fit such silly science news in.
Confirmation of what we already knew... (Score:5, Insightful)
We've all known these groups were anti-science. While seeing it spelled out on paper is amusing, and satisfying, I doubt that very many minds are going to be changed by this information. The people that populate and fund these groups ignore anything and everything that conflicts with their ideas as it is.
These people are used to the extreme mental acrobatics necessary to deny the reality right in front of them. This will be written off as "liberal lies and smear tactics" pretty much immediately. It's not so much that they believe the crap these groups spew, a lot of people simply take the opposite stance of their political opponents regardless. Since climate change is a "liberal" thing, it's all a lie, because all "liberals" are liars.
Still, like I said, it's nice to see what we've all already suspected confirmed in writing. These guys are in the same league as Big Tobacco with their bullshit.
Best to Exercise Caution at This Point (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just pleading for people to exercise caution. I think that the best approach for this is to put forth questions towards Dr. Wojick about his funding and move forward with caution. This is the internet. This is an area where I require a lot of verification before I believe something. The climate strategy document is awful convenient and as someone who's use to corporate bullshit, I can tell you my manager could easily produce a 15 page document on our team's "vision" and "mission statements" or "strategy." Mostly to prove he's worth something but also because that just seems to be how they roll. Two pages can be made up and I would imagine the real thing would have a lot more fluff and a lot more boring in it. I'm not saying this document is a fake, I'm just urging everyone to exercise caution before you look like a rube.
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:5, Insightful)
even consider the possibility that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
When you put a far left kook and a far right kook in a room, you don't get "the middle" you get an insane asylum.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, NOW context matters? Where were you when your fellow "skeptics" (I put that term in quotes, because most of your fellows who call themselves that are lousy skeptics) were pulling out half-sentence quotes from emails to prove a vast and global conspiracy?
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately both sides of this subject have gotten far too emotional to even consider the possibility that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
I know, on one side we've got loads of data, models, research... On the other side, denial.
If only we took half the data and half the denial, we'd ALL be right!
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, people with a lot of money will sometimes pay other people to do bad/evil stuff for them...
The fact that everyone knows this doesn't mean we should just look away. On the contrary we should seek these guys and stop them. Hence why this is news. We get to find out about people paying for bad things and people doing bad things for money. We can stop and/or prosecute them.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference being that ID has maybe two or three actual scientists who work in fields related to biology backing it, and the most important one of those, Michael Behe, doesn't even publish peer reviewed articles that deal with his ID claims. AGW on the other hand, is widely accepted by most researchers in climatology and related fields, the debate being more about the degree of influence of human activity or the speed at which changes will occur.
In other words, it isn't the same thing at all.
Re:Confirmation of what we already knew... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:1, Insightful)
dont try to fucking rationalize this. (Score:4, Insightful)
this is red hands evidence of private interests brainwashing people, and doing it through private whores who pose as 'science' institutions.
if you undermine and rationalize the impact of this, you serve their interests and justify them.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?"
With just 5 minutes scanning the documents, I saw that. And also the fact that Fred Singer is paid $60,000 per annum to "regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message." Now that's quite a bonus given that his employer is the University of Virginia. This isn't paying a professor to do research, this is paying a professor to do propaganda.
This is the real smoking gun. There are a handful of scientists worldwide that deny the AGW consensus. The question is why? The assumption used to be that they were handsomely paid to do it. That is now fact.
Isn't this Anti-american? (Score:4, Insightful)
So regardless of religion, at some point (or at what point does) the doctrine have a detrimental effect to a nation and become Anti-american or unpatriotic ?
I really hope British cynicism will keep such topics confined to awful daytime TV discussion shows and not in the real world.
I dunno why so many are AGW (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate science indicates that the world is warming. Whether the globe is warming to human activity or excess flatulation from aardvarks is immaterial.
The best models indicate that the trend will continue. The best theoretic models predict that this will cause the polar ice caps to change: some cause it to melt, others to increase in size. Both outcomes are dire, massive increase in ocean levels resulting in New York becoming New Venice or a mile thick wall of ice rolling down over the Northern Hemisphere.
I'm a software engineer. I don't pretend to understand climatology, however I do know how to manage risk. When the evidence is pointing to a potential disaster, be it projects running late, major requirements being added at the last minute or something akin to the end of the world as we know it, I don't waste time with the "finger of blame". I ask, how do we mitigate the issue?
Since we don't know the root cause (or if there is even a single root cause), lets take action on all fronts and use this as an opportunity to make our lifestyles more sustainable and less impactful on the planet. Legislate lower vehicular emissions and mass transit use. Use incentives to get people to cycle or walk. Require companies to institute work-from-home plans. Slap taxes on pollution from industries to force them to reduce their emissions. Bar import of goods from countries that don't adhere to the global standard. Humans (and the companies they run) are adaptable, they'll find other work.
If we're wrong and global warming isn't actually happening, at least we'll have some positive outcomes. If we're right, maybe we can prevent a total catastrophe. Inaction, garners little or no benefit if human-caused GW isn't actually occurring, but will be a direct contributor to disaster if it is.
The Canadian fishing industry is a good example. Those folks who lost their jobs are hurting, but they are alive and there is some chance that the fishing will reopen. If GW is real, millions if not billions will die from starvation, be displaced into refugee camps as their towns are flooded or be impacted by regional conflicts as countries struggle to deal with the changing climate.
Re:Confirmation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, NOW context matters? Where were you when your fellow "skeptics"
Context always matters.
If somebody tells you that context doesn't matter, then you should consider that that person probably is lying to you or at least isn't giving you the full truth. Whatever side they're on.
It's also not fair to beat somebody up over what somebody else who may or may not have similar beliefs said. If one person who supports cause X says something, and somebody else who supports cause X says something else -- that's not evidence of hypocrisy. It's evidence of disagreement, and if you really do think that everybody who supports cause X agrees on everything, the problem is with you, not them.
And yes, this is just one sentence. It could be exactly what they meant, or it could just be a miswording of things -- it certainly wouldn't be the first. One will have to look at context to figure out what they really meant.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
By revelation of these emails, Fred Singer's respect in peer reviewed literature has dropped to slightly lower than the asshole liars who used to publish "peer reviewed" studies backed by tobacco companies claiming that tobacco smoke isn't related to cancer...
Leaked Heartland Documents (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, denier funding is peanuts. These documents contradict the constant claims of 'well funded climate denialism'. It shows they were never true, alarmists simply made them up.
For years I never really knew if deniers were well funded or not. Now I know they were never well funded.
Its the greenies who have been well funded all along.
Thank you Desmogblog. Nice work
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:4, Insightful)
More than just denial.If it was just guys shaking their fists I wouldn't care. But we're talking about well-funded groups with political and media allies who are quite happy to spread disinformation as widely as possible. For instance, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph in Britain, on topics like alternative energy sources and AGW are pretty much oil company shills, and not even very shameless about it. Christopher Booker, the guy that denies tobacco harm, asbestos harm and even makes rude noises about evolution, basically has free reign to write any amount of ludicrous anti-AGW crap he wants.
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:5, Insightful)
'Creation Science'
Creation science is an oxymoron ; there isn't any science in it. Proper science engages in rigorous efforts to prove itself wrong. Creationist "science" doctrine is just a bunch of assertions like "It's all too complicated to have arisen by chance!". The irony is that if they actually engaged in the scientific method, they would have to attempt to prove that speciation level changes DO arise from evolution (in order to try to disprove their hypothesis that they don't).
Teachers don't want to teach science that's controversial and uncertain.
Science teachers DO want to teach science. They just don't want to cop the flak because some parties are using political, rather than scientific methods, to promote their ideas by excluding others through force. Part of science is the in-built assumption that if the evidence contradicts your theory, then you change your theory - so it embraces and accommodates the concept of "uncertain". And perhaps that is the part of it deemed most dangerous by those who want to force the world to change to fit their mind, instead of the mind changing to fit the world.
Re:Best to Exercise Caution at This Point (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I love your response, I'm more disheartened by the fact that you seem to be the only advocating this position, and are sitting there without upmods.
Leaks by definition are suspect. #1 problem is that leaks are always cherry-picked to show a particular problem. #2 problem is that leaks are always coming from an adversarial source that cannot be verified. #3 problem is that leaks can only be the starting point of an investigation, never the end point.
As a result, this should be treated the same way as any other leak: with circumspection, and with a follow-up investigation.
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if this were *real* science, one side or the other would be able to unequivocally silence the other with incontrivertable facts.
I don't think science means what you think it means.
You're saying that data, models, and research don't qualify as science?
That for something to qualify as science, it has to be completely, without a doubt, 100% impossible to argue against?
Re:You call it denial, I call it data-driven scien (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow, I always manage to be impressed at how bad people are at reading noisy graphs and at computing trends.
Re:dont try to fucking rationalize this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but if you follow along with the AGW crowd and implement all the regulations and laws they require to "solve" global warming (which incidentally are exactly what one side of the political spectrum wants, but are anathema to the other side) then you must be a patriot right?
I've come to realize recently that I really agree with most of the arguments of AGW.
But
I think they are wildly optimistic at how effective their regulations will be at changing the situation and are oblivious to the fact that regulations with enough impact to make a change will have severely adverse consequences of the economy and personal freedom.
Recently, it was posited on line that it was more likely that the free market and the decreasing supply of fossil fuels (leading to cost increases) will naturally spur on innovations that achieve the goals many environmentalists have, but that many laws proposed have serious negative and draconian impacts on the economy and the people.
An opportune question is, if you're paying people to not emit CO2, then how do you effectively stop rampant corruption in the market from people who say that they'll generate less CO2, but just want you to pay them money to do nothing? Cap and Trade is a false market that is incapable of avoiding both fraud and regulatory capture.
Someone needs to develop energy solutions that can replace fossil fuels that deliver the same amount of energy for nearly the same cost. That's where the bar is. If you can do that you'll end up rich and will save the planet, if you can't, taxing people for CO2 emissions isn't going to make it happen.
And before anyone brings it up, yes, subsidies for the fossil fuel industry have to go to keep the marketplace fair and encourage development of new technology.
Alternate energy technology is our only hope. I'm sorry, governmental worldwide restrictions and regulations are too dangerous and too prone to misuse.
Re:I dunno why so many are AGW (Score:0, Insightful)
>> Climate science indicates that the world is warming.
False. Climate SCIENCE indicates that the world is cooling, and has been for the better part of a decade.
Climate RELIGION says that the world is warming, and that the warming is due to Human Activity, and that if we simply give Al Gore some more millions to buy phony baloney carbon credits so he can afford to pay his astronomical electricity bill, everything will be a-ok.
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm not a libertarian, and in fact think most of them are fools lead by sociopaths, I must defend them here. There probably is a libertarian solution to all this. In fact, the right has promoted in the past:
Cap and trade.
Such a system is about as free as it comes, and works perfectly fine for regulating other scarce resources like the EM spectrum.
Although the rights to a X amount of pollution should start evenly distributed in the hands of every American, actual human beings. Which most would turn back over to the government to put in a pool for corporations to bid on, for lower taxes...but people could, instead, choose to just tell them to fuck off, they're keeping and not using the credits. Charities could even be set up to bid against companies and buy and not-use pollution credits.
That would be the free market solution, the libertarian solution. Assign every human being a specific amount of pollution they are allowed to cause, and they can freely sell it, or at least lease it. Or they can even buy more, or whatever. (Granted, the real implementation of this was not quite as good, because it started the credits in companies...but of all the proposals, it was the most libertarian, and could easily be changed once the system was set up.)
The problem is, of course, that 'libertarian' and 'the right' only coincide when 'libertarian' coincides with 'business interests'. When cap and trade was laxer than what the left was proposing, the right was all for it. When it's what the left is proposing, big business move the goalposts, and the right moves along with it. Libertarians end up standing around confused, duped by the right once again, as one of the most libertarian solutions possible suddenly becomes a liberal conspiracy, and the business community^W^WRepublicans have once again moved back to the idea of using 'regulations' that they can manipulate, instead of the government saying 'We don't care how you do it, you can only produce X amount of pollution, and if you want more, you have to buy that right from someone else'.
This is terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is that this is terrorism by any other name. This is Charles Manson directing the activities of his Family. The Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and all the rest of the rogues gallery of Koch Instruments are effectively building a bomb - a bomb named inaction- that will kill every one of us and our children, and they are fully intent on setting that bomb off.
These individuals are a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States of America and they need to be dealt with within that defining context and no other. It is directly because of their actions that steps needed to preserve our civilization against catastrophic climate change have not been taken despite the fact they're well within our ability:
http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/ [princeton.edu]
I understand that many reading this will not see advocating for provably suicidal policies and conspiring to influence society to take suicidal steps as a crime. To them I say- the definition of what is criminal does and must change because criminals adapt and change. The means they have to effect their ends change and the scope of devastation they can effect enlarges. The purpose of a system of laws is to protect society against the self chosen behaviour of criminals, whatever that behaviour may be. Criminals should not expect that they can evade justice by gaming the law.
It's criminals themselves who force society's and and decide what laws will come to exist. In a free society that seeks to protect the greatest freedom for each individual and which values liberty, the rule of law is by nature reactionary. But that cannot mean that society will permit criminals to leverage that permissive attitude into an act of world wide homicide.
There is ONE objective reality, not many. This conservative Post Modernist bullshit whereby YOU have YOUR reality but conservatives get THEIR OWN version of reality is cultural and planetary suicide.
There is ONE reality and human caused climate change is a fact of that reality.Continued inaction will lead directly to the extinction of civilization. Those are facts. Anyone advocating for that course of non-action is acting as a terrorist against everyone in every nation who is alive now or will be at all times forward.
That is a fact, not an opinion.
Remember, it really didn't matter that the Nazis "really believed" their load of scientific crap they used to justify their genocidal policies. We still prosecuted them in Nuremberg , then we found them guilty and then we hung them.
This is exactly what needs to be done with the individuals and funders of these denier organizations. No one cares if you *really believe* your bullshit or you know you're lying through your teeth. Neither does it matter that in your view your *rights* include to the *right* to yell "no fire!!" in a burning theater.
It's amusing to see that people who are attempting to implement policies which we know will lead to mass death on a scale which will dwarf the body count and social upheaval of WWII think they can get away with it because they've found a worm hole in the rule of law to squeeze through on the other side of which no one can touch them.
In Nuremberg, the Allies faced a similar problem. Because the victims of the Nazis were not enemy troops, the Geneva Convention did not apply.
Similarly because the victims were under Nazi rule at the time, they were subject to German law and no Nazi broke any German law.
This was the first thrust of the defense the Nazis raised- "hey, we broke no law..."
And what was the solution the Allies came up with in Nuremberg? We just made up- ex post facto- the crimes we decided the Nazis had committed- something we called Crimes Against Humanity .
Then we tried them for those crimes. Then we found them guilty. Then we hung them.
Before Nuremberg the concept of Crimes Agains
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
AGW has this.
You've just been living under a rock and not paying attention to the overwhelming number of papers confirming it.
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:5, Insightful)
The other side (the ones you say that have nothing but "denial") says the data, models, and research is not comprehensive enough to support the grandiose claims being made,
Yes, that's denial.
and they have their own data, models, research,
No they don't.
and conclusions which conflict with the AGW proponents.
Conclusions, sure they've got loads of those. But that wasn't in the list of the previous poster, you added that. Anyone can have conclusions. But the denialist ones have no credibility. Especially now.
Now if this were *real* science, one side or the other would be able to unequivocally silence the other with incontrivertable facts.
Smoking and evolution. No amount of real science would quieten the rump end of the denial lobbyists. So your "conclusion" is pretty easy to disprove.
What turns me off from the whole AGW camp is their smug elitism
Right. So your real problem is not science at all, it's politics. You don't like the people on the side of science, so you're happy take the side of those that deny science.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
...the debate being more about the degree of influence of human activity or the speed at which changes will occur.
Yes but some of the debate, and I think the more salient debate, is about what effect (if any) mitigation efforts will have and what they will cost. Some self-professed 'skeptics' dont take issue with GW or even AGW but more with the cost/benefit ratio, something that gets precious little rational discussion. Those who are skeptical of spending obscene amounts of money with at best fuzzy promises of any tangible results arent 'deniers' by any stretch no matter how convenient it is to label them as such. No matter which side of the debate you fall into we have to recognize and accept that the issue is an economic one, not a scientific one and not a religious one (and radical green-ism is certainly a religion). The only interesting voices in the debate (IMHO) are the economic skeptics on both sides that truly embrace workable cost-effective courses of action.
Looking past even economics, the 'debate' is also a sociological one, since at its core AGW comes down to this: how do we reverse humanity’s relentless pursuit of comfort.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly."
I must have missed the link where they correct this and admit the entire Climategate "controversy" was proven false, and that no deliberate manipulation of data was actually found. I am sure they are still working on that release...
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, its not fact at all. Yes, SOME may have been paid to be deniers, but some were simply questioning the"science" (see what I did there?) behind AGW, as they still do.
Fred Singer is one of the top 3 denialists in the world. We now know he's paid $60,000 per annum to do propaganda. Not research. Propaganda.
As for getting paid, wasn't all that long ago that a respected researcher could get drummed out of the academy for denying agw
Be specific.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the mitigation fits with other looming problems; namely the end of cheap oil. Sooner or later (some say sooner, some say later) we're going to run out of cheap oil, and it isn't just energy that's going to take the hit. The value of long-chain hydrocarbons to a multitude of industrial, fabrication and industrial processes cannot be minimized. People don't seem to understand that it isn't just the price of a gallon of gas that will skyrocket, a large portion of the things that make the industrialized world go round will suddenly become much more expensive.
So, the potential mitigation of AGW and the solution to peak oil are the same. Stop using oil and other fossil fuels as fuels. The sooner the better. Invest in alternative energies, even if the costs are very high, because the costs when everyone finally agrees peak oil has been reached will be far worse in every possible way. There is every reason to begin to switch from a fossil fuel based economy, and no reason other than laziness and contempt for future generations to continue on the course we have chosen.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it's bullshit.
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately both sides of this subject have gotten far too emotional to even consider the possibility that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
I don't know why anyone says crap like this.
Why should we give organizations, known to be industry shills, equal weight with hard science when it comes to policy discussions?
There are endless issues in contention, but few consider them to be so because the vast majority of society has already picked a side.
Does anyone still think that the earth is flat? Or that the sun revolves around the earth? Or that Tobacco is good for you?
The Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank for sale. The exist to try and legitimize points of view that are illegitimate.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're really comparing being given grants to do research that leads to peer reviewed papers with being paid to spin a specific line and suppress science?
Really?
And the denier camp likes to call those who listen to the vast majority of the scientific community on this one "faith based"...
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:4, Insightful)
We have statistical evidence of race discrimination.
Where's the statistical evidence of what you're alleging?
Or do you work for a body that allocates grant money, and so know first hand what's happening?
Because what you appear to be doing is repeating a meme that you read on a denialist blog. And it is therefore worthless.
I on the other hand have evidence that one of the most prominent denialists that actually work in the field gets paid by lobbyists to do propaganda,
Evidence vs empty memes. Par for the course for this debate.
Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately both sides of this subject have gotten far too emotional to even consider the possibility that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
If you knew that people will (in general) make this assessment, then you could easily sway the public debate by taking a barking-mad-ultra-extreme view.
This is precisely what has happened.
You have played precisely into the hands of a very well documented cabal of media manipulators.
For more information, read "Merchants of Doubt" and dig up referenced documents yourself.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because of the availability heuristic and cognitive dissonance on your part. The real problem is with your mind not with PhDs. You have built yourself a self supporting bullshit machine that unrealistically weighs "facts" that support your preconceptions and discounts things that disagree with what you think. You saying that PhDs don't have to defend their ideas is the height of self incrimination. Do you have a PhD? I seriously doubt it.
In addition I see from your later posts that you bring up the whole "grant money" argument. This clearly identifies your as out of your mind. Just in case you missed the memo fossil fuel extraction is the MOST PROFITABLE endeavor in human history bar none. If you think that thousands of squabbling academics who's only ability to move up in their world is by gotcha and disproving each others ideas are going to magically join forces to create a false theory and data in order to what? Seriously what the fuck do they have to gain, grant money? What world do you live in? Grant money? The combined oil industry must make 100x all the academic grants in the US each quarter. You are so self deluded that is makes me wonder how you can operate a keyboard.
Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, you really can't read.
Let's try this again... GP said "You're really comparing being given grants to do research that leads to peer reviewed papers with being paid to spin a specific line and suppress science?"
Did you get it this time? Think really hard. You'll understand it eventually.
Just in case, let me spell it out for you. One side is paid to do research. The other side is paid to suppress research. It's not the "being paid" part that is being criticized here. Can you comprehend that?
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
The sociological problem isn't comfort. Its having a talking head in a little box tell you what you need to get comfort. Worse because these things only gratify and virtually never satisfy, you have to get today's "Turd Neuvo" to maintain that 1 minute and 14 seconds of comfort. Pavlovian consumption as economic raison d'etre. We don't need this crap. There are DOZENS of nations that consume a tenth of what America consumes and THEY ARE HAPPIER than we are. They save more money than we do. They have better health than us. Their children are getting better educations. People, who among you can't see that obsessive hoarding and anorexia are the opposite ends of the same shitty stick?
This is that religion thing again. Grow a free mind, READ dammit!, Our appetite is not our best friend. Its time to take the profit motive out of living and breathing. I know I just committed the foulest of blasphemies and I'll be forced at gun point to say 1000 hail Wallstreets, but this little experiment in grotesque consumption has run its course and is bloody close to destroying everything we love. Just yesterday I heard they want to strip mine coal in Bryce National Park. That kind of says it all. Enough people. We're turning the world into a toilet. Its like some horrible existential scene from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life", whatever you do, don't eat that last wafer thin mint.
Its time for us to elect representatives who aren't permanently attached to Corporate America's teat. Its time to muzzle Corporate America, and surgically separate them from state, while we're at it rescind their personhood, they've abused the privilege. Its time to teach our kids that they are responsible for the future, that it will only be as good or as bad as they make it, and we who are already here, should spend the rest of our ill begotten existences cleaning up the fscking mess we made, instead of viciously grubbing for more. So a little dignity please! Let's have a little compassion. Grow a pair, and demand that we put our attention to cleaning up the mess. That's a future worth having. That's a purpose worth living for. This knee jerk, pavlovian self satisfying, needs to come to a crashing halt now. It is so time to find out what's important, and let me be the first to let you know its not Axe Spray-on Deodorant, or minty fresh breath, or even the right feminine hygiene product. Perhaps then, we'll all discover the true nature of real comfort and lasing happiness. Being at home in our skins and being able to look in the mirror without shame, or the quiet self loathing at what little we've left our children.