SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-need-a-full-copy-of-production-for-testing dept.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world's media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, 'unverified' data.
It was never subjected to NOAA's rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a 'blatant attempt to intensify the impact' of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
More details can be found in his own words here:
They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @06:05PM
This only matters, because paper-pushing, power-grabbing government bureaucrats are playing with other people's money and lives through policy based on these "reports"; there are 2 sides to this debate:
One side, where people risk their entire careers and personal socio-economic standing just for speaking up.
Another side, where the people are arguing to receive ever more violently imposed authority over society's resources.
History shows again and again which side is the one to be doubted and, indeed, feared...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @06:23PM
No, the REAL problem is that this is a made up issue and that idiots like you buy into it because it fits some "big evil government" meme you bend everything you see around.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @06:28PM
But it IS a Big Government issues; governments are funneling money, and imposing regulations that greatly disrupt people's lives, despite the fact that there is a significant disagreement. It is what it is! Yet more violently imposed imposition.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday February 06 2017, @06:57PM
> imposing regulations that greatly disrupt people's lives
Like "stop fucking up the place where I'd like my grandchildren to live without Hazmat suits"?
You don't need your mess to qualify as a Superfund site, in order for the rest of us to think maybe some of your profits should be dedicated to keeping the place as clean as possible.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @07:14PM
That must be the most overused basis for tyranny.
I swear. When people have children, they lose their minds; they turn into rabid, illogical resource-grabbers who think everyone else is obligated to care for their progeny no matter what the cost might be.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @07:18PM
No, you're obligated to care for the crap you pump into my air and into my water that crosses my property lines. I can't even have kids. Take responsibility. You can't hide from externalities forever. Think of what would happen in an Ancap paradise. These fracking operations and coal power plants would need compensatory contracts with me to remediate their waste at my property lines. It could even be the case that rather than doing all that remediation at everybody's property lines, they would just do it at the source, responsibly, like your mother taught you to clean your own damned room when you were 5.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @07:21PM
Unfortunately for you, Big Government doesn't care about your Ancap ideas.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @07:33PM
And unfortunately for you irony is cometely lost. They were talking g about the fictional ancap reality where a system of contracts holds everyone responsible. The companies polluting everything would ideally be held responsible through lawsuits. It was a trick, turning the libertarian ideals on too of themselves to show how corps would be held accountable one way or another. Deregation is dumb and dangerous, and you will be violently opposed if you want yo freely pollute the earth just so you can live in luxury for a fee decades.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:06PM
You are comparing apples with oranges.
Law formed through voluntary association within a market is very different from the [fake] so-called "law" formulated by the violently imposed dictates of this one particular organization that calls itself "government".
How can you possibly compare the two? How can you possibly feel that you've proved some point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:38PM
Pollution crossing my property lines is violence. Please see my contract enforcer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:50PM
There is a big difference between contract enforcement being a service provided in the market (like any other service), and contract enforcement being the arbitrary and capricious actions of a violently imposed self-declared monopoly (i.e., "government").
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday February 06 2017, @09:14PM
Oh Really?
To establish a contract both parties need to exchange consideration.
There is no contract in place if pollution crosses my property line.
In the absence of government (and the rule of law), I can not sue. The Defendant would have no reason to enter arbitration with me. They would either ignore me, or hire thugs to silence me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:23AM
If your interaction is not governed by a well-defined contract, then all bets are off; undefined behavior is a very dangerous domain in which to be operating.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday February 06 2017, @10:14PM
Law formed through voluntary association within a crime syndicate is very different from the [fake] so-called "law" formulated by the violently imposed dictates of this one particular organization that calls itself "government".
How can you possibly compare the two? How can you possibly feel that you've proved some point?
One term changed, argument the same. Not suggesting that all artificial markets are crime syndicates.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:35AM
Yup.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Monday February 06 2017, @10:17PM
How's the view out of your spaceship window?
I'm surprised your reply could make it in so fast, when you've missed the point by that much...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @06:44PM
"Go! Team khallow! Go"
>attack was ineffective
"Go, Team frojack! Go!"
>attack was ineffective
"Go, jmorris! Just go?"
>attack was super ineffective
"Go, Team Bates! Go Exxon! Go, Sec of State!"
>attack will be effective, or else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:07PM
But it IS a Big Government issues; governments are funneling money, and imposing regulations that greatly disrupt people's lives, despite the fact that there is a significant disagreement. It is what it is! Yet more violent imposition.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday February 06 2017, @10:09PM
But it IS a Big Business issue; businesses are funneling money, and buying regulations that greatly disrupt people's lives, despite the fact that there is a significant disagreement. It is what it is! Yet more violent imposition.
Same argument.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:59AM
Because governments offer such centralized control of power for sale, businesses are naturally enticed to buy that power; it is not the case that government has been corrupted by those businesses, but rather that those businesses have been corrupted by government.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:28AM
The Daily Mail? That's almost as reliable as Trump.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by meustrus on Monday February 06 2017, @06:35PM
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @07:42PM
China experimented with decentralized steel production in one of their idiotic plans or another. From memory it ended up not being terribly productive and definitely not green. Just a warning the decentralized isn't the answer for all industries.
If we decentralize enough we better get rid of the grid because its going to blow if we don't get rid of it. Or we'll need some kind of miracle AI to run the grid under those generating conditions.
Life was so easy when the consumers had positive value resistances and there were only a couple generators. Not so much fun when every roof is trying to upload power and the grid is possibly going to be zero or even worse negative resistance.
People love to talk about the coolness of solid state power control and VFDs and switching power supplies but some day the grid goes negative resistance even on a small scale and all hell breaks loose.
I'd say its even odds right now for what destroys the power grid, a negative resistance event (obviously not today, but extend the graphs), a solar storm EMP thingie, or simple lack of maintenance cascading failure.
Once the grids down it stays down, theoretical black start capability is different from practical black start capability.
Gridless electrical power will be interesting.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:04PM
China experimented with decentralized steel production
You failed to mention that participation in "The Great Leap Forward" was *mandated* by Mao.
Hardly "decentralized" in that regard.
The Workers would rather have been producing FOOD instead of doing something that produced starvation and low-grade steel that nobody wanted.
one of their idiotic plans
Not "their"; HIS.
Red China was/is NOT "Communist"; it was/is Totalitarian.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:52PM
Red China was/is NOT "Communist"; it was/is Totalitarian.
How many examples do you jibronies need before you realize Communism and Totalitarianism is one and fucking same! Your lofty ideals of Communism are totally divorced from reality. Only thing a Communist will ever receive from me is a free helicopter ride (I realize it is de-humanizing and amoral approach towards dealing with useful idiots, but upon deep reflection it is ethical).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:47PM
Now tell us how USA's gov't is "a Democracy" (AKA "the majority rules") when supermajorities want single-payer healthcare and can't get that.
Repeat for less military spending; an end to The War on Drugs; a move back to non-regressive taxation; ending corporate welfare and bailouts of failed Capitalists.
Don't forget to mention how The 1 Percent get what they want.
Properly denoted, USA is an Oligarchy, but the mainstream news media^W^W^W^W corporate propaganda won't ever say that.
The Nazis were "The National Socialist German Workers Party".
...yet they put trade unionists and Socialists/Communists in concentration camps (when they didn't kill them outright).
You can name your political party / governmental form anything you want.
That doesn't make that description of yourself accurate.
...and having other governments repeat your made-up term doesn't make it legit either.
Socialism is a bottom-up system; Communism is Socialism perfected.
What China has is is top-down.
That is the OPPOSITE of Communism.
free
You are deeply confused about governmental and economic forms.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:56AM
How many examples do you jibronies need before you realize Communism and Totalitarianism is one and fucking same!
Well, all of them, obviously, since none of the ones you have provided proves your point. Are you a Papist? Or a member of the Chamber of Commerce? Perhaps of the Knights of Malta, or the Knighets who say "Niiii!"? In any case, your understanding of politics, economics, and the ranking of sci-fi television shows from the sixties, is sorely lacking, and is would probably be better if you just shut the fuck up. Like, Now?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Monday February 06 2017, @08:17PM
China experimented with decentralized steel production in one of their idiotic plans or another. From memory it ended up not being terribly productive and definitely not green. Just a warning the decentralized isn't the answer for all industries.
Making steel was just the official reason, the real reasons being in my opinion the destruction of any pre-communist cultural artifacts (even paper and cloth containing pins or rivets) and especially weapons. Anything and everything metallish was thrown into the crucibles. Weapon technology was a lot more primitive and larger numbers armed with knives could overwhelm smaller numbers armed with lame varieties of rifle, especially if the latter group was unmotivated or even demoralized. There was a lot of discontent brewing at that time and the melting to slag of all spare metal objects got rid of potential weapons, and got people worrying more about their next meal again. By the time Mao was done with making slag (yeah it was slag not steel), there were not even sufficient kitchen knives to go around.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:20PM
. Weapon technology was a lot more primitive and larger numbers armed with
Bosun's Mate: "15 year old Libertarian decloaking off the starboard bow, Sir!"
Cap't of the Watch: "Does he post a hazard to navigation?"
Mate: "Vessel in heading on a collision course, but it is only a dinghy."
Cap't: "Well then, hardly a threat to a ship of state. Hold course and speed."
Mate: "Should we attempt a rescue, Sir?"
Cap't: "Of what, Bosun's Mate?"
Mate: "Of the debris, Sir."
Cap't: "Not likely to be worth the trouble of salvage. Carry on."
Mate: "Aye, aye, Sir."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NewNic on Monday February 06 2017, @09:52PM
Miracle? Hawaii already has solutions for this issue. [energy.gov]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @10:32PM
That's good, that's at least a partial fix. But proven not to make the grid more unstable when its unstable doesn't fix the inherent instability to begin with.
It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday February 06 2017, @11:51PM
Gridless power is not the problem. It's the ultimate upside. When all power is off the grid, and it can be with renewable sources and house batteries, we can get rid of one of our most intransigent monopolies, thereby eliminating the need for hefty government regulation of that monopoly. It represents a true return to the free market in a way that isn't feasible with centralized power production.
As for getting there, the nonpartisan politics involved are working their way through local municipalities right now. This is one of the only causes for hope in American politics. Everyone wants their free power and doesn't much care for the government/power companies standing in the way.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:54PM
The problem with gridless is it only scales well to suburban residential. No more industrial plants, no more skyscrapers, no more urban cities, no more office buildings. You could drop the grid from the burbs, which might help slightly with infrastructure costs, but you're still going to have the same expensive lines running from coal plants to skyscrapers and now the min/max ratio of power use is even higher which will make times tough on the remaining grid.
Also gridless hardware is kinda like libertarianism, in that if a community is exclusively IQ > 100 or IQ > 110 or so it'll work, otherwise it'll collapse under the destruction of the folks under those criteria. Which is pretty much everywhere except maybe some university towns, SV maybe.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:15PM
Industry will solve their own problems. They had electricity before anyone else, after all, and plenty of factories already have dedicated power resources. Green companies are already leading the way due to a combination of customer demand and lack of availability on the standard grid.
As for stupid people, well we'll just have to make it simple enough for everyone. We will eventually reach a point where renewable power is so cost effective that new buildings will have it built in, and may never even be connected to the grid in the first place. Tesla's solar shingles are a step in this direction. All of this is still a positive. I may be capable of dicking with my personal electrical system, but there are better uses of my time. If an idiot can keep it running then that frees my brain for other things. And if somebody else blows up their panels, well they're not on my grid so I don't have to care.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday February 06 2017, @06:37PM
There are 2 sides to this debate:
Other examples: Leaded gasoline. Or redefining "clean" air and "clean" drinking water.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @06:43PM
The guy trying to call attention to lead gas was derided by the powers that be; he was treated as a lunatic.
The clean environment movement began among "private" citizens looking to care for their surroundings—government had a long history of subsidizing environment-destroying endeavors.
Government is like that guy who jumps in front of a parade and then pretends to lead it. Government is Fake Leadership.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @07:52PM
With respect to lead in the environment, I find it suspicious that its always harmless when there is no alternative technology and then when one comes along all of a sudden, why who ever wouldda guessed its bad for you and lets use a new replacement.
This happened with lead pipes, no problemo until copper production in S.A. makes copper cheap enough to use then ohshit.jpg gotta replace all the lead pipes in the water lines and demonize it although it was cool until copper was a realistic alternative.
This happened with leaded gasoline, can't make exhaust valves last 5K miles due to shit metallurgy and no need to invest in shit metallurgy because we got leaded gas until suddenly get metallurgy good enough to use unleaded gas, next week, ohshit.jpg who ever wouldda guessed leaded gas isn't safe to drink huh whats the odds of that?
Ditto leaded paint, no white paints existed at all until titanium dioxide miracle then like next week later ohshit.jpg no one ever could have guessed lead in paint might be bad for you lets ban the hell out of it.
Government is like the guy who says F this parade crap them once the private citizens set it up by themselves he leaps in front as its passing by and claims he was leading it all along and he's always been a huge supporter. Agreed government is fake leadership.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @07:54PM
Damn if I didn't think of another example seconds after posting, lead in ammo especially waterfowl shotgun pellets for centuries, then bismuth is cheap enough to use it instead, suddenly, ohshit.jpg hey guize I just noticed lead is bad for you and we got the banhammer out...
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Monday February 06 2017, @08:49PM
Personally for waterfowl I just use steel shot and go up 1-2 shot sizes over the recommended lead size. Same applies to upland bird hunting and I figure it is only a matter of time before it gets officially banned there so why not get out ahead of it. Steel shot is cheaper than bismuth or tungsten shot anyway and I don't need to be spraying lead all over the place so I can eat some tasty birds.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 06 2017, @08:11PM
You find it suspicious that people wait until it's actually possible to replace something before advocating it's replacement?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:26PM
Unsurprisingly, you've missed the point: It is the innovation of a free society at large that pushes society in a better direction; then the government swoops in and pretends to be the savior that led society along the path it was already traveling.
That's why nobody can ever argue that government is useless—people are taught that if it weren't for these angelic bureaucrats, we'd all be living in squalor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:53PM
One wonders if there were physicists, chemists, materials engineers, mining engineers, process engineers, etc. who were educated at public universities involved in those innovations.
One also wonders if there was a program at those public (or private) universities that was the result a grant from USA.gov to investigate that particular line of research.
Further curiosity: After all that investment by the gov't, were private companies granted patents on all the innovations?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:03AM
Typical statist logic: If government's shotgun spray of stolen cash touches anything useful, then that usefulness must have been impossible without government.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @09:15PM
Well, don't they almost always do the opposite?
You don't hear much about stuff its possible to replace because people tend to replace them... because its possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:42PM
Ah. Runaway confessed that he is a victim of child abuse. I think we have a confession here that VLM is a victim of lead poisoning.
At least the child abuse victim occasionally makes sense.
(Score: 4, Informative) by https on Monday February 06 2017, @09:35PM
You are so full of shit your eyes are turning brown.
Your opening assertion, that things are never declared unsafe until a replacement is at hand, is so wrong - full of logical fail and not supported by history - I had to place doubt upon everything that followed. But your final lie-toid was the final straw.
Titanium dioxide, which by the way is only used for white paints, was first noted as a neato pigment in the 1820s, but not commercialized until about 1915. Lead based home paint was banned in the US in 1978.
Are any of your other assertions concerning lead true? Maybe, but right now I wouldn't bet any money on it. You're using lies to sell a version of reality that never existed.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @10:19PM
but not commercialized until about 1915
Yeah I donno about that. Ti is kinda like aluminum its everywhere but a huge pain in the ass to turn into metal (or pigment in the case of Ti) Prices and production before 1960 were nil and precious metal status, then starting around 60s 70s 80s the chloride process took off and prices dropped to like nothing and production like doubled every year for a long time.
I bet an artist could buy a tube of Titanium dioxide paint in 1915 but it probably cost as much as solid gold would have cost. Ti wasn't really a "thing" until the 60s 70s 80s at least WRT mass production. I understand the Chinese have a new process that may eventually replace the old chloride process, but I'll wait and see.
I'm not really sure what your point is. You can pull a graph of inflation adjusted titanium price off google easy enough and in the 60s it crashes from being literally a precious metal costing more than silver almost as much as gold, to being no biggie, and then a decade or two later we get around to finally banning lead paint ...
I mean whats your alternative explanation, nobody noticed lead was bad until 1978?
The world of chemistry is weird. Aluminum was still a precious metal when the Washington monument was built, and now a days people are like yeah whatever, the cap is solid aluminum whatever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @11:36PM
I bet an artist could buy a tube of Titanium dioxide paint in 1915 but it probably cost as much as solid gold would have cost.
Bet you not, eh? I just love the smell of fake history in the morning! What's that? You say it is not morning? Yes it is! It's Alt-morning! Now Good Alt-morning to you!
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:15AM
you would be wrong. Refined aluminum or titanium was rare and expensive because we had no cheap way to refine it. However, you are assuming you need refined pure titanium or aluminum in order to make the paints. That is not true. These are the naturally occurring compounds that we needed to learn to refine the pure metal FROM.
This is like saying table salt was not available because no one could make sodium in order to make the sodium chloride.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:08PM
However, you are assuming you need refined pure titanium or aluminum in order to make the paints. That is not true.
That's cool. I officially defer to your knowledge of pigments. Pigment chemistry is interesting and outside my area of expertise.
I am a little confused about this whole flamewar in general, aside from this specific detail that frankly doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.
AC claims two things: Environmentalists are laughed at and considered insane and the process of banning naughty chemicals begins with private citizens and then after the ban is a success (gaining supporters) the government steals leadership.
I respond claiming other than outliers (the occasional "brave" scientist heavily supported by the establishment) there is no grass roots until they're financially fertilized by corporations trying to sell something new by banning the bad old stuff. At that point the money pours in and the government gets paid to ban the old stuff and the new company makes a pile of money. Its all about the money, never about avoiding environmental harm. Then I provide a pile of individual isolated examples, at least one of which was wrong, but who cares because the whole pile is individual isolated examples, and a massive shitstorm erupts yet what exactly is the problem with that theoretical model?
I mean, is anyone seriously claiming alternative product manufacturers aren't doing everything they can to get the old bad stuff banned in order to max out their profits? Or is anyone seriously claiming grass roots protesters aren't heavily externally funded? Is someone seriously claiming the government isn't primarily run by money for money?
Oh shit yo you got a minor detail of pigment chemistry wrong so obviously the entire theory, hell, the entire theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are also wrong...
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:00PM
Your issue about "environmentalists are laughed at" is where you are going wrong. pseudoscience lunatics are not environmentalists. they may be activists in favor of the environment- but they are not producing the data, studies, trends, or predictions. The environmental scientists are.
Your claim about outliers is also wrong.
The data is discovered that X is dangerous.
X is made by or used heavily by companies as a profit source.
said companies hire propaganda shills to muddy the water and make it look like there is controversy on the issue, in order to prolong their profit from X- with the ultimate goal of completely discrediting the facts if at all possible so they can use X forever.
The data that proves X is bad is not in question, at all, by anyone not in the direct pay of these companies. (This should raise a HUGE red flag for any sane person)
This has played out time and time again. Asbestos, lead, tobacco, and now climate change. There have been many ore such instances, but these are the big ones that got a lot of news play.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:34PM
said companies hire propaganda shills to muddy the water and make it look like there is controversy on the issue, in order to prolong their profit from X- with the ultimate goal of completely discrediting the facts if at all possible so they can use X forever.
That's theoretically possible, I agree. It is very conspiracy theory ish in that it requires a lot of cooperation between competitors. I mean it makes 9/11 inside job look relatively boring.
Also beware of the dreaded retcon. Good of you to bring up tobacco. I'm older, and I assure you based on personal experience with older people when I was young, there is a strong retcon that "everyone believed smoking was healthy" but and legally in front of a jury maybe it was, but even the dumbest dumbass knew it was terrible. It fits a modern narrative that everyone thought cigarettes were vitamin sticks but having been there I assure you they're pulling your leg for a reason. I occasionally wonder if lead, asbestos, maybe as you claim climate change were the same way. Well this stuff sux but there's no profitable alternative and nobody is getting enough good boy points for putting their foot down so nobody is putting their foot down so it isn't happening. Then culture shifts, some replacement becomes profitable, maybe the market is muddied a bit, there's a sudden shift in attitudes, then the retcon begins almost immediately about the past until people who lived thru it, can't recognize it anymore, but its sure a hell of a good story.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:01AM
I don't understand where exactly is massive cooperation required? That might happen but individuals certainly work as well.
Wasn't the situation more like everybody thought that smoking was bad for you but the companies adamantly claimed it wasn't.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday February 13 2017, @11:29PM
theoretically possible? It is documented fact.
example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563588/ [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday February 13 2017, @11:34PM
A long read, but this study goes in to great detail about the tobacco industries efforts to deny as well as astroturf, and documents obtained found that early climate denial efforts worked with them in the effort. That was an unexpected bonus of the court order to release Phillip-Morris lawsuit discovery documents to researchers.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.full [bmj.com]
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday February 06 2017, @10:16PM
Your assertion is that lead is harmless?
No, what happens is that people become aware of the harm from a certain chemical in the environment, then people develop alternative technologies, then the cost of those alternatives drops to the point that they are economically viable and finally, as a society, we eliminate the harmful chemical.
What's so hard to understand? Or do you have a problem with people improving society for profit?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @10:26PM
I think you and possibly others are confusing me with the original AC claiming
The guy trying to call attention to lead gas was derided by the powers that be; he was treated as a lunatic.
You can debate
people become aware of the harm from a certain chemical in the environment
with AC all you want, seeing as you two are in direct opposition.
I personally find it suspicious that grassroots movements come after industrial chemistry advancements. Like a lot of conspiracy theories about Freon, which frankly probably are true, that the patents were running out so time to make it illegal one way or the other. Regardless of the scientific facts I suspect certain political movements become very well funded resulting in success when its industrially profitable for those "grass roots" to be fertilized. This doesn't sound unusually unrealistic based on non-scientific political behavior, when there's something political having nothing to do with chemistry.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday February 06 2017, @10:26PM
You can't even get your history right, can you?
The initial reason to remove lead in gasoline came about from the introduction of catalytic converters.
Mandated removal of leaded gasoline from the market came some time after all the necessary technology (such as hardened valve seats) that is needed for unleaded gasoline was developed: because all that technology was required by catalytic converters.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:26AM
Really? Böcklin, Van Gogh, Manet, Munch and others [wikipedia.org] must have been delusional to think they used some non-lead white pigment, eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:37PM
When the economy tanked in 1929 (due to a lack of regulation/oversight of investment banking), USA was stuck with Republican Herbert Hoover until the presidential election of 1932.
Hoover was dumped by the electorate at the first opportunity.
Because the Capitalists weren't hiring and unemployment had reached 25 percent, Franklin Roosevelt, listening to his advisor John Maynard Keynes, made the gov't The Employer of Last Resort.
FDR put 15 million idled Americans to work building infrastructure and started taxing the Billionaire Class again, this time at a marginal rate of 94 percent.
(The rate stayed above 90 percent through Truman's and Ike's presidencies, a period often called "The Good Old Days".)
Getting money into the pockets of The Workers so that they could spend that into the economy, kick-started the Multiplier Effect and saved USA's economy from its downward spiral.
That's the closest USA.gov has ever come to "leadership" that I can think of.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:04PM
You are spouting off the government's propagandist party line taught to gullible school children in the... wait for it... government-dominated schooling system.
The Government (including the Federal Reserve) caused the Great Depression; the Federal Reserve admits this openly these days—don't forget that in 1929, the Federal Reserve had been around for a very long time already. Furthermore, the policies of FDR prolonged and worsened the structural problems in the economy; read about the Forgotten Depression of 1920–21.
It was only after WWII that the economy boomed, and that followed both a massive reduction in federal spending and a massive reduction in regulation (and the boom undoubtedly also reflected the fact that the rest of the world was totally fucked).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:30PM
The Federal Reserve is "Federal" only in its name.
It is a cartel of PRIVATE bankers.
If you want to take the topic from there ("Fascism"), that might be worthwhile.
You could go into how a previous Populist president[1] destroyed The Bank of the United States.
[1] Andrew Jackson is routinely found on a list of USA's worst presidents.
I disagree with the goal of patrician FDR to "save Capitalism".
...but all that Hoover did for 4 calendar years was sit on his thumb and hope that The Market would fix everything.
Did I already mention "downward spiral"? {Checks} Yeah, I did.
Did I already mention "the Capitalists weren't hiring"? {Checks} Yeah, I did.
I don't think that FDR went far enough, not using eminent domain to nationalize failed/failing corporations and not reselling those to worker-owner cooperatives at a zero-interest rate.
That said, this quote from FDR shows the difference between him and (failed president) Hoover:
"DO SOMETHING. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else."
The results that FDR got were "good enough", so he stopped there. 8-(
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:06AM
... it ain't private. You really cannot get more governmental than that.
FDR prolonged and worsened the depression; what don't you get about that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:04AM
The Fed is ordained by the goddamn Constitution
Actually, no.
The Constitution grants the federal gov't the exclusive right to mint money.
That's all that that document has to say about money or banking.
FDR prolonged and worsened the depression
Right. Had USAians just left Hoover in there, doing what he had been doing (or, more specifically, not doing), with the corps continuing to do what they were doing (or, again, not doing), that downward spiral that was already at 25 percent unemployment, with few folks having the money to buy anything, things would have magically straightened out all by themselves. /sarc
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:11AM
Don't forget good, safe old tobacco.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:52PM
And on January 20 the two were switched about.
(Score: 1) by ankh on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:56AM
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html [blogspot.com]
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/ [arstechnica.com]
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise [carbonbrief.org]
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/318131-gop-chair-says-report-vindicates-probe-into-climate-study [thehill.com]
(Score: 1) by ankh on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:41AM
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html [blogspot.com]
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/ [arstechnica.com]
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise [carbonbrief.org]
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/318131-gop-chair-says-report-vindicates-probe-into-climate-study [thehill.com]