Cosmos, episode 7: Submitted for the discussion of political implications

[Jack Rabbit]

Am I the only one here who doubts that all, or even most, climate change deniers really think that climate science is a hoax?

The pattern of the dissemination of the climate-science-is-a-hoax hoax fits the pattern of other corporate fights against science in the past. Does any one think that tobacco company executives really believed that there was no linkage between cigarette smoking and heart or respiratory disease? They may have sent their lawyers to argue that in court, but that was part of a long term strategy aimed at delaying government regulations to discourage tobacco use.

In Episode 7 of Cosmos, Dr. Niel deGrasse Tyson takes his viewers through the petroleum industry's fight against scientists researching environmental harm from use of lead in gasoline.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

I invite you to watch episode 7 and consider the similarities between this and corporate sponsored war on climate science. There's a reason that climate change deniers are funded by environmental polluters who manufacture fossil fuel.

On a video in this forum several weeks ago, a thoroughly brainwashed right wing caller got hold of Sam Seder for a general discussion of the world according to the Koch brothers. The caller warned that people should not trust scientists from the US government or the United Nations, but should rely on information from "private scientists." Does he mean the scientists who work for the industries who push the products being studied and found to be harmful by government scientists. Surely, that man was joking.

[Tikki]

1. Why would Dr. Tyson tell us this if he wasn't worried? No 'big business' is pushing him to lie.

The scientific facts he stated can be proved and he isn't using any magical thinking.

Coal and oil usage and by-products and waste are dangerous. TRUTH

SO IS NUCLEAR

Tikki

[zebonaut]

2. A common theme from Corporations; Cigarettes are healthy; guns are safe.....

carbs make you skinny, and sugar is nutritious.
CO2 is just Perrier fizz

[freebrew]

5. Hell, you can eat asbestos...nt

[RoccoR5955]

11. Not to mention

Nuclear power is safe, and so cheap there will be no need to meter it.

[exboyfil]

3. I suspect a bait and switch over time

Typical debate tactic (and courtroom) of arguing each point irrespective of the coherency of each argument.

1. Global Warming is not real
2. AGW is not real (it has happened by natural processes)
3. AGW has only a moderate impact on the environment
4. No way to get global consensus to cut carbon emissions anyway
5. Cutting carbon emissions would crash the economy - doing it unilaterally would make us uncompetitive
6. Long time horizon so some future event such as a massive eruption will further kick can down road
7. Technological solutions such as SO2 injected in upper atmosphere will deal with problem
8. God won't let anything that bad happen to us
9. So what the "colored" people will be the most impacted anyway. It is great for the Canadians, Russians, and Nordic races

I have already heard my fundie boss basically say that even if it is happening, we can't do anything about it because of other countries will not. A major concession on his part. I suspect the discussion will shift to that point when the infrastructure on the coasts start to go below sea level.

[AverageJoe90]

7. I mostly agree, with one quibble.

Technological solutions actually could go a long way to helping us mitigate climate change; carbon capture is looking more and more promising for one. Hell, even solar panels count for something, don't they? All I'm saying is, don't discount technology just because some deniers may try to hide behind it.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Solar power is a good solution

But it cuts into somebody else's profits. That why the Koch brothers, through ALEC, have modeled a bill that levies a tax on homeowners who instill solar panels.

It's political corruption, pure and simple. It costs a lot of money to run for office, including a seat in the lower chamber of a state legislature. However, not to worry, the Koch brothers are there to help. However, they expect a return on their investment.

[Dustlawyer]

12. That is the root of the problem, our system as it is currently comprised is deeply flawed.

Who would believe that these greedy corporations would donate billions to elections with out expecting a "Quid Pro Quo?" Oh wait, the would be U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and 4 other scumbags!
We need publicly funded elections!

[exboyfil]

10. I agree totally

so long as we can get past the first three or so points to actually have the debate around Cost Benefit Analysis. For example burning coal is bad for the CO2 emission but the particulates released actually help mitigate AGW (obviously you have other factors given how we mine coal and the fact that the particulates themselves are a pollutant).

I am an engineer and I am encouraging my daughter who is studying mechanical engineering to consider specializing in alternative technologies related to power generation, storage, and transmission. You come up with a nifty storage solution that gives certain base load for solar and/or wind then you will have something.

The technological Deus Ex Machina is the SO2 injection or other methods of mitigation. First will they be effective and second what are the side effects to such an approach.

[mindwalker_i]

4. Like so many Republican arguments

I don't think the Republicans believe the arguments they're making. Like when they argue for cutting taxes on the rich, they say it will help the economy and the poor as rich people create jobs. They know that isn't true and don't believe it. They're only making those arguments because their followers will either buy the arguments (that those making them don't believe), or will at least believe that the issues aren't settled.

The question we should be asking is, what is the real reason Republicans want some law passed? For cutting taxes on the rich, the real reason is that, for money the rich save is reduced taxes, some comes back as campaign contributions. For the case of preventing actions to reduce climate change, new laws could prevent oil companies from making as much profit, some of which comes back as campaign contributions. For abortion, making it less legal or restricting it makes their base happy, which gets them votes.

What's missing is any consideration as to what will be good for the country or world.

[WillyT]

6. K & R !!!

[elzenmahn]

8. The truly sick thing here...

...is the very fact that the SCIENCE presented in this show would even be controversial.

This indicates just how far we've gone down the rabbit hole as a nation.

[RainDog]

13. hemp for biofuel

is carbon neutral - the hemp captures carbon.

we could remake our entire manufacturing base by focusing on the use of hemp and other fibers that can even make bus and car bodies (as Ford did - he created a car body and fuel from hemp - but Gulf Oil's Andrew Mellon made sure marijuana and hemp were made illegal.)

Plastic bags can be made from hemp - it's the best form of insulation...

but those with power care about their profits more than the devastation of entire populations - just as this episode of Cosmos demonstrated with lead in fuel.

Too many of those with power have become a pestilence upon humankind. Sad to say, but true.

[MrMickeysMom]

14. I spoke and wrote to every member of my county council after talking about this episode...

It all related to the shale industry's control on the message, and the message is, "Look at this shiny object over here and don't pay attention to the so-called 'science'… Trust us, ignore them…"

They passed drilling under a county park, thus opening the door for more Marcellus Shale tracking. They don't WANT to get it.

I'm so fucking disgusted, I could spit up.

[RainDog]

15. Yeah. People are sick of this shit

but those they do it don't care. they don't care about anything but their wallets.