Forums

"They know damn well that climate change is real. They know it’s not a hoax. So why do they lie, lie, lie? Money,"

"They know damn well that climate change is real. They know it’s not a hoax. So why do they lie, lie, lie? Money,"

DONALD TRUMP IS treating the health of the planet as a short sell. The deadly game? Make as much money for big oil as possible before the planet goes up in flames. This week on Intercepted, Naomi Klein confronts the White House’s declaration of war on the planet, dissects the bizarre institution of “concierge” disaster response for the ultra-wealthy, and explores whether Trump’s administration is producing the fourth Purge movie where we all are unwitting cast members.

Podcast and Transcript
Hosted by Jeremy Scahill with Murtaza Hussain and Josh Begley, the developer of an app that tracks U.S. drone strikes that Apple has censored 13 times.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/29/intercepted-podcast-trump-war-planet/

james | 31 marts 2017

Its a negotiation tactic.

SamO | 31 marts 2017

Exxon (& others) will find out, like the tobacco industry, the cost of lying to the public for a prolonged period of time.

"The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered in November 1998, originally between the four largest United States tobacco companies (Philip Morris Inc., R. J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard – the "original participating manufacturers", referred to as the "Majors") and the attorneys general of 46 states. The states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related health-care costs, and also exempted the companies from private tort liability regarding harm caused by tobacco use.[1]:25 In exchange, the companies agreed to curtail or cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay, in perpetuity, various annual payments to the states to compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses. The money also funds a new anti-smoking advocacy group, called the American Legacy Foundation, that is responsible for such campaigns as The Truth. The settlement also dissolved the tobacco industry groups Tobacco Institute, the Center for Indoor Air Research, and the Council for Tobacco Research. In the MSA, the original participating manufacturers (OPM) agreed to pay a minimum of $206 billion over the first 25 years of the agreement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement

Tesla-David | 31 marts 2017

They are utterly disgusting and devoid of honesty and integrity. Worthless scumbags. Thanks @SamO for posting!

chubulus | 31 marts 2017

TESLATESLATESLATESLATESLATESLATESLA TESLA!!!!!!!

ken.hixson | 31 marts 2017

I'll probably get some hate mail for this . . . I will accept your belief as sincere as well as many others' sincerely held beliefs that are the opposite. I honestly don't know how much of climate change or global warming is real in the context of caused by man or the ebb and flow of ice ages and warming cycles that science has also discovered well before man existed on the earth. Millions of years of both and only a few years of science on the subject makes me a little cautious to say the science is proven yet. Certainly some people are devoid of honesty and integrity (on both sides) just as some are sincere (on both sides).

The science that seems to be more confirmed is that ICE produces harmful emissions and for this reason alone EVs must replace ICE and converting from fossil fuels to renewables makes for a compeling argument where ever possible.

Because we now have technology that allows us to choose alternatives that almost all of us agree will improve our air it doesn't really matter if the climate change/global warming is proven or not, it is at the very least not harmful and at the very most tremendously important. For a "by product" of clean air what's not to like?!

carlk | 31 marts 2017

@ken.hixson If you listen only to scientists, provided that you have at least basic understanding of science, instead of politicians you will have a very clear idea if it is real.

brando | 31 marts 2017

Very complex, big planet, lack of world wide data. No one knows the details good, OK, or bad. As Elon says, just one big experiment and why would you risk your home planet with such a needless experiment?

Not to worry, we are doing many other things we KNOW are bad. A few of these things include
Atomic bombs, Atomic waste, 600,000,000,000 - yes billion - pounds of plastic made every year and only about 10% re-cycled at least 1.5% and may be closer to 5% added to the oceans each year. Mercury from coal and now gold mining (all fish around the world contain some mercury so everyone is warned) Over 50% of the world trees cut down in the last 200 years (what could go wrong?) Our food supplies, well just look around and try to find vegatable with actual taste. Fisheries, Salmon the latest (Fukushima, Plastics, just pollution in general, over fishing? we don't even know or industry keeps it a secret?)

The one thing man has complete control over, as we invented it, money and our economies, how is that going?
Million homes a year get foreclosed per year since 2009 (11 million so far) only about 500,000 people in US go bankrupt from medical bills (no, not the poor, they don't have any assets too lose).

You get my drift. Yet how many will even try to not drive one day a week? Or how about only driving one day per week end? How many can even walk half an hour some where and walk back home? When is the last time you did that? Well, our world isn't designed for walking.

Conserve your money, which will help conserve the planet. Waste less, eat fresh foods. Take care of your friends and they may return the favor one day.

brando | 31 marts 2017

Please internet search any of the above to learn for yourself.

Remnant | 2 april 2017

@brando (March 31, 2017)

<< The one thing man has complete control over ... money and our economies, how is that going? >>

We should disagree with the premise of this message.

Control should mean control over consequences – such as an ability to grade them, arrest them, or select the targets at will.

None of that occurs with our money.

The only way money works as a civilizing/control tool is if money is NOT politicized, which means if money is a mere expression of private property, free trade, competition, and unimpeded market pricing of goods and services.

Paper money and any government-issued/certified money is not market money. Only commodity money could fulfill that function. Property and liberty rules MUST apply, if we are to preserve civilization against barbarians.

A terrorist can trigger a calamity, but has no control of the consequent events. Calamity is unidimensional in both intent and unfolding as its metrics are mindless pain and destruction. The participation of money is incidental, as a misappropriated and illegitimate resource.

Once money is "weaponized", it changes identity from a tool of civilization into a fiendish tool of subterfuge and depredation. Money becomes an impostor and blaming it for the evil it's been used for holds no blame in itself. The blame should squarely belong with the perverted minds misusing it.

SCCRENDO | 2 april 2017

@Remnant. Describing the Trump family I guess

Dramsey | 2 april 2017

@carlk,

"If you listen only to scientists, provided that you have at least basic understanding of science, instead of politicians you will have a very clear idea if it is real."

Your faith in scientists may be misplaced. Science _as a process_ is an amazing thing; _scientists_, though, are human, not abstract ideas; and they remain subject to human frailties like error, pride, temptation, and confirmation bias. I see no reason to trust scientists, as a class, and more than I trust any other group of people. Certainly no more, than, say, Nobel Prize-winning economists who declaim that the stock market will never recover after the wrong politician is elected.

(I especially see no reason to trust people who run scientific institutions, who are rarely scientists themselves.)

And, of course, science is always changing. People of my age will remember the Nutritional Pyramid, wherein we learned that all fat was bad and that a diet heavily based on carbs was the way to go. For decades that wasn't even vaguely controversial. It was a simpler, more innocent time. Ulcers were created by stress, not bacteria. Continents were immovable. Non-ionizing EM radiation from home appliances was harmful. Et cetera.

A basic understanding of science definitely helps, though. For example, if you know about "significant figures" and "margin of error", you'll know to be skeptical when someone tells you they can provide temperature readings accurate to a thousandth of a degree with instruments that have a margin of error more than 10 times larger.

I leave you with this interesting article from Nature, probably the most widely respected scientific journal in the world:

http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibil...

Money quote: "More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments."

RedShift | 2 april 2017

Yeah, so it's good to ignore all scientists and conduct an experiment on planet earth. Awesome. Let me sell my Tesla and buy a hummer.

MitchP85D | 2 april 2017

Hey Mr. Redshift sir, our whiling rocky sphere in time and space has done this experiment already, many times in the past! What were the results? Life flourished!

rxlawdude | 2 april 2017

And it's easy to see how Trump got elected, what with the geniuses here spewing Ayn Rand "I got mine so f@ck you!" philosophy. Only most Trump voters are yet to discover the consequences. Sad.

RedShift | 2 april 2017

Let me buy ten Hummers then. I want life to flourish. You, Mr Mitch are a cad. You are still driving around in that pestilential anti- life wagon called a Tesla. Nothing says 'flourish, life!' like a Hummer.

brando | 2 april 2017

Seems the planet has gone through more than one mass extinction. Life recovered, just not the same life that died off. The planet won't disappear for at least another billion years when the Sun may engulf the planet. Whether man manages to continue remains to be seen. Civilizations seem to have come and gone. How many things learned forgotten and some relearned.

NKYTA | 2 april 2017

@Dramsey

"Your faith in scientists may be misplaced. Science _as a process_ is an amazing thing; _scientists_, though, are human, not abstract ideas; and they remain subject to human frailties like error, pride"

The problem is our WH has only the last one. None of the former.

Can we call it hubris, please? Just short of NPD, being generous?

Remnant | 3 april 2017

@rxlawdude (April 2, 2017)

<< And it's easy to see how Trump got elected, what with the geniuses here spewing Ayn Rand "I got mine so f@ck you!" philosophy. Only most Trump voters are yet to discover the consequences. Sad. >>

Beside going unhinged in the use of expletives and demonstrating that you are totally prejudiced and incapable of sentient thought, why you would want to post anything at all?

SamO | 3 april 2017

1. That's not an expletive. that's a "stand-in"

2. He wasn't using it on someone. Just using it to describe their philosophy. And if the $hit fits, then wear it.

Use of expletive, BTW, is not evidence of lack of "sentient" thought or of prejudice. It usually signifies anger.

ken.hixson | 5 april 2017

I think brando articulated well. Truth never changes but our understanding and our science does. The more we learn the more we "prove" and the more we discover. Sometimes we even discover we were wrong. Not saying I don't lean toward beliving in climate change but as brando brought up Elon in saying our Earth is an experiment and why risk it is sound advise regardless of proven science and my point/philosophy as well.

We all know pretty conclusively that if you run an ICE vehicle in a closed garage long enough pretty much all human beings in the garage will die. Changing from ICE, which creates harmful gases, to EV which doesn't produce any emissions is from an emissions point of view a good thing. If emissions do contribute to climate change, a far longer "experiment" before conclusive proof can be confirmed, then ICE to EV can only be a good thing, but even if not a contributor to climate change where is the harm?. At worse no impact, at best, big impact.

You do not always need proof of harm to change.

Thanks for being respectful to my comments, I really like the discourse and we do not need to agree on everything to learn.

massimob30 | 5 april 2017

Brando nailed it. You move forward on arguments that you know you can win. Green energy is certainly much cleaner and healthier for us all, and that should be the crux for moving it forward.

finman100 | 5 april 2017

So far, not a single policy by our current administration has done anything for green energy. Oh wait, the green may be $$$. oh, I see now...

How one votes and puts in power those who can (and do) make these kinds of decisions is pretty important. Talk is way cheap. If a certain someone promises coal, how do you rationalize it's a better solution than re-directing those jobs to green energy jobs? I don't get the double-speak. I get even less why people aren't thinking at all.

ken.hixson | 5 april 2017

Yes, little evidence that Trump and Obama agree on what to promote and what to repress and we are probably seeing some 180 degree changes in direction on some issues. I doubt Trump will ever come close to championing green energy like Obama and others before him have.

I haven't found anyone that agrees 100% with me on all things . . . except me! I didn't like everything Obama did, Bush did, Clinton did, or Reagan did; and I did like somethings each one of them did. I know I will not like everything Trump will do or has already done, this subject included. Is this decision driven by the almighty dollar, highly probable.

Not certain to whom to give the credit but "follow the money" seems to be correct in most things political, regardless of the left vs right of the spectrum. If all I wanted was a transportation device I would not have purchased my Tesla. You can follow that money right back to I wanted to put my money where my mouth is and found in Elon a vision I could embrace and a product I needed and would also support the environment. I have solar panels and produce enough for both my home and vehicle consumption.

NKYTA | 5 april 2017

@ken, always follow the money.

Always contact your Reps and Sens.

massimob30 | 6 april 2017

Ken - rational thinking like yours has no place here. For as much as people here demonize Trump for being anti-green energy, Democrats also voted in favor of trade deals that sent jobs to countries with lower (or none at all) environmental standards.

MitchP85D | 6 april 2017

Mr. ken.hixon sir, you seem like a reasonable sort of feller. But I do have to comment on your running car in the garage eventually killing everybody in the garage issue. If you have a group of human beings in a sealed room where no air can get in or out, everybody in that room will eventually die of asphyxiation.

RedShift | 6 april 2017

Or, if the rate of air coming in or going out is too small to affect the concentration of toxic gases.

FREE ENERGY | 6 april 2017

A change, sure it is...casued by humans...NO !
50% explaing by cosmic radition, 50% due to the key component, The SUN !

Jcollins | 6 april 2017

The very recent National Geographic article on global warming was interesting from a number of perspectives not the least of which was that more people are employed in renewable energy jobs in the U.S. than oil, coal, and natural gas combined. Imo, the ship has sailed on justifying fossil fuels any longer.

MitchP85D | 6 april 2017

RedShift, that is why I stated a sealed room. Some people commit suicide with carbon monoxide poisoning by running a car in their garage. Put a bag over your head and sealing it accomplishes the same thing. Oxygen will be depleted, thus asphyxiation. Our awesome plant kingdom will prevent us from asphyxiating ourselves.

Remnant | 6 april 2017

@MitchP85D (April 6, 2017)

<< Our awesome plant kingdom will prevent us from asphyxiating ourselves. >>

So, rather than a Carbon tax, we should perhaps develop a reforestation program, throughout the world.

SO | 6 april 2017

Chris Wallace put it best....,what if you're wrong?

I'd rather error on having cleaner energy and less dependence on oil vs keeping with the status quo.

SO | 6 april 2017

@Mitch - Our awesome plant kingdom will prevent us from asphyxiating ourselves.

Why do people solely keep focusing on CO2. Do you not think there are other bad chemicals being released when burning fossil fuels?

Talk about people focusing on the wrong thing. Regardless whether you believe in CO2 climate change, you cannot possibly deny that there are other bad ramifications of using fossil fuels as much as we do. Why is this even a debate?

RedShift | 6 april 2017

@mitch

I have previously asked you or one of your minions to look up net CO2. If you can do that, or understand why that's important, we don't have anything to discuss. You can keep waxing eloquent about how plant kingdom will miraculously clean up our shit. Doesn't have an iota of credibility.

RedShift | 6 april 2017

*if you CAN'T do that not 'can'

ken.hixson | 6 april 2017

Mitch --
You are more correct than I was! Thanks.

I just hope that over time we will find EVs are positive contributors to our only available environment. When I first heard of EVs the thought of filling our landfills with lead-acid batteries made me question which would be worse, polluting the air or the ground water. My how things have changed . . . but I still have a lead-acid in the Tesla :(

RedShift | 6 april 2017

You have a lead acid in most every vehicle on the road today. Also, please check lead acid battery recycling, something like 99% of the lead is recycled.

SCCRENDO | 7 april 2017

Mitch. Please take a basic science course. Of course if we had enough plants we could take care of all the excess CO2 that is produced. But we are deforesting at a rapid rate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_and_climate_change
The idea would be to reforest and cut down on CO2 emissions simultaneously to prevent CO2 buildup. But I guess if we could plant enough trees we could take care of all the excess CO2 we produce.
Carbon monoxide and other pollutants are toxic to mankind. This is an additional but separate problem from the excessive CO2 that you and your fellow science illiterates fail to grasp.

Remnant | 7 april 2017

@SO_S90D (April 6, 2017)

<< I'd rather [err] on having cleaner energy and less dependence on oil vs keeping with the status quo. >>

"Error" means Dollars and Cents and Human Suffering.

Clean energy is not competitive yet, though it's slowly getting there (M3 might be the tipping point).

Expediting it would not be just expensive, but fraught with unforeseen pain.

SCCRENDO | 7 april 2017

Addendum. In fact reforestation on its own may not solve the climate change problem because the situation is complex. Interesting article from Scientific. American. So I guess we do need to keep our CO2 emmsions down
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tropical-forests-cool-earth/

massimob30 | 7 april 2017

SO_S90D

Your reference to the Chris Wallace statement is the best answer to this issue. Cleaner energy and environment isn't debatable. Before, it could have been argued that cost was problematic, but that is becoming less of an issue with better tech and competition.

SO | 7 april 2017

@remnant-""Error" means Dollars and Cents and Human Suffering."

I think too few of people put an accurate price of the true cost of using oil. Some would argue that there has been a LOT of human sacrifice over oil.

SCCRENDO | 7 april 2017

@Remnant. Would you not consider sea level rise, massive flooding and starvation and a polluted environment unforeseen pain? You seem to think that money conquers all pain..

codyb12889 | 8 april 2017

There are no real numbers backing it but I believe in the next 5 - 10 years electric vehicles are going to start putting a hurt on big oil in the same way that natural gas has.

Ride sharing seems that it is going to cause a breakout on the normal trends in consumer vehicle adoption. Currently the average vehicle age on the road is something like 11.5 years thanks to people not being able to afford new vehicles or being unwilling to upgrade unless their current vehicle just dies. Ride sharing apps are getting closer to killing personal car ownership in larger cities where vehicle ownership can be extremely expensive and by necessity many of the people who make their living on those apps will switch to EVs to lower costs.

I have exclusively used ride sharing for about a year now and for my area I have not seen more people more excited about the M3 and EVs in general than those drivers.

janendan | 8 april 2017

We know full well that congress is for sale, the health care system bankrupts people, most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, tens of trillions of trickle down supply-side $ sit in off-shore tax shelters,....well, that's us. Americans, capitalizing on the weak.

MitchP85D | 8 april 2017

Hey Redshift, SCCRENDO, take a look at what NASA discovered!

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-g...

Yep, the earth is getting GREENER!!! Are you two shocked, mortified, horrified by that?

vp09 | 8 april 2017

Brando said: "Take care of your friends and they may return the favor one day."

Well put Sir.

I've heard it said this way: "Live simply, so that others may simply live."

vp09 | 8 april 2017

Dramsey, you wrote: "People of my age will remember the Nutritional Pyramid, wherein we learned that all fat was bad and that a diet heavily based on carbs was the way to go. For decades that wasn't even vaguely controversial."

Sugar is toxic. It is a poison.

Western civilization has been condemned to insulin resistance, Metabolic Syndrome, diabetes, obesity, and all the diseases of "Western Civilization" because of Big Sugar.

Are you familiar with the writings of Gary Taubes? Why We Get Fat (2011)? The Case Against Sugar (2017)?

vp09 | 8 april 2017

>>> There are no real numbers backing it but I believe in the next 5 - 10 years electric vehicles are going to start putting a hurt on big oil in the same way that natural gas has

Cody B I'm going to say that you are wrong in your prediction.

But I hope I am wrong.

I'm thinking that continuing advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of shale oil deposits will continue to place our country (the U.S. of A.) among the leading petro exporters.

vp09 | 8 april 2017

SAMo, I love your posts, but tell me how President Trump is, or has been, in the pocket of Big Oil, as Hillary Clinton was in the pocket of Big Labor, Big Hollywood, Big Media, Big Sugar, Big Tobacco, Big Everything in The Establishment .... >>> DONALD TRUMP IS treating the health of the planet as a short sell. The deadly game? Make as much money for big oil as possible before the planet goes up in flames.

Pages