Epoch Times CFO Bill Guan is charged in alleged $67 million global money laundering scheme

[Reasonably Sane]

Soon had served as one of the few climate deniers with a science background referenced by climate-denying politicians. The news further debunks Exxon's claim that the company had stopped funding climate deniers in 2007, as Exxon provided more than $300,000 in funding to Soon.

Technically, it's bribery. They were paying Soon to adjust his findings to fit their wishes.


In Soon's case. But that's not a common thing. Because a scientist is in big trouble if his findings can't be reproduced, it's dangerous to do what Soon did.

"Research by Greenpeace exposes Willie Soon as having failed to disclose that Exxon and other fossil fuel interests funded his research. Soon had served as one of the few climate deniers with a science background referenced by climate-denying politicians. The news further debunks Exxon’s claim that the company had stopped funding climate deniers in 2007, as Exxon provided more than $300,000 in funding to Soon between 2005 and 2010."


No. It would be so, if an engineer was paid by Volkswagon to fake emissions test results.

What we know: the Volkswagen emissions test fraud scandal

BERLIN (AP) — Just one week ago Volkswagen was a company oozing confidence, the world's best-selling automaker with a global brand that appealed to car buyers seeking trustworthy German engineering at an affordable price.

apnews.com

That is what Soon was paid to do.

Yes. Most scientists would not be willing to fake research for money. It's not just a matter of honest; it's dangerous, since such research tends to be checked by others.


Me either. Soon as an unfortunate example, but an uncommon one. Most scientists are more honest than that. On principle and because it's not safe to do that kind of thing.


They got caught. No point in denial.

(YouTube video offered as evidence)

Give us a checkable link, and you've got something.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what Soon presented that was false.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what Soon presented that was false.

Willie Soon has been exposed for unethically promoting flawed science​

• In 2015, a joint investigation by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center found that Soon had accepted over $1.2 million in funding from fossil fuel companies for his research. Soon’s work was funded “almost entirely” by the fossil fuels industry, including Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. [The Guardian, 2/21/15]
  
• Soon described his papers as “deliverables” to his corporate funders. Emails revealed that one of the country’s largest utility holding companies, Southern Company, paid Soon to publish research examining the sun’s role in driving climate change. At the time, Southern relied heavily on coal. Scientists have long recognized that solar activity cannot be responsible for the rapid warming that the planet has experienced in recent decades. [The New York Times, 2/21/15; Inside Climate News, 2/21/15; NASA, accessed 1/11/24]
  
• The investigation also found that Soon failed to disclose his relationship with Southern Company in some of his research papers, violating ethical guidelines upheld by scientific journals. Despite accepting more than $400,000 from the company, Soon insisted he had no conflicts of interest, raising the alarm for academics and scientists. His papers, which have been published in top scientific journals, push a “range of climate-denial perspectives.” [Inside Climate News, 2/21/15]

So he was paid to write reports that contradicted known facts about the cause of climate change, and then lied to journals about being paid off by energy companies.

Even Exxon eventually dumped him.

 

[Merrill]

Willie Soon has been exposed for unethically promoting flawed science​

• In 2015, a joint investigation by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center found that Soon had accepted over $1.2 million in funding from fossil fuel companies for his research. Soon’s work was funded “almost entirely” by the fossil fuels industry, including Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. [The Guardian, 2/21/15]
  
• Soon described his papers as “deliverables” to his corporate funders. Emails revealed that one of the country’s largest utility holding companies, Southern Company, paid Soon to publish research examining the sun’s role in driving climate change. At the time, Southern relied heavily on coal. Scientists have long recognized that solar activity cannot be responsible for the rapid warming that the planet has experienced in recent decades. [The New York Times, 2/21/15; Inside Climate News, 2/21/15; NASA, accessed 1/11/24]
  
• The investigation also found that Soon failed to disclose his relationship with Southern Company in some of his research papers, violating ethical guidelines upheld by scientific journals. Despite accepting more than $400,000 from the company, Soon insisted he had no conflicts of interest, raising the alarm for academics and scientists. His papers, which have been published in top scientific journals, push a “range of climate-denial perspectives.” [Inside Climate News, 2/21/15]

So he was paid to write reports that contradicted known facts about the cause of climate change, and then lied to journals about being paid off by energy companies.

Even Exxon eventually dumped him.

Translation = if any climate scientist does any kind of work for fossil fuel companies (and many do), it doesn't matter what the conclusions of their research are, as we can assume it is all incorrect and propaganda

and

Government-funded, and university-funded climate scientists, who are paid to study climate change, will always be correct.

In other words, why bother looking at the actual science? Why bother considering the merits of any argument?

Not saying Soon is correct, but your objection to him amounts to a garbage ad-hominem. Whether or not he received payment from a private entity for producing research is totally irrelevant.

 

[The Barbarian]

Willie Soon has been exposed for unethically promoting flawed science​

• In 2015, a joint investigation by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center found that Soon had accepted over $1.2 million in funding from fossil fuel companies for his research. Soon’s work was funded “almost entirely” by the fossil fuels industry, including Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. [The Guardian, 2/21/15]
• Soon described his papers as “deliverables” to his corporate funders. Emails revealed that one of the country’s largest utility holding companies, Southern Company, paid Soon to publish research examining the sun’s role in driving climate change. At the time, Southern relied heavily on coal. Scientists have long recognized that solar activity cannot be responsible for the rapid warming that the planet has experienced in recent decades. [The New York Times, 2/21/15; Inside Climate News, 2/21/15; NASA, accessed 1/11/24]
• The investigation also found that Soon failed to disclose his relationship with Southern Company in some of his research papers, violating ethical guidelines upheld by scientific journals. Despite accepting more than $400,000 from the company, Soon insisted he had no conflicts of interest, raising the alarm for academics and scientists. His papers, which have been published in top scientific journals, push a “range of climate-denial perspectives.” [Inside Climate News, 2/21/15]

So he was paid to write reports that contradicted known facts about the cause of climate change, and then lied to journals about being paid off by energy companies.

Even Exxon eventually dumped him.

Translation = if any climate scientist does any kind of work for fossil fuel companies...

... and gets paid off to produce "deliverables" that say what the companies want, while lying about his ethical issues to scientific journals, his reputation and career are in the toilet.

In other words, why bother looking at the actual science?

That's what Willy seems to have concluded.

Not saying Soon is correct

Writing "deliverables" to spec for companies while presenting them as legitimate research papers and hiding his conflicts of interest is considered wrong, yes.

but your objection to him amounts to a garbage ad-hominem

Perhaps you don't know what "ad hominem" means (it's not hyphenated, BTW).

The various types of ad hominem arguments have been known in the West since at least the ancient Greeks. Aristotle, in his work Sophistical Refutations, detailed the fallaciousness of putting the questioner but not the argument under scrutiny.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The argument is that Soon was ethically irresponsible in presenting his work as that of an indepenant scientist and in lying to scientific journals about his ethical problems.

Soon might be a very good person otherwise. But there's no need to go after his character; it's his behavior that's on the table for discussion.

Maybe you should look up what the term means for yourself. It does not mean that it's illogical to call out someone for lying as Soon did.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what Soon presented that was false.

I'm trying to figure out what Soon has to do with money laundering at a RW newspaper published by a cult. Is Soon in Fulan Gong?

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm trying to figure out what Soon has to do with money laundering at a RW newspaper published by a cult.

Apparently someone brought up climate and dishonesty. As you might expect, Soon showed up on a search.

I think Soon is actually Korean. Fulan Gong is a Chinese cult that apparently makes QAnon look like your local Lions Club.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Apparently someone brought up climate and dishonesty. As you might expect, Soon showed up on a search.

I think Soon is actually Korean. Fulan Gong is a Chinese cult that apparently makes QAnon look like your local Lions Club.

Never heard of Soon.

 

[The Barbarian]

Never heard of Soon.

He's an astronmer, but he had pretty good academic credentials for some things...

Willie Soon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Turns out, he's Malaysian, not Korean.

 

[Hans Blaster]

He's an astronmer, but he had pretty good academic credentials for some things...

Willie Soon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Turns out, he's Malaysian, not Korean.

Oh that guy at CfA. I remember reading about him a few years ago.

 

[Merrill]

Willie Soon has been exposed for unethically promoting flawed science​

• In 2015, a joint investigation by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center found that Soon had accepted over $1.2 million in funding from fossil fuel companies for his research. Soon’s work was funded “almost entirely” by the fossil fuels industry, including Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. [The Guardian, 2/21/15]
• Soon described his papers as “deliverables” to his corporate funders. Emails revealed that one of the country’s largest utility holding companies, Southern Company, paid Soon to publish research examining the sun’s role in driving climate change. At the time, Southern relied heavily on coal. Scientists have long recognized that solar activity cannot be responsible for the rapid warming that the planet has experienced in recent decades. [The New York Times, 2/21/15; Inside Climate News, 2/21/15; NASA, accessed 1/11/24]
• The investigation also found that Soon failed to disclose his relationship with Southern Company in some of his research papers, violating ethical guidelines upheld by scientific journals. Despite accepting more than $400,000 from the company, Soon insisted he had no conflicts of interest, raising the alarm for academics and scientists. His papers, which have been published in top scientific journals, push a “range of climate-denial perspectives.” [Inside Climate News, 2/21/15]

So he was paid to write reports that contradicted known facts about the cause of climate change, and then lied to journals about being paid off by energy companies.

Even Exxon eventually dumped him.


... and gets paid off to produce "deliverables" that say what the companies want, while lying about his ethical issues to scientific journals, his reputation and career are in the toilet.


That's what Willy seems to have concluded.

Writing "deliverables" to spec for companies while presenting them as legitimate research papers and hiding his conflicts of interest is considered wrong, yes.


Perhaps you don't know what "ad hominem" means (it's not hyphenated, BTW).

The various types of ad hominem arguments have been known in the West since at least the ancient Greeks. Aristotle, in his work Sophistical Refutations, detailed the fallaciousness of putting the questioner but not the argument under scrutiny.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The argument is that Soon was ethically irresponsible in presenting his work as that of an indepenant scientist and in lying to scientific journals about his ethical problems.

Soon might be a very good person otherwise. But there's no need to go after his character; it's his behavior that's on the table for discussion.

Maybe you should look up what the term means for yourself. It does not mean that it's illogical to call out someone for lying as Soon did.

"investigation by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center"

Climate Investigations Center - InfluenceWatch

The Climate Investigations Center (CIC) is a center-left environmental journalism group critical of oil and natural gas producers. It is a project of Our Next Economy, a limited liability company (LLC). CIC has received substantial funding from the Sustainable Markets Foundation, a...

www.influencewatch.org

"The Climate Investigations Center (CIC) is a center-left environmental journalism group critical of oil and natural gas producers."

So not even scientists, but left-wing journalists

"CIC has received substantial funding from the Sustainable Markets Foundation, a left-of-center environmentalist pass-through grantmaker funded by major environmentalist groups and center-left foundations"

"critics have argued that the Climate Investigations Center is secretive about its own sources of funding"

And I don't even need to go into the reliability or seriousness of Greenpeace --that outfit is filled with whack-jobs and activists

No Dr. Soon may be wrong about his solar activity hypothesis, but that isn't what is at issue here. Soon taking money from private corporations and giving them "deliverables" (which is what you call research papers someone pays you to write) doesn't mean his science is bad.

Most climate scientists are literally paid to study climate change--are you going to tell me the don't have conflicts-of-interest as well?

Whenever a scientist publicly states that he or she disagrees with some of the IPCC findings or has an alternative theory, the MSM attacks that person as a "denialist", questions their credibility, assigns guilt-by-association, and accuses them of deception.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Willie Soon has been exposed for unethically promoting flawed science​

• In 2015, a joint investigation by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center found that Soon had accepted over $1.2 million in funding from fossil fuel companies for his research. Soon’s work was funded “almost entirely” by the fossil fuels industry, including Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. [The Guardian, 2/21/15]
  
• Soon described his papers as “deliverables” to his corporate funders. Emails revealed that one of the country’s largest utility holding companies, Southern Company, paid Soon to publish research examining the sun’s role in driving climate change. At the time, Southern relied heavily on coal. Scientists have long recognized that solar activity cannot be responsible for the rapid warming that the planet has experienced in recent decades. [The New York Times, 2/21/15; Inside Climate News, 2/21/15; NASA, accessed 1/11/24]
  
• The investigation also found that Soon failed to disclose his relationship with Southern Company in some of his research papers, violating ethical guidelines upheld by scientific journals. Despite accepting more than $400,000 from the company, Soon insisted he had no conflicts of interest, raising the alarm for academics and scientists. His papers, which have been published in top scientific journals, push a “range of climate-denial perspectives.” [Inside Climate News, 2/21/15]

So he was paid to write reports that contradicted known facts about the cause of climate change, and then lied to journals about being paid off by energy companies.

Even Exxon eventually dumped him.

I'm confused. None of the stuff above exposes flawed science. And of course reports are deliverables. When are they NOT deliverables? How was the content flawed science? Also, regardless, Soon is one man, just as Mann is one man. Don't stain the entire argument of one side because there "may be" one bad apple in the group.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm confused. None of the stuff above exposes flawed science.

Any time that a researcher fits his reports to anyone who is paying him to do so, it's flawed. Likewise, lying to journals about conflicts of interest means that the journal cannot trust his papers.

And of course reports are deliverables. When are they NOT deliverables?

When people with vested interest to slant the paper in a particular direction are NOT paying the researcher.

Soon is one man

One corrupt scientist doesn't mean that they all are. But it shows how money can skew reports by people who are willing to bend the truth for that money.

 

[The Barbarian]

So not even scientists, but left-wing journalists

It's a fact that Soon lied to journals about his conflicts of interest. Wouldn't matter who found the truth.

"CIC has received substantial funding from the Sustainable Markets Foundation, a left-of-center environmentalist pass-through grantmaker funded by major environmentalist groups and center-left foundations"

But of course, they don't submit papers to scientific journals. Try to stay focused.

"critics have argued that the Climate Investigations Center is secretive about its own sources of funding"

But of course, they don't submit papers to scientific journals. Try to stay focused.

Dr. Soon may be wrong about his solar activity hypothesis, but that isn't what is at issue here.

What's at issue is that he wrote his reports to the satisfaction of businesses who paid him for it. And then he lied to the journals about that conflict of interest. That's what matters.

Whenever a scientist publicly states that he or she disagrees with some of the IPCC findings or has an alternative theory, the MSM attacks that person as a "denialist",

In this case, Soon was criticized for writing papers to suit businesses, who paid him to write what they wanted, while lying to journals about they pay-offs.

 

[Merrill]

It's a fact that Soon lied to journals about his conflicts of interest. Wouldn't matter who found the truth.

But of course, they don't submit papers to scientific journals. Try to stay focused.

But of course, they don't submit papers to scientific journals. Try to stay focused.


What's at issue is that he wrote his reports to the satisfaction of businesses who paid him for it. And then he lied to the journals about that conflict of interest. That's what matters.


In this case, Soon was criticized for writing papers to suit businesses, who paid him to write what they wanted, while lying to journals about they pay-offs.

The organizations you cited review and criticize scientific papers / journals, it doesn't matter that the organization itself does not submit papers

the individual members of CIC do submit papers --you are the one who is unfocused here, and I have no idea what kind of point you are trying to make.

"What's at issue is that he wrote his reports to the satisfaction of businesses who paid him for it"

and researchers who produce reports for university departments and activist groups committed to promoting climate change do the exact same thing--they are being paid to promote specific conclusions in the realms of geology, atmospheric science, etc.

doesn't mean they are wrong (they could be), but it means that they have conflicts-of-interest

no one "paid off" Soon. He was hired to do research, and those who don't like his conclusions resort to character-assassination rather than producing thoughtful rebuttals using actual science.

If you don't want me objecting to your posts on this, stop citing trash organizations like the CIC and Greenpeace.

 

[The Barbarian]

The organizations you cited review and criticize scientific papers / journals, it doesn't matter that the organization itself does not submit papers

Yep. So they're just another advocacy group. Like Willy Soon and some energy companies. The difference is they didn't submit faked reports for pay, and they didn't lie to journals about conflicts of interest.

Soon's claims are completely debunked now. We just went through a solar minimum and global temperatures went up to record levels. But he wouldn't have gotten paid by Exxon, if he has admitted the truth in his papers.

the individual members of CIC do submit papers

And they do indeed disclose their membership. Unlike Soon, they behave ethically and responsibly. Oh, and their findings have been since verified by subsequent data. Three major differences, um?

What's at issue is that Soon wrote his reports to the satisfaction of businesses who paid him for it.

and researchers who produce reports for university departments and activist groups committed to promoting climate change do the exact same thing

Researchers don't produce reports for "university departments." They submit them to journals. And as you learned, they honestly report conflict of interest issues.

no one "paid off" Soon.

That's what he gave them the "deliverables" for. They wanted papers denying the facts, and he delivered. And he was paid off for doing so.

He was hired to do research, and those who don't like his conclusions resort to character-assassination rather than producing thoughtful rebuttals using actual science.

He pretty much wrecked his career when he lied to journals about his conflicts of interest.

If you don't want me objecting to your posts on this

You've really been very useful here.

stop citing trash organizations like the CIC and Greenpeace.

I think that says a great deal more about you than about them.

 

[Merrill]

Yep. So they're just another advocacy group. Like Willy Soon and some energy companies. The difference is they didn't submit faked reports for pay, and they didn't lie to journals about conflicts of interest.

Soon's claims are completely debunked now. We just went through a solar minimum and global temperatures went up to record levels. But he wouldn't have gotten paid by Exxon, if he has admitted the truth in his papers.


And they do indeed disclose their membership. Unlike Soon, they behave ethically and responsibly. Oh, and their findings have been since verified by subsequent data. Three major differences, um?

What's at issue is that Soon wrote his reports to the satisfaction of businesses who paid him for it.


Researchers don't produce reports for "university departments." They submit them to journals. And as you learned, they honestly report conflict of interest issues.


That's what he gave them the "deliverables" for. They wanted papers denying the facts, and he delivered. And he was paid off for doing so.

He pretty much wrecked his career when he lied to journals about his conflicts of interest.


You've really been very useful here.


I think that says a great deal more about you than about them.

And how do you know Dr. Soon's reports were "fake"

what criteria are you basing that on, and what kind of scientific knowledge in this matter are you claiming?

I'll answer that: you have no idea what you are talking about, and instead are parroting a couple hit pieces by far-left activist outfits

we see the same dynamic when people start quoting the ADL or SPLC as if those organizations are somehow accurate or impartial

I can't vouch for the accuracy of Soon's research either, and he could be wrong, but I don't make that assessment based on what some left-wing journalists with even more "conflicts-of-interest" have to say about the matter.

Getting paid to do scientific research by private entities does not mean that research will be invalid or wrong.

Likewise, "consensus" among scientists means nothing if the science is wrong. A few decades ago, it was the "consensus" among astrophysicists that the expansion of the universe was slowing --we then discovered through the Hubbell Space Telescope and additional experimentation that the expansion was accelerating. It was also consensus that the universe was around 13.8 billion years old --but we are now discovering that it may be far older.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Any time that a researcher fits his reports to anyone who is paying him to do so, it's flawed. Likewise, lying to journals about conflicts of interest means that the journal cannot trust his papers.


When people with vested interest to slant the paper in a particular direction are NOT paying the researcher.

One corrupt scientist doesn't mean that they all are. But it shows how money can skew reports by people who are willing to bend the truth for that money.

If they work at a university they are being paid to fill out reports. Now, regarding "fits", you'll have to show me how Soon is doing that. We already know how folks like Mann have done that (e.g. Hide the decline). And we know how folks in academia do it all the time to keep their jobs or funding. The Scientific community is rife with that sort of stuff right now, since some science has been so politicized.

I've not changed my position on global warming alarmists motivation since the early 2000's. That is, all human activity produces CO2. Once you can convince the masses that the government has a legitimate reason to control it, you have put the entire population within such governments into abject slavery. They could even control how often you have sex, or how far you ride your bike or run in the morning. It's absurd on the face of it.

Don't get me wrong. If there truly is a crisis as some have been convinced, well, desperate times call for desperate action. But it's all a hoax. And this article clarifies, though it's only the tip of the iceberg: Why Climate Science Peer Review Is Worthless

Edit: I changed the word, "poverty" to "Slavery", which is what I meant to say in the first place.

 

[The Barbarian]

If they work at a university they are being paid to fill out reports.

"Reports" to a school are not research papers. Thought you knew.

We already know how folks like Mann have done that (e.g. Hide the decline).

Sounds like a QAnon fantasy. Is this about the supposed hidden steps to the dungeon under the Pizzaria?

And we know how folks in academia do it all the time to keep their jobs or funding.

But you can't give us even one example? I know why.

The Scientific community is rife with that sort of stuff right now, since some science has been so politicized.

So you are presenting your imagination as evidence?

I've not changed my position on global warming alarmists motivation since the early 2000's.

Turns out, reality doesn't care what you think. Sorry. Even deniers are now admitting the fact of warming. They just keep trying to blame it on something else.

That is, all human activity produces CO2. Once you can convince the masses that the government has a legitimate reason to control it, you have put the entire population within such governments into abject slavery.

So the government mandating automakers improve milage and reduce emissions is "abject slavery?" Sounds more than a little hysterical to me.

Don't get me wrong. If there truly is a crisis as some have been convinced, well, desperate times call for desperate action. But it's all a hoax.

Some people abused your trust in them...

Exxon Mobil publicly denied global warming for years but quietly predicted it​

Exxon Mobil publicly denied global warming for years but quietly predicted it

Internal research by Exxon Mobil accurately predicted global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels, yet publicly denied the connection.

www.latimes.com

The Epoch Times prints a range of inaccurate and misleading claims about climate change’s impacts and causes​

The Epoch Times prints a range of inaccurate and misleading claims about climate change’s impacts and causes

Climate change has led to a decades-long decline in Arctic sea ice, putting polar bears – and other Arctic organisms – at risk of significant population declines. Meanwhile, based on all existing evidence, scientists are confident that the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in...

climatefeedback.org

They don't just launder money for right-wing propaganda funding; they dabble in climate denial, too.

And we're back on topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Epoch Times prints a range of inaccurate and misleading claims about climate change’s impacts and causes​

The Epoch Times prints a range of inaccurate and misleading claims about climate change’s impacts and causes

Climate change has led to a decades-long decline in Arctic sea ice, putting polar bears – and other Arctic organisms – at risk of significant population declines. Meanwhile, based on all existing evidence, scientists are confident that the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in...

climatefeedback.org

They don't just launder money for right-wing propaganda funding; they dabble in climate denial, too.

And we're back on topic.

In recent years the ET found profit in pandering to the American right. They claimed that the subscriptions from sales to American rightists kept their paper and media company liquid, but if the indictment is correct, they got at least as much from laundering stolen pre-paid cards.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

"Reports" to a school are not research papers. Thought you knew.

Sounds like a QAnon fantasy. Is this about the supposed hidden steps to the dungeon under the Pizzaria?

But you can't give us even one example? I know why.

So you are presenting your imagination as evidence?

Turns out, reality doesn't care what you think. Sorry. Even deniers are now admitting the fact of warming. They just keep trying to blame it on something else.


So the government mandating automakers improve milage and reduce emissions is "abject slavery?" Sounds more than a little hysterical to me.

Some people abused your trust in them...

Exxon Mobil publicly denied global warming for years but quietly predicted it​

Exxon Mobil publicly denied global warming for years but quietly predicted it

Internal research by Exxon Mobil accurately predicted global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels, yet publicly denied the connection.

www.latimes.com

The Epoch Times prints a range of inaccurate and misleading claims about climate change’s impacts and causes​

The Epoch Times prints a range of inaccurate and misleading claims about climate change’s impacts and causes

Climate change has led to a decades-long decline in Arctic sea ice, putting polar bears – and other Arctic organisms – at risk of significant population declines. Meanwhile, based on all existing evidence, scientists are confident that the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in...

climatefeedback.org

They don't just launder money for right-wing propaganda funding; they dabble in climate denial, too.

And we're back on topic.

"Reports" to a school are not research papers. Thought you knew.

Sounds like a QAnon fantasy. Is this about the supposed hidden steps to the dungeon under the Pizzaria?

But you can't give us even one example? I know why.

So you are presenting your imagination as evidence?

Turns out, reality doesn't care what you think. Sorry. Even deniers are now admitting the fact of warming. They just keep trying to blame it on something else.


So the government mandating automakers improve milage and reduce emissions is "abject slavery?" Sounds more than a little hysterical to me.

Some people abused your trust in them...

Exxon Mobil publicly denied global warming for years but quietly predicted it​

Exxon Mobil publicly denied global warming for years but quietly predicted it

Internal research by Exxon Mobil accurately predicted global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels, yet publicly denied the connection.

www.latimes.com

The Epoch Times prints a range of inaccurate and misleading claims about climate change’s impacts and causes​

The Epoch Times prints a range of inaccurate and misleading claims about climate change’s impacts and causes

Climate change has led to a decades-long decline in Arctic sea ice, putting polar bears – and other Arctic organisms – at risk of significant population declines. Meanwhile, based on all existing evidence, scientists are confident that the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in...

climatefeedback.org

They don't just launder money for right-wing propaganda funding; they dabble in climate denial, too.

And we're back on topic.

Regarding the Epoch times article, it's nothing but someone trying to "debunk" them without giving them the ability to respond. Happens all the time and both sides do it. Regarding the rest, I will simply respond to the whole thing with this: You can lead a horse to water. i.e. I've already responded with links from people that know more than I do, but apparently you've not bothered to avail yourself to the information.

But the bottom line is this is why I normally avoid this topic, evolution, covid, and so much more. It's like Jews and Arabs arguing. It's a waste of time because we have different schemas. I appreciate that you took items one at a time, but I like to focus on one idea per post, generally speaking. Makes responses easier and less of a time wormhole. I gotta get back to practicing...