Scientists Almost Definitely Lied About Global Warming

Although they are to science what Breitbart is to journalism.

I think it’s pretty valid to say that some scientific positions on climate change were manipulated.

In the 1950s, sugar companies paid off scientists to manipulate findings that “downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat,” even though not all fat is bad for you. In fact, “refined sugar impacts risk [of heart disease] more.“

Eating sugar is a longstanding tradition in the United States, and so is avoiding saturated fat. But if you look at the science, it makes no sense.

Unfortunately, ignoring science seems to be well on its way to becoming a celebrated American pastime. My buddy told me he joined in on a “Let’s go Science!” chant at the Women’s March. That should be comical. Instead, it feels important.

Now, let me ask you: Who has the biggest stake in Global Warming being a hoax in the United States? Who most wants it to be fiction and scientifically unsound?

Answer: Oil companies, big banks with stakes in oil companies, hedge fund pools with big oil company interest, billionaire oil barons, and politicians who get elected with the help of oil money. These are to 2017 what big sugar companies were to 1950. “Oil is great/Sugar is great. Renewable energy is a waste of time/Fat is bad for you. Science is bad/Science is bad.”

And by bad, they mean bad for business.

Those with the biggest stake in Big Oil also happen to be entities with the most unfettered power in this country (Trump for starters, but even more so the Koch brothers). Do you really think scientists are immune to the question: “What would you do for a million bucks?” Do you really think people that rich and powerful and unfeeling don’t ask that question to those who stand in their way?

I’m just asking questions.

All it takes is a few scientists to say yes to a bribe and claim climate change research is inconclusive and illegitimate to instill doubt, and all the GOP has to do is say: “Not everyone in the scientific community agrees.” They can even say “many scientists disagree,” even though it’s a tiny percentage.

If the renewable energy industry was even mildly close to as big as the oil industry, I would concede that bribery of the vast majority of the scientific community could have possibly (but almost certainly not) happened. Money can make people do some really, really awful shit.

But the oil companies are in the stratosphere, and renewable energy companies are somewhere buried underneath the earth’s crust in comparison.

To put it in perspective, the global clean energy market is worth $1.35 trillion. Sound like a lot? The global fossil fuel industry receives $5.3 trillion in tax subsidies alone. That’s “greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.”

Now we have the recent development of Standing Rock and the Dakota Access Pipeline. What once felt like an enormous victory against the worst human beings on the planet (and white supremacy as a whole) became a gut-wrenching realization of long-term futility on November 8, 2016, a realization officially validated on January 24, 2017.

If they’re willing to break treaties, risk infecting the water supply, and hose down people in freezing temperatures despite resounding opposition — and after rerouting it away from an area of white people when they raised concerns — just to make a buck, do you really think it’s beyond their scope to bribe scientists? Do you really consider a scientist who looks at the evidence for climate change and calls it illegitimate ethically (or, let’s be real, morally) beyond reproach?

I’m just asking questions.

And here’s a challenge. Find me one news source that calls human-based emissions the cause of climate change that has a personal stake in the renewable energy industry. Find me a study funded by the renewable energy industry.

I’ll wait.

And if you didn’t just scramble to try, here’s some evidence of how all of the above bribery speculation is pretty goddamn valid:

“A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show,” reported The Guardian, and the full story can be read here.

The Guardian is owned by The Scott Trust Limited, a trust created “to secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference.”

Some would say that the keyword there is “liberal.” I’d say the keywords are “free from commercial or political interference,” especially when you consider the fact that “its profits are reinvested in journalism and do not benefit a proprietor or shareholders.”

The worst companies for humanity have historically been the worst companies for scientific integrity.

You know how Big Tobacco manipulated studies? By the time scientific evidence of its incredible harm became widely accepted and common knowledge, it was too late for many people who died from lung cancer, heart disease, and all the other health problems scientifically proven to arise from smoking, not to mention fetal and infant complications.

And consider this: smoking is a choice. We have no control over the air we breathe or the water we drink or the weather we endure (at least not most of us.)

It’s probably going to be too late for us too, so fuck it, we might as well all pick up smoking.

Please give whatever you can to the Official Standing Rock Sioux Tribe DAPL Donation Fund.

Follow me on here or on Twitter. Let’s keep building our network.

And check out my podcast Eat the Rich!