David Koch's exhibit at the Smithsonian

[meotaku2]

Has no-one written the spike on the end of the graph yet ? It reminds me of the exhibits in the movie Idiocracy.

So when the mass starvations begin to help humans evolve, the Koch brothers are some of the people our descendants will blame.

[gonadcancervictim]

odd how the people who dont like koch's only produce homework assignments and legal papers

thanks for bringing durable goods and chemicals we need to enhance our lives to the market rather than just being parasites like lawyers helping raise healthcare costs

[ninuxy]

Evolving through extreme climate shift!

And how many 100's of millions of us does have to DIE so a few "superior" genes who can ride the wave survive?

Koch and their Kochsucking ilk actually hope for the majority of people on the planet to perish just to pander to their psychologically feel-good theory of "don't worry" so they can continue their ravage of our planet. Lovely.

[yoursaxman]

with all the ambient noise from the camera mic and Dr. Joseph Romm whispering makes this video worthless to me... please get Dr. Romm into a living room somewhere with an iPhone Voice Memo app and record a voice-over.

[robertmike57]

The chart shown to give a bias of climate change can be easily refuted with what was shown on screen. Got to say, just why the fuck shouldn't the rich be taxed so there isn't a Koch name on the exhibit.

[Fordtrucksown]

President Obama flies his personal trainer to the White House from Chicago every week. Talk about pollution... Before you flame me... look it up, his name is Cornell McClellan.

I'm vegetarian btw, so according to the U.N. study, I have a lower carbon footprint than all of you who eat meat and consume other animal products.

[LibertyDownUnder]

There have been peak oil and peak population articles in the papers since the 1920s.

We really need to start filtering out empty gloom predictions from real threats.

The world DOES need to rid itself from oil dependency, but not by turning over the economy over to governments and the IPCC.

If people were just encouraged to be responsible for their own lives - they would think twice before having kids they can't afford.

Education is the key here, not MORE government.

[BubbleGumNipples]

Climate change driving human evolution is a reason to AVOID climate change.

Stupid Koch

[bullybrown]

Who's the man who sits behind the man who works the Koch machine?

[mcgloinm]

This is a paid, political informerchal. They (kochs) want to freely to pollute water, air, ect. so that they can raise their profits at all others expense. To me that's criminal.

[dollar12]

3:59 "I think that this part needs to be removed".

That's right, the part of the display you disagree with needs to be removed. Instead of debating ideas you disagree with just remove them. Because there is no debate when it come to climate science, so, only one side of the debate needs to be heard. The world is dying because you caused it with your modern lifestyle and you need to hand over your money and the liberties that led to such wealth.

[ginckgo]

@dollar12 : replace 'climate science' with 'creationism' and you have your answer, Not all ideas are created equal. Just because it doesn't involve your pet theory,  doesn't mean there is no debate

[you1x2007]

@dollar12 We to debate the world is flat....that bacteria exists ...and whether do humans really breathe air because it cannot be seen.

yr screen name is spot on...dollar (trolling non-conservative, gives conservatives a bad name.).

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 there is a great deal of evidence that shows at certain periods climate changed rapidly and this without human produced carbon dioxide. Also many times in the past history of science 'consensus' and 'dogma' refused any new information that was contrary to widely held opinion. Doubt is essential to good science and anybody today doubting human driven climate change is cast as a denier and this is a real shame for science.

[bobster451]

@CronusPrime Maybe so, but no one has yet produces a "peer reviewed" document in a reliable and accepted journal that has refuted anthropogenic global warming.

Maybe I will change my thoughts when that occurs, but it hasn't and to accept this crap as real science when it is not is stupid.

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 Oh well, I found one by Stephen E. Schwartz of the Atmospheric Science Division of the Brookhaven National Laboratory another one by Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and another good one by Luc Debontridder of the Belgian weather institute and it seems there are a number of credible scientists from many disciplines that are casting doubt and to say it is junk science is indeed 'just stupid'.

[bobster451]

@CronusPrime Please correct my potential strawman. You think that it is fine to discard a consensus in favor of some so-called scientist (of another discipline no less)?

I suppose you believe it proper to go to a chiropractor rather than a cardiologist.

Because that is the kind of "science" you are proposing

When you want science to give answers you must be willing to go to the source that possess the largest potential for a correct answer to a question. Your personal beliefs are second fiddle

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 Strawmen all over the place Bob and non-sequitur. #1 that is his field, #2 his field as applied to nonlinear dynamics in geoscience with support, #3 that is his field.. I am not proposing anything except real science that continues to build on new data and science, once it becomes dogma, becomes junk. My personal belief is your strawman indeed, good word! This reminds me of my debates with fundy religious folks.. :( who will not look any deeper than what is popular.

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 The list of 'consensus' throughout history proven wrong is pretty staggering when you look at it rationally. When you want answers the best thing is to take a look at all the available data for yourself, think for yourself, and form an opinion for yourself regardless of what is popular or a consensus. You asked for 'peer review' I gave it to you, now you wish to move the debate to something else.

[bobster451]

@CronusPrime Yes And science when it discovers problems with a proven theory has adjusted to acknowledge when empirical data and reproduced results will cause a metamorphosis of the theory or it being discarded.

Your problem is to show a peer reviewed (in a qualified science journal, Academy of Science or AAAS) which you cannot.

The consensus matters in science and your attempt to smear it with some kind of conspiracy theory is delusional.

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 Homer, I am not smearing it, I am simply saying there is reason for doubt. but label me if you wish - Strawman again bobster. Show me where your empirical data has been reproduced with results, that is empirical data that has not been adjusted for the results which there also is some question. I believe the Journal of Geophysical research is not just some rag - the only conspiracy theorist commenting here appears to be you. You may even try and think for yourself.

[bobster451]

@CronusPrime One scientist having a different opinion for me is a weak argument for the rejection of the consensus.

If it is not weak for you then so be it.

I still believe that just because you are a billionaire oil man, it is not enough to buy away scientific knowledge and that is what Koch is doing. His position is to create doubt in order to make his business easier and the bottom line better.

Koch is no scientist.

The Smithsonian ought to be a better place that presents real science.

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 you continue to rotate around every point I make and continue putting forth false information. It's not once scientist, not one paper - i mentioned the authors of three papers but there are actually quite a few more, all very qualified to do such research, all doing it as science much more so than Joe Romm for example, who very much smears without data to back up his personal opinion.

[bobster451]

@CronusPrime None of the so-called scientists you mention have a contribution to the Academy of Sciences or AAAS.

Koch is still not a scientist.

Evolution in this discussion is a red herring when talking about climate science.

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 nobody said Koch was a scientist.. so what?

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 "Academy of science" actually bobster you are wrong again as they have indeed contributed to the Academy and are hardly psuedo-scientists.. it would be well to set your personal feelings aside and simply stick with facts and science rather than smearing anybody and everybody that simply disagrees with you.

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 yes, Koch is no scientist. Koch has given money from everything from PBS, the Museum of Natural History, and the Smithsonian. He does not create the exhibits or programming. This exhibit is science and climate change has indeed spurred evolution in the past and sometimes in the past climate has changed rather quickly. Now all of sudden these scientific explanations are being smeared by you and others and why is that? This is 'real' science bub. Conspiracy??

[bobster451]

@CronusPrime Koch cannot buy science onto his side with his deep pockets and think it really changes the true facts of climate science.

The reality is that man's activities are the cause of the climate change the Earth is experiencing.

To obfuscate the facts with pseudoscience claptrap and then present it as if it were the current consensus of the scientific community , which it is not, is wrong.

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 Climate appears to be one of the major drivers not only in evolution of life on earth but also in the development of civilization and technology of our ancestors. However now I suppose even the anthropologist has to walk on egg shells around the global warming issues or they too will be called to the carpet as deniers, naysayers, junk scientists, etc. It is really sad that science has always had to fight off politics but that statement makes me a conspiracy theorists..sad

[bobster451]

@CronusPrime Again, discussing evolution, which is also a fact, is a red herring in the discussion of anthropogenic climate change.

I do agree that science and politics are bad bedfellows. Any pundit that believes that the politics they are beholden to changes the physical world can be categorized as uneducated in science and they would look much less ignorant is the educated themselves rather than state a position that has no foundation in science.

[CronusPrime]

@bobster451 "red herring" err well homer that's what the exhibit is about and climate change has contributed much to evolution etc. Perhaps you should be less ignorant and educate yourself in science eh? To insinuate that somebody that disagrees with you is a pseudo-scientist and cast other such aspersions is exactly what you are crying about. Now you have become the politically motivated pseudo-intellectual yourself.