is the connection between the folks who claim global warming doesn't exist/isn't a human cause phenomena, and Exxon money.

I haven't looked at it lately, but it used to be close to a 1 to 1 correlation.

Maybe now there's money to made on the conservative lecture circuit that sort of obscures that direct relationship.

My translation of the WSJ - "Wah! Wah! Wah! Peer review requirements are too hard to subvert with our usual tools! Wah!"

Or, as Alan Grayson, might say of high paid dirty industry shills: Whoring.

We make our own reality, right?

Science is a refined pursuit of what is probably true about nature. Sophistry is the sleazy art of persuading people that something is true, whether it really is, or not.

But regardless of our belief systems, we all know what betting is. The same technology that shows one horse beating another by 1/1000th of a second can also show that climate change is measurably true. If a thing can be measured, then it is susceptible to wagering.

Now, if I say, "Our planet is undergoing unnatural warming due to accumulation of CO2," you can simply reply, "No, it's not, that's just your scientific religion talking."

Does that sound like a stalemate of equally subjective belief systems? Good news: It's not. Of course it's not. Science, after all, is based on real data, not opinion, nor spin, nor clever lies. Scientists can be wrong, of course, but it's not because they're deliberately trying to fool themselves or the public. When you bring proof to a scientist that he is wrong, he will not only admit it; he'll sincerely thank you for correcting his error, and then he'll stop arguing for the disproved idea. In stark contrast, a sophist doesn't care if you prove him wrong a hundred times; he'll still bring the same disproved argument in another attempt to convince gullible people that he knows "the truth" better than any scientist. Creationists.

I know you already know this, but these arguments have never progressed to the point where they really should, to the 'put up or shut up' point of large bets of cash.

If you were absolutely sure you knew which horse was going to win the Kentucky Derby, would you not bet every dollar you could find on the outcome? Not talking 'pretty sure' here, I'm talking Secretariat sure, plus a rocket up his butt.

Well, there are scientific principles out there that are sure bets. Geological time is a sure bet, based on measurable differences in the amounts of substances that change in very predictable ways over time. Exxon bets millions of dollars per year to find oil that way. Evolution is a sure bet, based on hard data obtained every day in laboratories and archaeological digs. Your seasonal flu vaccine is based on bets about viruses EVOLVING. Climate change is a sure bet, based on the same mathematical models and data that generate daily weather forecasts. The Pentagon is now betting that climate change is going to be a major national security issue.

Remember, anything that can be measured can be wagered. Betting against climate change would be like betting that a 3-foot ruler doesn't have 36 inches. I don't want to change a denier's mind; I want all his money. Bet me, sucker!
.
Good times for Smiley! :-D

and uniquely American news behavior is the polling of scientific issues. As if a majority poll on some scientific issue would change the result.

As in the polls that show a majority of Americans do not believe that evolution is true. As if such a poll would change the science?? I am not sure. All such polling does is display the ignorance of those polled, there is no other way to think of it really.

The only way to refute evolution is with an alternate provable hypothesis. In light of these kinds of polls my favorite has been the 21% of American's who do not believe the earth revolves around the sun.

Polling on the science of global warming/climate change falls in that category. It is a fascinating lack of understanding on the part of all news services as to what science even is.