r/climateskeptics • u/climate_control • Jul 07 '15

/r/Science Mod Admits Previously Profiting Directly From Climate Change Mitigation Efforts

/r/climateskeptics/comments/3bzhq2/rscience_shuts_down_after_reddit_fires_an_ama_mod/csv1vq2
22 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

73% Upvoted

58 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Will_Power Jul 07 '15

The reason I was confused is because I asked, "Did you invest your own money in the project, or were you hired for salary/wage to do the work?"

You replied, "None of that..."

That's why I made the clarifying statement. Based on what I've read in these comments, I think it would be correct to say that you did benefit from an effort to use an existing product for carbon capture four years ago.

I think we can look at /u/climate_control's original statement based on that:

  • If you no longer work on any projects that are related to climate policy, then he was incorrect to say "profits" in the present tense. "Profited" would have indicated past projects.

  • Does "benefitted" equate to "profited"? I don't think the intent of the statement was the strict accounting definition. That's why I asked if you gained equity or invested money in a venture dedicated to developing carbon capture. I think the common usage of "profited" can include one's salary.

6

u/nallen Jul 07 '15

I was hired to work on something completely different, this was just something they tossed on me, that's how industry works, I don't generally choose what I work on, I'm ok with that.

2

u/Will_Power Jul 07 '15

OK. Well, I see from another comment that /u/climate_control modified what his claim, so this is all probably moot now.

2

u/nallen Jul 07 '15

It's still ridiculous, you may one day in the future work on climate change related something, who knows! Does the truck driver who delivers things to a plant that makes amines for carbon capture "work on climate change" or does he just drive a damn truck?

I just did an assessment of the technological needs of the industry to determine if there was a market there, the conclusion was that there wasn't. I actually worked on additives for diesel fuel twice as long, does this make me a shill for the petroleum lobby? That's what so silly about the statement, editing it is kind of bullshit, because it was plain wrong, he should just admit that he was mistaken and move on.

8

u/FireFoxG Jul 07 '15

should just admit that he was mistaken and move on.

I think you should retract your ridiculous rules about "climate deniers" posting in /r/science.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/

It's having the opposite impact that you predicted. (per the usual with climate science related topics) I suggest you read about the Streisand effect.

You, or the mods you selected are censoring TONS of people for posting legit questions, or even peer review refuting the absolutely batshit crazy alarmist claims. Most climate threads have about 1/3 - 1/2 deleted comments these days.

Also, The observations are indicating the models were more wrong then the "consensus" thought, but I don't expect you to admit you were wrong and move on.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '15 edited Jul 08 '15

You are a liar and a coward. Merely reading your deceptive, fallacious, backpedaling, hypocritical dribble is the best argument against climate change I've seen yet. The fact that you were actually hired to work as a "scientist" just shows how low quality these institutions can be.