Linked by snydeq on Thu 15th Dec 2011 21:17 UTC
In the News A new study from UCSB finds significant increases in businesses hiring organized shills to push products online. These 'malicious crowd-sourcing systems' enlist dozens or hundreds of professional shills to orchestrate mass account creation, generate bogus ratings, and post canned cut-and-paste positive reviews -- with each 'task' costing between 13 and 70 cents. 'Unscrupulous crowd-sourcing sites, coupled with international payment systems, have enabled a burgeoning crowdturfing market that targets U.S. websites, but is fueled by a global workforce.'
Thread beginning with comment 500392
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: shilling
by unclefester on Sat 17th Dec 2011 08:47 UTC in reply to "shilling"
Member since:

You should read a lot more before commenting.

Shell and BP have been funding pro-AGW research since 1969 when they jointly created the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (home of the Climategate emails).They also very generously fund a number of environmental groups such as WWF and Greenpeace.

Why would Big Oil fund Big Green? Very simple they want to close the coal industry so they can sell more natural gas and oil.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: shilling
by transputer_guy on Sat 17th Dec 2011 16:12 in reply to "RE: shilling"
transputer_guy Member since:

I never realized they funded the Climate Research unit, some kudos for that.

Things get complicated, Shell BP and others are also in the Solar business of panels and plant, profit is profit. No doubt BP needs as much green cred as it can get since the Gulf oil spill.

BP just built the solar plant at Brook Haven National Labs in Long Island, basically it is a Tombstone for the nearby Shoreham nuclear plant that Greenpeace shut down in the 70s.

The BP plant claims 32MW and feeds 4500 homes. That is a lie by omission, it is equiv to a 4.5MW plant that delivers 1kW per home and no more. It also cost $298M or about $66k per fed home, that gives us $66/W which is bloody expensive. If anyone thinks I stretch the truth, check with any solar calculator for a 4.5kW roof install, the price is about $220k. Scale that 1000 and adjust for plant level quality and you get $298M.

The original Shoreham plant should have produced 540MW and was built for $75M in 1973, today that would be $350M. So the BP plant produces power at 100* the cost of the nuclear plant it sits on. Today a modern nuclear plant would be a few times the $350M, $4M/MW is fair for a mass produced modular reactor.

Funding WWF and Greenpeace serves two purposes, it cuts them some slack so they go after coal as you said, they also go after nuclear just as bad. That puts BP on the wrong side of history.

Also Climate Progress is also very anti nuclear, now I know why.

The irony is that the majority of anti AGW people support nuclear so we see the 2 armies lined up with their components.

We need to reshuffle the pack so an energy company can form that can mix fossils with nuclear and eventually slide off carbon.

A Thorium LFTR nuclear plant can also be used as a thermal power source for industry and it can make cheap synthetic fuels like DME (diesel substitute) and others to replace dwindling oil reserves while being carbon neutral.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: shilling
by unclefester on Sat 17th Dec 2011 23:08 in reply to "RE[2]: shilling"
unclefester Member since:

I never realized they funded the Climate Research unit, some kudos for that.

BP and Shell don't deserve any kudos whatsoever. They created (not just funded) the CRU with the sole purpose of attacking the coal industry. This was originally done to create a bigger market for their North Sea gas in the late 60s and early 70s.

BP entered the solar business purely to make money. They don't give a shit about the environment. They sold the business because they were priced out of the market by cheaper Chinese products.

The environmental activist groups like Greenpeace and WWF are nothing more than useful idiots manipulated by Big Business to lobby politicians into subsidising expensive "clean" energy.

The atmosphere is heated by the transfer of heat from the oceans primarily via evaporation and condensation not by a totally spurious "Greenhouse Effect". The work of Arrhenius was totally discredited by Angstrom, the leading spectroscopist of the time, by 1900. The very existence of the Greenhouse Effect was shown to be impossible by the Nobel Prize winning work of Bohr (1905).

The alleged recent industrial C02-warming is nothing more than a part of a 60 year natural cycle that ended in 1998. The warmest decade of the 20th century was the 1930s. The Earth should now begin a cooling cycle until around 2040 before warming up again.

The geological record going back 550 million years shows zero long term correlation between CO2 and climate. We have had CO2 levels 10x as high as now without high temperatures and ice ages with CO2 concentrations higher than now. It has also been warmer with lower CO2 concentrations.

Reply Parent Score: 0