The moderation on these subjects is absolutely incredible. Am I to assume that the people who mod this down support conclusively disproven hypotheses like the ones I mentioned? If so, it says a lot about the denial movement.

The oil industry receives far larger subsidies per year than Musk is accused of receiving over three companies and many years. And some of the "subsidies" Musk is accused of receiving consisted of loans that were paid back with interest.

It depends on what you mean by "proving". I would categorize "proving" hypotheses true in science as probabilistic. At some threshold, say when something is 99.9999999999999% probably of being true, then we consider it "proven". That probability is damned close to being certain. But in a philosophical sense, it is not certain...merely highly probable.

The problem comes when people who do not grasp statistics latch onto the idea of uncertainty. They might latch onto that hypothesis that is 0.000000000001% of being true and "root for it as an underdog". They do not grasp that something with such a low probability of being true is false. It is virtually impossible for it to be true. Thus the growth of fringe theories that have been scientifically proven false, and yet continue to be believed. (My opinion on the cause of this is that certain religious sects promote unquestioning belief in authority, which promotes habits of mind to believe whatever their own authorities tell them).

Yes. And in the rare case that I actually read an hypothesis from a denier, it is almost inevitably one that has been trivially disproven. Volcanoes as primary source of CO2. Wrong (simple CO2 accounting). Sunspot correlation to warming. Wrong (no real correlation). Changes in solar irradiation causing observed warming. Wrong (atmospheric profile temperature changes do not agree with hypothesis...and little relevant change in solar output during relevant periods).

In science, we pick the hypothesis that is most probably true, until it is disproven, or until we find a better one.

In contrast to the post from the parent of the parent ("...they didn't include error bands...") the parent to this post is most definitely informative and insightful.

The article shows error bands. The parent post is NOT insightful. It is incorrect.

When the contract is overly favorable to the company, I do count it as a subsidy. Many contracts Lockheed Martin makes with the government are "cost plus" contracts, meaning that the government pays the costs of the project plus a guaranteed profit margin of, say, 20%. The problem is that this gives an incentive for the contractor to inflate the costs, to over-design, to hire too many managers.

Not to mention that the Internet was started by the government. And companies like Lockheed Martin rely almost completely on government military subsidies. This article was a hit piece. The American media really is shockingly corrupt.

With Congress and the Senate in the hands of the republicans, what can he really do? Pretty much nothing except twiddle dials.

I'm not lying, though I'm not giving up my pseudo-anonymity. He was involved in the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament.

I would think that his disturbed state actually influenced his theories. I believe that his paranoid schizophrenia started somewhat early on. I cannot imagine how such a profound mental disturbance would not influence one's intellect.

It wasn't for nothing. It was very likely because at the time he was single-handedly pushing for nuclear disarmament negotiations with Russia. I know this because a relative of mine was involved in the process.