December 12, 2007
In September 2006, the Guardian ran an article that was an excerpt from the book “HEAT, How To Stop The Planet From Burning.” The article, titled The denial industry begins with “For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade.”
Curiously, Tobacco becomes involved as one of the main culprits in the excerpt.
At the online publication, Gristmill, a very scary comment was posted shortly after the Guardian article. A David Roberts said, “When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
Recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore Jr classifies scientists and others who don't share his view of the Earth's climate as "global warming deniers,” reminiscent of the phrase, “Holocaust Deniers” invoked on skeptics of the Holocaust.
This prompted the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke to chime in, “Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,”
A May 2005 article from the Seattle PI, “Global warming? A small few non-believers say no,” contains the sentence, “For more than a decade now, the climate change deniers have been in retreat, humbled by the thumping weight of scientific evidence.”
More recently, unnamed “experts” are quoted at the Bali Conference as saying, “[the Kyoto Protocol]… is the world's ‘last chance’ to avoid disaster.”
Scare mongering aside, it seems that anyone questioning the current claims of pending global destruction due to climate change is immediately labeled a “heretic,” or as ones like Al Gore likes to use, “Global Warming Deniers.”
There is no discussion, no alternative science, no investigations or no weather experts that advocates of man made climate change creating imminent peril for the planet will listen to. For some time now, we have been repeatedly told, “The debate's over!”
But, is it really?
In an October 2007 Wall Street Journal article, professor Daniel Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara says, “Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life--ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.”
In August of this year, we were informed that “Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory,” by the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.
Also in August, Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson embarrassingly admitted to “a ‘highly contrived’ cover story about the global warming threat and the ‘denial machine’ that seeks to debunk it.”
Facing the scorn of California Democrat Henry Waxman as he completes his 16 month "Political Interference With Climate Change Science Under the Bush Administration," investigation, Max Mayfield, former director of the National Hurricane Center, in reply to charges that he told to minimize any connection between increased hurricane activity and global climate change said in an ABC Interview, “I want the record to show that no one forced me to say anything on the subject of climate change and tropical cyclones that I didn't believe at the time," adding, “Most meteorologists with knowledge of tropical cyclones think that there will be some impact from global warming on hurricanes. The debate is over how much of an impact.”
In May 2007, the highly respected German Publication, Spiegel Online International ran an article titled, “GLOBAL WARMING, Not the End of the World as We Know It.” The article opens with, “Despite widespread fears of a greenhouse hell, the latest computer simulations are delivering far less dramatic predictions about tomorrow's climate.”
In spite of what Al Gore and his cronies claims that “the debate is over,” it would appear to me that the debate is hardly beginning.
Lastly, if it is true that skeptics of man made Global Warming are “heretics,” “deniers” or other such nefarious designations, how will they classify the following, said back in January 2007 on Earth Day, but released just this week? “While some concerns may be valid it [is] vital that the international community base its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.” Also said was, “the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.” Pope Benedict XVI.
UPDATE: If any still think the thought of man-made climate change is a slam dunk and we are headed for peril, Which part of this Scientific paper did Government Advisors Not read or Understand?
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Global Warming Deniers Growing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
So you want to challenge global warming? Wonderful! The oil companies will love you for it! (Don’t expect to get paid though)
Don’t know where to start? Well here are some pointers when arguing against global warming;
Step One: Deny that global warming exists.
Well this is the most obvious step. All you have to do is just say. “Nope, the climate is not changing at all!” And reiterate that point, over and over if necessary. When rational people point out incidents such as the shrinkage of arctic and antarctic ice, you just say that they’re “isolated incidents” and that they have nothing to do with climate change whatsoever. They’ll be eating out of the palm of your hand!
Step Two: Deny that global warming is man made.
Tough crowd? Not to worry! All you have to do is concede that yes ok the climate is changing but we don’t know that it’s man made! Nevermind that our activities directly affect the planet’s chemistry and that there are more than 6 billion of us! There’s no way that we can affect something as big as Earth! When people point out scientific studies, simply move on to step three which is…
Step Three: Attack the academic integrity of the scientific community.
This one is really easy and there’s no comeback! Just say that scientists have to make money and that naturally biases their opinions! Scientific method be damned! Peer reviewed journals? Pshaw! The sheer number of scientific journals supporting the cause? It’s just some conspiracy to make money, further the paranoia of global warming, make money for green energy, make the oil companies look bad, or just to be contrary. Take your pick. Or make up your own! Creativity is highly recommended.
Step Four: Challenge the idea of a scientific consensus and parade a dissenting opinion to prove your point.
If step three didn’t work just trot out some hack scientist such as Bjorn Lomborg to introduce the point that there is dissent in the ranks. No one will notice the hypocrisy of using both step three and step four together! They’re just stupid lefties after all! And when people point out stuff such as the history of international scientific consensus,, just go back to step three!
Step Five: Suggest alternate causes for global warming.
If all else fails, simply suggest that the sun is getting warmer and that’s why we’re experiencing global warming, or that it’s because stupid lefties won’t shut their mouths, or that we’re coming out of an ice age! Creativity is recommended here too! Who cares that you’re just some random person on the internet and that scientists have discredited those ideas (if they’re even plausible)! Just use step 3 and 4 on them if they bring that up! If everything to this point hasn’t worked and you’re on your last legs, use step six in case of emergencies.
Step Six: Nitpick every fact that scientists have established and make progressives prove them over and over again.
Well this doesn’t actually help further our case, but it’s a great diversionary tactic if you want to buy time to redo any or all of the steps above. Nothing infuriates liberals like doubting that there’s a link between carbon dioxide emissions and global temperature change. Uppity liberals have you pinned on that one too? Not to worry! Pick any other random fact and ask them to prove it. It also helps if you lie and tell them that you’ll be convinced if they do prove it. When they’re done, just start at step one again!
Personally, I think it's important that skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr., Stephen McIntyre, and Chris Landsea. We need to hear from all sides.
Thank you, Lonzie, for showing the blinder effect and narrowmindedness of the global warming crew.
Will you now go tell the Pope that he is full of crap?
Typical of the left, condemn any who challenge your pet theory and degrade them and their research anyway possible.
You left an excellent example of that.
Not to gang up on Lonsie...
But I'll bet you had the same bitter taste in your mouth about those of us who oppose(d) embryonic stem cell research. You probably went through the same vitriol about right wingers and their religious fanaticism that got in the way of scientific progress. Of course, the sanctity of life was a secondary issue because it was inconvenient to the anticipated "progress" held onto with white knuckles. Now that we no longer need embryonic stem cells and we can get stem cells from skin, I guess all those who hyperventilated during those debates should be relieved...but I don't think they are. I think it's another example of "owning" an issue and through some warped psychological process it's important to have the power to change others' behavior through the issue. It's unfortunate that debate has been reduced to name calling and emotional arguments rather than really evaluating (over an extended period of time) what is happening and working through all the various theories. Personally, I think there are a lot of things we need to improve upon and we need to do all we can to protect the environment, and the species' who live here. But knee jerk reactions to the rising temperature and narcicistically assuming we are responsible for all of it and then, again, concluding with the worst case scenario as fact, is synonymous with the scientific stretch of evolution of man from apes. There's a ton of missing evidence but because the conclusion is believed in so passionately, any evidence or theories to the contrary are met with close-mindedness and defensiveness. Hopefully this debate can continue so that we really do find the proverbial stem cells of the issue and address them responsibly. I would hope that as you review your six steps that you are careful not to be as guilty of them in the process of debate.
Congratulations Brad. You are a quick study. Your diversion from global warming to stem cell research was nothing short of brilliant. Keep up the good work.
I will not deny the climate may be warming. However, climate changes have been ongoing for as long as the world has been around. Greenland was named by the Vikings because it was green, about 1,000 years ago. Why was it green? The earth was warmer then. That should be obvious. Would it be a good idea to reduce hydrocarbons and other polution? Of course. However, the draconian measures that some are proposing make no ecomomic sense. People are not going to give up their cars, computers, heat, and air conditioning. I'd like to see the reaction when some Hollywood star is asked to live in a mud hut in the Mojave Desert, with no Starbucks within miles. Our Governor is probably the biggest hypocrite when it comes to global warming as there is driving his Hummer and flying in a private jet. At least Governor Davis flew Southwest on official business. What irks me in this entire debate are the limo liberals who live in 10,000 square foot homes, ride around in fancy jets and tell the rest of us we need to reduce our carbon footprint. Mr. Kennedy is all for wind power, just not where he lives. Instead of rennovating his mansion to make it more carbon friendly, Al Gore should move to a 1,500 square foot house, like the rest of us. But Al will continue to buy carbon credits and some family in Kenya will have their farmland confiscated so it can be used for a tree farm. So what if the family starves, old Al and his buddies will can feel good about reducing the carbon footprint. The sad part is the family in Kenya will starve and the trees will not reverse the forces of nature that have been operating since the earth was formed.
Fred, CA
I question why ones like lonsdale and Al Gore demand "dialogue" in everything, except this global warming push?
What is the fear of allowing discussion of both sides?
If the right-wing is truly concerned about the “political” nature of the global warming debate, they should blame President Bush for that. He has taken very little action to fight climate change and even refuses to admit that it is manmade. He broke his promise to cap carbon emissions and insists that global warming can be fought through individual “voluntary” programs.
The reason why Nobel Prize-Winner Gore has won so many accolades is because he is revealing the far right’s vast disinformation campaign against global warming science. And he is succeeding.
That being said, I am sure that had the Supreme Court selected Gore as president, Bush too would have gone on to win the Nobel Peace Prize because he is that kind of guy.
Climate change (warming, and cooling) has been going on for thousands of years. We know from geology and archeology that there have been much more severe episodes of warming/cooling than anything that is currently & reasonably (ie, not Al Gore) being considered as possible.
It is just that simple.
I think Mr. gore has to prove why his thesis is more valid than historical fact.
lonsdale, and hard cheese, same for you folks. And, we do have to engage in responsible dialogue to prove anything... Isn't that the scientific method way?
Poor cheesey, just can't get past the BDS, can you?
I am a proud skeptic of C02 Global Warming. Why?
Because the "fingerprints" -- i.e, actual warming at different latitudes and altitudes -- do not match the computer models. In fact, they do not even come close.
When observed and predicted patterns of warming begin to correlate, then we are talking science and not just theory.
Welcome Brad, Fred,Ca, Bill Sanford, and practicalmom36 all signing up on Blogger in December 2007 and all finding and posting on this blog. What are the odds? Looks mighty suspicious Lew.
Trying to divert the thread, cheesey?
I haven't a clue who they are or when they registered. But, many people are speaking out all over against the imposition of the goregasim crowd.
What you are seeing is people finally standing up to and questioning calls that will bankrupt the country and are based on junk science.
Methinks thou doth protest too much, Lew. Diversion? Lonsdale derailed this train before it got out of the station. I cannot now read or hear any denier argument without considering the 6 steps.
lonzie derailed this before it even started? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
You're cute, even if a dullard. All lonzie did was outline how you lefty's denigrate and block important dialogue and debate on this far from settled matter.
Real science isn't settled by a vote of consensus, cheesey. It presents facts, not conjecture.
Waiting for more support from those December 2007 folks? Isn't salting the mine a violation of blogger ethics?
That's what I like about you, cheesey. If you can't logically discuss something, you obfuscate and divert.
Why not contact those "December 2007" folks and ask them? Maybe they all live in Beaverton and share the same isp? I doubt it, though.
Maybe it escapes you that I also post on several other sites, linking back to here. Check out Digital Journal sometime.
If you must know, I entered the following Google command and this blog was the first response:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warming+deniers+2007
If "Right in a Left World" is salting the mines, it is because he is providing the correct key words to Google.
Thanks, practicalmom. And, I thanks all who have shown an interest in this post. According to sitemeter, this post has raised hits to my blog in a single day to a new all time record high, over 800.
It is also refreshing to see people questioning the global warming alarmists claims in light of so much contradictory evidence.
While I believe we all should work together to take care of our planet, we needn't go off the deep end to do it.
I also find it quite hypocritical that so many of the top alarmists seem to feel they may pollute as they see fit, as long as they "buy carbon offsets."
I believe in leading by example.
Thanks Lew, er practicalmom36. I am thoroughly convinced and shall never doubt you, er Lew, again.
Aw gee, Cheesy, you figured us out. I am Lew's female alter-ego. I live in red state Georgia, and Lew lives out there in lib-land, but he and I have the uncanny ability to be in global warming denial on the same day at the same time, while on different ends of the U.S. (Think "Sleepless in Seattle.") Lew, care to meet me on the top of th Empire State Building?
Cheesy, this could be fun. Maybe I will reveal my freeper, ebay & amazon handles so you can see how busy "Lew" has been buying and rating baby products all these years.
LOL, practicalmom. I'd love to meet you atop the Empire State Building, but my wife might kill me ;o)
Watch now as cheesey makes some connection to you being in Georgia and that I was born and raised in Florida. That I left there in 1969 won't matter.
Notice too that cheesey isn't able to address any of the points anyone brings up. So, the obfuscation begins.
Hey Lew, I don't think my husband either would approve of our meeting atop the ESB, but he does have a great sense of humor and would get a kick out of Cheesy's paranoia.
I, too, await some rational discussion on the issue of manmade global warming.
PracticalMom, both of our spouses have good senses of humor. Mine will surely get a good laugh out of cheesey when she gets home rom Texas tomorrow and I show her how cheesey is acting.
Cheesey is of the typical alarmist brigade. They desire no debate and instead wish to preach to us as if their view is the final word.
WASHINGTON—In an unexpected reversal that environmentalists and scientists worldwide are calling groundbreaking, President George W. Bush, for the first time in his political career, openly admitted to the existence of carbon dioxide following the release of the new U.N. Global Environment Outlook this October.
"Carbon dioxide, a molecule which contains one atom of carbon bonded with two atoms of oxygen, is a naturally occurring colorless gas exhaled by humans and metabolized, in turn, by plants," Bush told a stunned White House press corps. "As a leading industrialized nation, we can no longer afford to ignore the growing consensus of so many experts whose job it is to study our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is real."
Because carbon dioxide, which was first described by 17th-century Flemish physician Jan Baptista van Helmont as a gas he referred to as "spiritus silvestre," has long been denied by the Bush administration, the president's speech was widely hailed as a victory for advocates of empirically established scientific fact.
"This has been a major step forward for national basic-chemistry policy," said longtime CO2 proponent and eighth-grade science teacher Linda Mattson. "By taking this brave stance, Bush has opened the door for the eventual acknowledgment that other molecular compounds, such as H20, for example, may in fact exist as well."
Many of those whom Bush has long considered to be his most loyal followers, however, have expressed disappointment with the development.
"There is nothing about any 'carbon dioxide' in the Bible," said Rev. Luke Hatfield of Christchurch Ministries in Topeka, KS. "What's next? Claims that so-called 'fossil' fuels come from mythical creatures like dinosaurs? This has been a sad step backward for our nation."
A White House spokesman was careful to categorize the announcement as "cautious," and reiterated that the president is still not ready to take any position on the existence of polar ice caps, ozone, or a controversial idea held by many scientists and often referred to as "weather.
That's what I appreciate about you, Cheesey, always ready to add relevant data to a discussion.
That and you can't get past a thread without throwing some negative comment about Bush into it.
What a pity that come January 21, 2009, Bush will be gone and you will be left holding all that hate.
That is what borders on interesting about you and many others on the dark side,absolutely no sense of humor. The piece was from The Onion, known for humor, not hate. Every joke about Bush's follies is not necessarily a reflection of hate. I can enjoy humor about the Democratic presidential candidates without considering it hate. I can also enjoy conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and P.J. O'Rourke when they are funny, and they can be funny. Lighten up.
Funnier still, cheesey, and missed by you, my comment was also "tongue in cheek."
While the Onion is noted for humor, your intent was what, given your posting history?
Lighten up and get a sense of humor yourself before you complain about others. Don't forget, when you point a finger at others, you have three pointing back at you.
True, but the majority of people recognize only the index finger, and believe it or not, in this case that was the finger I was using.
See, cheesey, a sense of humor isn't that hard, is it?
Post a Comment