The Global Warming Denial Machine

[BCO]

Given all the noise around the global warming "scam" being "exposed" based on a leaked email correspondence, I thought it would be useful to look at the other side of this debate to see where the real "scam" is:

The sections below highlight the AGW Denial Machine and its efforts to try to convince policy makers and the general public that the massive scientific evidence for man-made global warming is either false or a "hoax". Many of these denialists are supported by the fossil fuel industry and other companies that stand to lose money if the world gets "greener". However, there are many well-intentioned people who just do not "believe" that humans can cause the world's climate to change because they either do not have access to the peer-reviewed literature (where climate experts communicate their research) or, if they do, they find these journal articles too difficult to read. Instead these well-intentioned people seek their information from more user-friendly avenues such as Websites, books, television, and radio. The problem is that these portals are not typically where the experts in climate science publish. Instead, these are the portals where "misinformation" can be easily spread. Please view the Suggested Reading page where I have listed Web documents, blogs, and books that will provide the current scientific research in a fairly easy to read format (which is the goal of this Website).

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html

 

[Phronesis]

Zee pesky Germanz and their denialz machinez...


Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Was quite cool during the 1910s when the sun was also a bit quiet. And the sun was more active than usual after that, search for yourself, look at the Beryllium ice core data, sunspot indices etc.

From: A physical reconstruction of cosmic ray intensity since 1610

A decrease in the amount of incoming GCRs since 1900 can be observed.

On the flip side, solar activity has also increased in the past century.

Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend.

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data.​

 

[BCO]

Interesting. Not a single comment on the article in the OP. Kinda ironic that people are so quick to label actual science as a hoax, but when you show them documented proof of collusion between oil companies and lobbyist groups, there's not a peep.

A bit inconvenient, I guess.

 

[LancelotSA]

You know I am with you on this one. I made my feelings known on the other global warming thread. But yeah you are right, the "other side" is rather quiet in this thread.

 

[Phronesis]

Phew, so many global climate threads. Thought this might fit in the tinfoil thread .

From Roger Pielke Sr., a normal (ISI Highly Cited Researcher) climatologist.

Comment On The Hacking Of The CRU Website

The challenge to the IPCC community, now that their duplicity has been exposed, is to communicate to all of us why the peer-reviewed papers that we documented, and that were available in time for the IPCC review process, were considered “bad papers” and thus ignored in the IPCC report. A balanced assessment would comment on these papers, and provide the reason they disagree with their results.

The reply by Gavin Schmidt documents the control of the IPCC process by a few individuals (see also Climate Assessment Oligarchy – The IPCC).

And:
Climate Assessment Oligarchy – The IPCC

Without new scientists leading the IPCC process as LAs and CLAs, the next IPCC report is doomed to continue to be completed by an oligarchy that is using its privileged position to advocate for a particular perspective on the role of humans within the climate system [the third hypothesis above]. The next IPCC report will not be a balanced assessment, but continue to be policy advocacy in the guise of a scientific framework.

But the IPCC has all the best scientists doesn't it?

 

[BCO]

I think you're posting in the wrong thread here, Phrony. Any opinion on the OP of this thread?

 

[JK8]

Interesting. Not a single comment on the article in the OP. Kinda ironic that people are so quick to label actual science as a hoax, but when you show them documented proof of collusion between oil companies and lobbyist groups, there's not a peep.

A bit inconvenient, I guess.

You do know that every Scientist will have their own conclusion and theory behind their research. Who are you to say which is right and which is wrong?

If 10 highly acclaimed scientist stand together verse 5 highly acclaimed scientist together rejecting the others claims, who do you believe?

More like doctored proof.
GW is a money making scam... its a shame you cant see it.

 

[BCO]

By your rationale, JK8, we might as well never listen to scientists at all. I mean if all opinions are equally valid who needs science anyway?

 

[JK8]

By your rationale, JK8, we might as well never listen to scientists at all. I mean if all opinions are equally valid who needs science anyway?

The good thing about science is that it has an end product. An outcome based on research and theories. If one says cities will be flooded in another 100 years and another says 4cm rise in sea level... something not right.

Im just saying scientists are scientists. They not always right, I mean ask Simon Gear about the weather last week... he gets it wrong on a monthly basis.

 

[Leostar]

So whom shall we believe and place our trust in?
Saw interesting Nat Geo documentary on the ocean’s conveyer belt theory that will cause the next big freeze due to global warming. Not all scientists agree with this or many other theories. They cannot even agree what caused all the extinctions. Global warming meteorites Volcanoes tsunamis all get their fair share of the blame.

From the scientists we hear:-
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality”.

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former”

“The most beautiful thing that we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.”
Albert Einstein 1879-1955

The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand.
Frank Herbert 1920-1986


And from the artists side we also have
“I can only draw what I see”
“It’s on the strength of observation and reflection that one finds a way. So we must dig and delve unceasingly”
Claude Monet 1840-1926

“Art is science made clear”
Jean Cocteau 1889 -1963

 

[Bismuth]

My goodness, why is it that every time someone needs to "prove" that global warming isn't a hoax, they throw graphs at you. There is also a thread on the World Community Grid forums about this, but they have been going for longer, and therefore have way more graphs than here.

I disagreed with one supporter of the hoax there, and got told to read a 200+ page report, from a source I don't know and have no reason to believe.

To me, it looks like they are trying to hide the facts by overwhelming people with graphs and figures, and hope you believe it. Unfortunately most people do not look through the attempt at obfuscation, and believe it without really looking at the facts. Admittedly, the graphs here are a bit of both, but still, that isn't they answer, or evidence, that most people are looking for.

B

 

[Pitbull]

Interesting. Not a single comment on the article in the OP. Kinda ironic that people are so quick to label actual science as a hoax, but when you show them documented proof of collusion between oil companies and lobbyist groups, there's not a peep.

A bit inconvenient, I guess.

:erm:

We've covered it all in 2 other threads There is nothing to add to this one

 

[BCO]

:erm:

We've covered it all in 2 other threads There is nothing to add to this one

So you don't have a problem with lobbyist groups receiving money from oil companies and then starting spin campaigns to tell the world that the science isn't settled?

 

[Pitbull]

So you don't have a problem with lobbyist groups receiving money from oil companies and then starting spin campaigns to tell the world that the science isn't settled?

That is a tin foil hat moment all by it's own

To me (personally) it's about looking at all info given holistically and drawing my own conclusions. My PoV on this matter is pretty clear, I'm not sitting here saying there is no such a thing as Co2 in the air we as humans contribute to, nor am I saying it doesn't have an effect on the temps. I am saying that there has been extremes on both sides hot and cold without those Co2 imprints left by humans. Now we can assume the added Co2 does have an effect, but to what degree we don't know.

I'm all for cutting Co2 imprints we leave as it's better for the earth anywhich way. But to use scare tactics based on assumptions of which these scientists have no true answer to is not the way of doing it.

Do I believe Co2 is bad for the earth - Yes

Do I believe we are having GW because of it - No

This based purely on previous extremes being way higher and lower than what we are having now. If Co2 is contributing and in 500 years we see the effect of it then sure I was wrong. But currently there is nothing to point this Co2 to having the Ice melting and so forth as it has happened before without our Co2 and it will keep happening and freezing again.

I might be wrong, but so to can the scientists claiming hell is coming to earth so to speak

 

[Phronesis]

I think you're posting in the wrong thread here, Phrony. Any opinion on the OP of this thread?

Those horrible AGW denialists and their biased views just to save their oil industry. Hiding, misrepresenting and manipulating data for their own gain (just like what happened in the link below).

What idiots. Why can't they just be clever and support the AGW view, design and patent technologies (with their billions) that will safe the planet. They will be rich heroes instead instead of the villains that they are now. Dumbasses, guess a lot of makes you dumb.

I also thought this was particularly disgusting:
The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole…

 

[BCO]

Those horrible AGW denialists and their biased views just to save their oil industry. Hiding, misrepresenting and manipulating data for their own gain (just like what happened in the link below).

What idiots. Why can't they just be clever and support the AGW view, design and patent technologies (with their villions) that will safe the planet. They will be rich heroes instead instead of the villains that they are now. Dumbasses, guess a lot of makes you dumb.

I also thought this was particularly disgusting:
The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole…

Do you *always* have to be such a snotty ****? A lot more people would tolerate you if you weren't so goddamned snarky all the time.

 

[BattleMoose]

Why can't they just be clever and support the AGW view, design and patent technologies (with their villions) that will safe the planet.

You seem to be confused. Its in their best financial interest that there is doubt and a lack of public support for AGW. Thus they actually finance such doubt spreading campaigns and endorse organizations with said goals.

The have been caught red handed on multiple occasions doing just this.

 

[Naks]

Found this online via Twitter. Not sure about the authenticity/veracity/accuracy: http://www.zooot.us/sites/default/files/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

 

[Phronesis]

Do you *always* have to be such a snotty ****? A lot more people would tolerate you if you weren't so goddamned snarky all the time.

Always? And forever? In every case? Ag you know, I am used to this kind of misrepresentations. I like to be snarky now and again, not always though... I have found that it helps in tinfoil type threads.

You seem to be confused. Its in their best financial interest that there is doubt and a lack of public support for AGW. Thus they actually finance such doubt spreading campaigns and endorse organizations with said goals.

The have been caught red handed on multiple occasions doing just this.

I think the idiots at these oil companies that "spread these doubts" and "campaigns" that result in a lack of public support for AGW are confused idiots.

Why can't they just wake up? There is a lot of money to be made in new "green" technologies. Dumb schmucks, now they just spread misinformation...

 

[dj_jyno]

There is a lot of money to be made in new "green" technologies.

Exactly, which is why BP and Total are investing heavily in developing their own range of solar panels. This also touches on another point - the global oil reserve. These companies have realised that we will run out of oil sooner or later, so they are starting to introduce "green" technology into their core business.

I don't believe in the whole tinfoil hat approach to climate change, because it gives the anti-global warming lobbyists a stick to beat the other party with. Like Pitbull said, we don't really know to which extent our increased CO2 output is contributing to climate change, but it is a good idea to reduce it.