It seems the more that science supports notions the world is warming because man is pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the more strident become some of the chief
Global warming deniers n sceptics
- at times, can almost see rabid righties frothing at the mouth.
Lately, been some ballyhoo about a Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle - in which, argued the sun is behind recent changes, and several scientists wheeled out as sceptics re greenhouse gases. But, seemed that show employed smoke n mirrors. Here are excerpts of transcript of ABC (Australia) interview with American scientist Carl Wunsch, Professor of oceanography at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, who was interviewed for the documentary - appeared in original version, but whose remarks were eventually edited from the work.
I was told that this was to be a film about the science of global warming, and that it would be an opportunity for me to explain that it is a very complicated problem ... There are a number of issues. There's one point in the film where I was attempting to explain that the ocean contains a very large amount of carbon dioxide that is there naturally. ...
It was put into the film in such a way, in the context that it was put to have me saying that, "Well, carbon dioxide occurs naturally in the ocean and so whatever is going on is all natural," which in some sense turned my point on its head. Or if you like, completely removing the main point, which is while the carbon dioxide in the ocean is primarily there naturally, having it expelled through warming is not necessarily natural. ...
What I thought I was doing, as I said, was making a film about the science of global warming. ...
It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement. ...The changes that we're seeing today are consistent with a great deal of what we know about the climate system, where there's very little argument about the effects. So, for example, adding carbon dioxide very rapidly that is over periods of decades, which nature doesn't do itself, we can calculate, these are calculations that go back almost 100 years, how much the earth should warm on average. We tend to see that the pattern of warming where more of it takes place at the poles are consistent with an anthropogenic input. Is there is no proof? Well, there is no proof, but science is very rarely about proof, science is about plausibility. Most of the people who work in this subject without guaranteeing anything will say, "It seems very likely that we are seeing human induced warming because it is taking place on time scales that nature does not normally produce".
There is the argument in that film that it's all due to the sun. There is absolutely no evidence, apart from the distortions they made in the graphs in that film in the version that I saw, there's no absolutely no evidence that what we're seeing is due to solar forcing. Will I guarantee what we're seeing is due to anthropogenic causes? No. Do I think it's very likely that it is due to anthropogenic causes, and we should react on that basis? Yes, I do, it's very worrying.
words were twisted in global warming documentary: expert
Update, 22 July 2008, from the Independent:
A Channel 4 documentary which claimed that the idea of man-made climate change was a fraud and a conspiracy has been censured by the broadcasting regulator. Ofcom.
The Great Global Warming Swindle, written and directed by Martin Durkin, misrepresented the views of the Government's former chief scientific adviser Sir David King, Ofcom said yesterday in a long-awaited judgement.
The programme was further found to have unfairly treated Sir David, the American oceanographer Professor Carl Wunsch and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to have breached the section of the Broadcasting Code relating to impartiality.
...The broadcast angered Britain's science community, from the Royal Society down, who accused Mr Durkin of distorting evidence and playing fast and loose with the facts.
Several people who took part said their views had been misrepresented, including Professor Wunsch, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen, the director of the Danish National Space Centre.
...
The Great Global Warming Swindle was welcomed by a number of right-wing commentators – strange bedfellows for someone with connections to Living Marxism – but sometimes the far right and the far left have much in common.
C4's climate change documentary 'was unfair but not misleading'

Global warming swindler
Here's response I posted to an article by Martin Durkin in the Australian, Up">http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22105154-7583,00.html]Up against the warming zealots. Response not posted; dunno why.
Plenty more re his dodgy documentary on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle - includes, if you scroll down, rebuttals from scientists, including this in press release from the Royal Society:
Heartland Institute really the Heartless Institute?
I posted the following in response to an item on scienceblogs.com:
- and promptly received an email from the institute.
My post was prompted by a scienceblog post, titled: global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny? - after article of same name in Chigaco Times, which had - as you might expect - some of the silly stuff from righties and their ilk.
The blog post cited an article on Heartland Institute cite, with title: Glaciers Are Growing ... and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists This article includes statement:
- which startled me, so googled for info. Readily found, and press release from Newcastle University on the paper says:
climate change trends could predict water resources Mountain climate change trends could predict water resources - so the paper refers to just one area of the Himalayas, where results (and conditions) differ from those elsewhere. Selective use of info by the institute, then - distorting the truth close enough to lying, I figure. Anyways, my email from the institute was a generic one, included:
I emailed Tom back, saying they are trying to say global warming is a non issue; I'm trying to highlight science showing it's major problem. (Should have also mentioned he was being patronising here). No response.
Wikipedia entry on the institute tells of them receiving substantial funding from Exxon. Also, institute has long been pro-smoking, with money from Philip Morris, among others: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute So, I suggest a name change, to the Heartless Institute.
Update, 16 Feb 2012, with news on BBC site after some leaked files show Heartland's strategy in attempting to ridicule global warming science, and funds from a mysterious "Anonymous Donor".
Openness: A Heartland-warming tale
Galileo was a scientist not political pundit
Newsweek article, Climate">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/]Climate Change Deniers: a Well Funded Machine has various folk in the scepticism business hot under the collar. Includes writer in Investor's Business Daily, whose piece for some reason includes:
Chilling Effect - it's of course barking mad to make such an argument, for the "consensus" versus Galileo's false doctrine was based on religion, not science [again, w Copernicus and Columbus, science was on their side]. Much as the arguments vs global warming being non-issue are predominantly political based, while overwhelming scientific research/evidence backs global warming being major problem. Were Galileo alive today, he would recognise the potential perils of global warming; he was a scientist, not a political pundit.
Nuttiness at Newsbusters
If you want some hysteria and distorted information on global warming, seems the site Newsbusters is as good a place to look as any. Despite trying to pooh-pooh science re warming, seems happy enough to agree that warming is happening when it seems things might be ok - as a few in Russia suggest (about, err, Russia, not the planet as a whole). In a piece by some geezer billed as "economist, business owner..." (so, not a scientist then), quotes source saying:
- notice the funding of Vlad the Kilmenko: echoes of Exxon! the item conclusion includes:
- I haven't seen scientists denying re planet having being warmer in past; it's warmth relative to periods for much of human history, plus speed of warming, that are seen as problems. And laughable that Newsbustes should accuse anyone of political agenda: site bills itself as "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias". Russia">http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/06/russia-welcomes-gl... Welcomes Global Warming as Answer to All Its Prayers - even this title is stupid! "all its prayers" indeed! Must dash; feeling a bit bilious
Accuracy in Media way off-target re science
Just seen rather loopy piece on the Newsweek feature by group calling itself AIM - Accuracy in Media ("accurate" being from far-right distorted perspective? - front page stories include one explaining "It is fascinating to watch how our liberal media treat the Bush Administration on foreign policy matters.) Similar to Newsbusters; even refers to the Newsbonkers story as "fascinating". Trots out various assertions re warming - could be the sun etc, along with quotes from usual suspects, inc Inhofe, Bob Carter. Also indulges in some stupid fearmongering re calls for change to slow warming:
- Small-minded, blinkered, blithering idiocy, pandering to gormless right-wingers in the US of A. And with no realisation there is actual science behind global warming - and behind showing sun isn't sole cause of recent warming. No awareness there is far more at stake than simply "the American way of life", whatever that is. If you've a strong stomach, or curious re how global warming hysteria looks in US, see: Newsweek">http://www.aim.org/special_report/5674_0_8_0_C/]Newsweek Burns Truth in Global Warming Story
A lie from Hawaii re Nuremberg Trials
The skeptics' lobby seems more alarmed by the day. Michael Fox, PhD - who worked in the energy industry (hmm....) has penned a piece in Hawaii reporter, which includes pooh-poohing fears re ozone hole, and this:
Twisted">http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b74defbe-8703-4e23-ae0f-7f33e56... Science Bullies of the Beltway Oh dear, oh dear - "Nuremberg Trials". What an insult this is, including to anyone reading Fox's baloney. "Twisted Science", the article is called, yet here the truth is not merely twisted, it's exaggerated, blown out of all proportions.
Global warming secular religion and jihadists!
Seems the better the science underlying global warming, the greater the hysteria, with commentators trying to outdo themselves with stupidity of their prose. Carl Thomas (who he?) maybe saw the nuttiness re Nuremberg Trials, and decided he could do better. Here, from an article in Salt Lake Tribune, are couple of his loopiest sentences:
- Oh dear, the poor lad seems to be almost frothing at the mouth here. does, though, insert some truth, in what's perhaps a Freudian slip:
- indeed! How often have you noticed the sceptics are supported by energy companies, and/or are died-in-the-wool righties? Thomas:">http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6633374]Thomas: Logic of global warming jihadists: So much hot air
Some US evangelicals alarmed by reality of warming?
From website called CitizenLink - where can also learn stuff such as re crisis over sexuality. Just some hint, here, that there's alarmism among evangelicals as the science becomes stronger re global warming being real, and being really a problem.
This alone alarms me!
Now, surely evangelicals of all people should not be prone to being, errr, economical with the truth. For here's a statement that comes without being substantiated - as indeed it can't be, for as has been shown time and again, the vast majority of science on the issue shows that global warming as a result of greenhouse gases is real, and is really a problem.
hmm, so a few people among evangelicals who may have started thinking for themselves on the issue, reading some of the science, being told what to do - Come along, be good sheep, do as we say and never mind those scientist people, and those rising temperatures, and those signs that storms are increasing as glaciers and Arctic ice melt, there is trouble - and just maybe we are being woefully inept stewards of the Creation.
I see - so if you happen to be in an area that's struck by another major hurricane as the powerful cyclones increase, or you're affected by long term drought or major floods, just make sure you have a strong family... Global">http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005349.cfm]Global Warming Not High on Evangelicals' Priority List
Hopefully, we'll see more evangelicals start to use their brains, and start to realise that having stewardship over the creation means that should be able to look after it; and to do so, should change our ways. Changes predicted with warming will impact families far more than any action we might take to alleviate warming. Indeed, have to wonder: why is it that some prominent evangelical types seem so opposed to doing things that might benefit our planet, and future generations?
The unstoppable Fred Singer
Read a little re global warming, and you soon find that the skeptics aka denialists include only few actual scientists - one of the most prominent being Fed Singer, a professor of environment in US.
Back in 2003, Singer was such a sceptic that he announced: "there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming."
Yet lately, with non-scientist Avery, he has co-authored a book: Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years
- so gone from no warming, to unstoppable warming!
This book, of course, seems to be music to the ears of righties who wanna keep on burning up our oil and so forth, believing or kidding themselves this can't have any impact, never mind the weight of scientific evidence (haven't seen the Unstoppable book, but seems it appears weighty, yet I've read of authors only considering summaries of papers, cherry picking info, and even ignoring fact that at least one paper concludes anthropogenic warming is significant).
Realclimate has post rebutting some of key points made by Avery in talk he gave about the book: Avery">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-u... and Singer: Unstoppable hot air
You can read about Prof Singer, and his links to ExxonMobil money, on ExxoSecrets.org: S">http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1]S. Fred Singer while there's more on Fred on DeSmogBlog: S">http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478]S. Fred Singer - notes recent report that "Singer is affiliated with no less than 11 think tanks and associations that have received funding from ExxonMobil," adding. "Singer's own "Science and Environmental Policy Project" (SEPP) has recieved $20,000 from ExxonMobil."
Timothy Ball befuddled by all inc CO2 as greenhouse gas
Really, many a global warming "skeptic" should be more laughable than treated as if serious people. Retired Canadian professor Timothy Ball makes a strong bid for being among the more comical denialists.
Heck, I have a thread here suggesting Comical Ali has been recruited to say global warming isn't real, but a few minutes reading about Timothy Ball and find he almost outdoes Comical Ali.
I just noticed Timothy Ball's name in news item on National Geographic; this includes:
Warming Inaction More Costly Than Solutions?
Reading this, looked like some Ballocks in these quotes; including the very strange "it is assumed that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will trap heat in the atmosphere".
Note to ex-Prof Ball - and Nat Geo news team: carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. See, for instance: Gases from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Interesting, too, that Ball alleges the greenhouse effect hypothesis had political origins. Yet, read a little and soon find Ball is associated with groups etc funded by oil industry money. One of them dubbed Friends of Science - a name George Orwell could have loved, as questions science change, does not disclose funding sources yet perhaps gets money from oil industry etc. of Science - Wikipedia entry
There's strong article by Charles Montgomery, which first appeared in the Globe and Mail, centred on Timothy Ball. Includes:
. Cool Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business
See also brief Bio of Ball, w some of his Ballocks, on DeSmogBlog. . Tim Ball: The Lie that Just Won't Die
From here and other info, soon find he can't even get basic facts about himself right, let alone re warming: has claimed to have been a professor for 32 year - true figure, 8 years; and to have the first PhD in climatology, when others had such PhDs before him: and his PhD in science/geography.
Plus, maybe only four papers published in peer reviewed journals; none dealing with human impacts on climate; none since he retired in 1996. Hardly seems the right guy, then, to make assertions like "The majority of the scientists who are on the Kyoto and global warming bandwagon know nothing about the science..."
Err, Doc Ball - do you happen to have a mirror handy? - look in it and you might recognise yourself here.
Update, 21 January 2011: ex-Prof Ball has been peddling more twaddle, in Canada Free Press - which seems a bastion of denialism, yet has clearly found Ball proved too outlandish even for this stance:
Apology to Dr. Andrew Weaver
Yikes! I haven't seen original article, but seems only thing Ball got right in his piece was Dr Weaver's name!
Lomborg book deeply dissatisfying ignorant and shallow
I've never really liked Bjorn Lomborg, who shot to fame as supposed former environmentalist w claims that should we attempt to combat warming, we'd waste money that could be used to help the world in other ways. Always struck me as being rather like saying well, the house may be on fire but battling the fire will be tough, and would mean we couldn't do so much work to re-paint the walls and improve the upholstery - and anyway, some people say the fire won't be too bad. Strikes me, too, as very self important fellow. Already seen his claims re being former environmentalist even dodgier than Timothy Ball's re being expert on man-made climate change. Knew of new Lomborg book; haven't even laid eyes on it. Glad to see review in Globe and Mail that slams the book - tho sadly, the idiots who take comfort in Lomborgism will surely like the book, which can help them continue living in fools' paradise where can drive SUVs and burn and consume and burn without consequence. From the review:
The">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070929.BKCOOL29/TPSto... Pollyanna of global warming
Hitler Goebbels and Carl Sagan quoted in daft attack on Gore
The Conservative Voice - a US website - carries one of the battiest articles by a skeptic I've seen yet. Attempts to attack Al Gore, but just looks seriously off-kilter. Includes guff like:
The article is peppered with quotes, including from Adolf Hitler and fellow Nazi Paul Joseph Goebbels - and, bizarrely, Carl Sagan. Sagan quoted saying, “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Freudian slip by the article writer? - as Carl Sagan was among the first scientists to warn of the perils of global warming, and our writer clearly a bamboozled chap. Lest you want to read this codswallop, it's at: Al">http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/28629.html]Al Gore's Global Warming Lies
We can\'t control the weather says Newsbusters Duh!
Newsbonkers (err, Newsbusters) perhaps a perennial place of silliness re global warming: never mind science, let's try n blast liberals. Tho complains of liberal bias in (US) media, got a couple of items appreciating a tv report trotting out stale arguments and same old scientists (err, Timothy Ball as a climate change expert? puhleaze, good for Ballocks is all), and arguing climate change is a none issue. In one item, mysteriously says: "Despite recent developments, man can't control the weather, much less the climate. " Err, Hello - we're not talking about controlling the climate; this is about changing it adversely, by accident. Got some posters who might be trying to be comedians, or perhaps are serious, with things like:
- and which foreign countries might these be, what with the US being one of most backwards nations re climate change? North Korea, perhaps? see this and other daftness at: John">http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2007/10/21/john-stossel-que... Stossel Questions Inconvenient Truths on MSM View of Global Warming
Predicting hard so no worry says American Idiot
A scientific paper that's just out says that it's impossible to predict with certainty just how bad climate change will be (I've posted to new thread re this). Led to one of the most stupid blog posts I've seen, on American "Thinker". Includes:
SCIENCE:">http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/10/science_earth_climate_is_too... Earth climate is too complex to predict Well, what bone-headed, crass crap. Not only does the writer confuse "reasonable evidence" with information needed for detailed modelling, but he also gets whole argument utterly wrong - as well as being curiously selective in what science he likes: ie most climate change science wrong, but when paper re uncertainty comes out it's correct. I've posted to the writer's blog:
Vivian Gray too blinkered to save?
News piece on Canada.com has some pretty damning looking claims re IPCC, by one Vivian Gray. Includes:
IPCC">http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=55387187-... too blinkered and corrupt to save
I hadn't heard of Vincent Gray. Did a bit of googling, and noticed that - like me - he has a PhD in chemistry from Cambridge University; so far so good, perhaps. But then, found a short profile on DeSmogBlog - where it says
Vincent">http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1215]Vincent Gray - hmm, a member of a committee that refuses to disclose funding sources... - and the IPCC is corrupt, eh?
John Coleman and outrageous scamming
Over on ICECAP - some website I hadn't heard of that likes to decry global warming - there's short item by John Coleman that's attracted attention on right-wing blogs and in the Daily Telegraph.
Includes:
Weather">http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/]W... Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Ah, he's read "dozens of papers".
And this the man who has been quoted as saying "Being a TV weatherman in San Diego is an outrageous scam," John">http://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html]John Coleman
Now, the Daily Telegraph ran article on Coleman's thoughts, w article calling him "Weather Channel boss" - not noticing, it seems, he was turfed out of the Weather Channel some years ago, and the channel now presents info on global warming issue. Ah well, seems Coleman's effort has proved another straw to clutch at for global warming denialists.
One more thing that occurred to me, after seeing re Coleman: denialists seem to often be getting on in years; maybe they care little re the future, figuring they won't see much of it, so doesn't really matter what they say or write.
Cry baby sceptics suffer bias only in their brains
BBC News website has strong series on global warming scepticism, by environment editor Rickard Black. One article looks at supposed bias within science against sceptics, who like to allege their views are muffled. Includes:
Climate">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm]Climate science: Sceptical about bias
Nigel Lawson another old bloke talking twaddle
A few days ago, I noticed on Google News an item with speech by Nigel Lawson - father of luscious cook Nigella, and former UK chancellor - to a New Zealand business group, in which he ridiculed global warming. Can't find his speech text just now; but remember it had something re IPCC saying warming would cause only v small slowdown in rate of global economy rise: something which surprised me, and which I can't find in IPCC synthesis report (which does, however, suggest wouldn't slow economy much to take measures to mitigate against warming: I'm not sure if Lord Lawson hadn't confused this with effect of warming).
Also, he suggested that IPCC scenarios set warming in next hundred years as no more than 4C; actually, can find 6.4C as highest figure. He had puerile way of suggesting a 3C rise (cherry picking the average forecast) by saying we can live in places from Helsinkin to Singapore: smacks of stupidity as well as smugness, with no notion of effects on ecosystems, which are already showing strains w far smaller warming; and of fact the IPCC says warming to continue for centuries: so if old farts like Lawson have their way, many generations of people will have to deal with warming impacts.
New Zealand Herald quoted Lawson as saying:
- yes, and Lawson has clearly staked his place on the side of unreason, aiming to discount concerns of scientists who actually know about climate, ecosystems and so forth, while trying to tell business people that it's ok to keep on as we are - after all, Lawson can expect to be dead and gone by the time the main climate change impacts are felt.
Guardian website has long blog post criticising Lawson for his stance. Includes:
Learn">http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tim_watkin/2007/11/learn_to_swim.htm... to swim
Climate change sceptics can no longer argue with the evidence that the planet is warming. Instead they say we'll just have to adapt
Rush Limbaugh clueless re science
Wired News has item on some guff from Rush Limbaugh - who's evidently a right wing ranter who's famous in the US - inc comment that, "we are so insignificant. We couldn't cause global warming; we couldn't cause global cooling; we can't do diddly-squat. We're just inhabitants here." Rush">http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/rush-limbaugh-t.html?cid=9138... Limbaugh Takes On Quantum Physics (and Global Warming)
I've added comment, including:
Wall Street Journal makes vacuous attack on Al Gore science
One of the best rude remarks by an MP in Britain's Houses of Parliament was that being (verbally) attacked by him was, "Like being worried by a dead sheep."
Al Gore might be thinking much the same, after woeful commentary in Wall Street Journal by one Holman Jenkins Jr (who he?). The piece is supposedly some sort of critique of global warming science, yet it is totally lacking re actual science, indeed shows no understanding whatsoever of science; and you can be darn sure there's no mention of the IPCC (which shared the Nobel with Gore) and the many scientists who contribute to its reports, or of the over 200 scientists who have signed the Bali Declaration out of concerns the situation is becoming critical, and action is needed. Jenkins puff piece includes;
since we're talking science here, where's Jenkins justification for this sweeping generality?
what complete and utter bollocks
Is Jenkins for real? This seems more like he's considering a career as a stand up comedian. The">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119680478212413517.html]The Science of Gore's Nobel
I love my SUV
At ThinkProgress, there's an article re couple of Republican candidates for US election and their somewhat zany views re global warming, inc Thompson's rather curious notions:
Led to bunch of responses, from those who believe we should act re global warming, others who say we shouldn't. Among latters' comments is one that includes:
I posted response, inc:
Huckabee">http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/11/thompson-global-warming/#comment-418... And Thompson: Global Warming Is ‘Overblown’
Bogus climate change info from International Policy Network
Here's a letter I recently had published in the South China Morning Post, in response to an opinion piece from the grandiose sounding International Policy Network.
The Sen Inhofe vs Mike Tyson science showdown
If I remember rightly, one of fights by fearsome heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson was against a guy a pundit described as "Not even a household name in his own household."
I'm reminded of this through reading of Senator James Inhofe trotting out a report for senate, with quotes and stuff from over 400 "prominent scientists". Claims to refute science re anthropogenic global warming.
Yet, turns out many of these people aren't prominent; and goodly number not even scientists - include tv weathermen and economists. Maybe some non-too knowledgeable people will be hoodwinked by Inhofe, again trying to show there is debate/uncertainty where nothing so significant exists; and his report has been subject of some media reports, and of course picked up by right wing websites. But, it's overwhelmingly baloney.
For more on this, see, for instance: Inhofe">http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/22/73147/008]Inhofe (R-Exxon): Truthiness Gift for Christmas
Viscount Monckton tumbles into his own trap
Here's another letter I've sent the South China Morning Post, responding to letter from Viscount Monckton.
More on Monckton being untrustworthy, in a letter from the Clerk of Parliament no less, reproduced on Climate Shifts; includes:
Monckton. Member of the House of Lords?
Entertainment lawsuit guy not fun in hysterical paranoid ran
An especially crass piece on some US website, Town Hall - by a guy who has no science background, but was lately "a litigator in high profile entertainment matters" - gets it completly wrong re warming, figuring the issue's only about politics [it's real if your a leftie: bizarre notion to me]. Not just hysteria, but paranoia as well; and profound, worrying ignorance about the world we live in - where actions do have consequences that can't b willed away just because you wish the world was a certain way. Includes:
Global">http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KevinJames/2008/01/21/global_warming_... Warming: The All-Purpose Farce to Control Your Life
not all those who are called scientists are really scientist
It seems there's some sort of contest among US right wingers to see who can stoop the lowest in writing the crassest hyperbole regarding global warming. CBS should be ashamed of hosting an opinion piece I've come across. Includes:
- latter seems deeply ironic, given the dearth of actual scientists saying global warming isn't an issue, and the paucity of facts supporting their case.
- this shows that the buffoon penning the piece has no notion re facts; CO2 levels have been rising for some time, greenhouse effect (warming) was predicted before temperatures shown to be rising. Cold">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/opinion/main3893146.shtml]Cold Water on "Global Warming" National Review Online: Skeptics To Gather In Gotham To Discuss The Cold, Hard Facts
Climate sceptics and US based conservative think tanks
From an article in the New Statesman:
The global warming deniers
Booker the Saint of Charlatans still peddling denialist twaddle
Though science regarding climate change continues strengthening, still get cocksure scurrilous denialist twaddle, including recent article headed "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved" in the Daily Telegraph, by columnist and resolute non-scientist Christopher Booker.
This includes assertion:
- when the evidence of the article itself suggests Booker lives in a fantasy land, barely penetrated by reality.
For rebuttal of Booker's article, you might see Tim Lambert's Deltoid blog entry, Denialists scraping the bottom of the barrel
For more on Booker and his propensity to peddle twaddle, see:
The Bias and Logical Fallacies of Christopher Booker’s ‘Freezing Heat’ by Gavin Hudson, on an earlier Booker opinion piece; includes:
Also, George Monbiot clearly no fan of Booker; in The Patron Saint of Charlatans he writes:
US right-wingers citing info in Pravda
I'd read lately of global warming deniers becoming ever more desperate as scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming continues to mount.
But who'd have thought that US right-wingers, who spearhead much of denialism, would actually cite Pravda as a source of info, as they attempt to rebut global warming science.
This would seem more like something off Saturday Night Live than reality, but just happened on Newsbonkers ... err, Newsbusters:
Global Warming Update: 'Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age'
US right-wingers thinking world is against them
Looks like right-wingers who argue against climate change because, well, it doesn't suit their world view, are ever more boxed into a corner, ever more lashing out with ridiculous claims.
Among latest comes rant as editorial on Right Wing News website, which starts:
[quote]"Global warming" has nothing to do with climate change; at least not as practiced by politicians, would be entrepreneurs and the global elite. Environmentalism is now the home of socialists, ex-communists and anti-Americans.[/quote]
And how might we describe the author of this piss-poor polemic? A Neo-Nazi nutcase?
Really, just some sad old geezer, who might have a Canute-like wish the temperature is not rising, yet cannot combat reality, even though other crankies in the conservative camp will agree with him.
Christopher Brooker says BBC abandons impartiality hahaha
Just seen Daily Telegraph columnist Christopher Brooker ("Patron Saint of Charlatans" according to George Monbiot) asserting that BBC has lost impartiality re global warming.
Led to me posting:
[quote]hahaha, the Pot calling the Kettle black!
Booker indeed not at all impartial re warming (I doubt, say, he has highlighted Australia with around wost heatwave in century, or ongoing drought in parts of S America), and Telegraph happy to publish his quixotic assertions.
BBC correct to follow the science - peer-reviewed papers, expert climatologists; while "sceptics" seem to favour blogs, tired and wrong arguments and so forth.
It's time to move on: accept reality of warming, albeit with uncertainties, and figure out what - if anything - we're going to do about it.[/quote]
Global Climate Coalition lied about warming science
Further evidence re global warming disinformation from energy industry being akin to tobacco industry's disinfo regarding effects of smoking; from New York Times:
Ian Plimer moves heaven and earth to fib and obfuscate
You might think being a university professor might ensure that when you spout supposed facts, you can actually back them up.
But No! - witness the remarkable Ian Plimer, denier extraordinaire. I lately saw an article by him in the UK's Daily Mail, telling everyone not to worry about climate change, and packed with info suggesting it's a grand non-event. How comforting this might seem. Heck, he has more in a recent book, Heaven and Earth.
And yet, Ian P turns out to be little more than a big bag of bombast, and something of a scaredy cat to boot, judging by his unwillingness to enter into proper debate (shades of the legendary Lomborg here, I think: present information, and then evade straight answers to questions, even duck for cover, when folk have the temerity to highlight your errors. Not that fans of denialism mind, for they aren't fond of fact checking, instead favouring cherry picking n twaddle, as this thread shows).
Anyways, on to some Plimer-isms:
Open Mind website quotes Plimer in radio interview:
- and goes on to show Plimer is talking utter nonsense: it's much hotter now.
Pants on Fire
DeSmog Blog quotes question to Plimer from George Monbiot, the Guardian's scourge of deniers (of course, the Plimer-ism goes unanswered):
Clumsy Denier Ian Plimer Limps AWAY FROM the Finish Line
If you have stamina for it, you can read a radio interview, in which the interview is well prepared and on the ball, and Plimer verbally wriggles around:
Ian Plimer discusses his book denying global warming
Nutjob dubs US EPA the Greenhouse Gestapo
And, especially as Copenhagen summit about to begin, the hysteria just keeps on coming. This from The Examiner, which somehow makes it into Google News:
EPA's Jackson sets up greenhouse gestapo in ruling to regulate carbon dioxide as 'pollution'
Right-wingers versus science
Kind of ironic that the above post includes notion of a scary woman at a tea party, when just had a Tea Party for US Republicans, and Sarah Palin was very prominent at this.
Next thing you know, reports CBS News:
[quote]Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a "bunch of snake oil science"[/quote]
And just who is Sarah Palin to comment? The very same woman who was also shown using crib notes written on palm of her hand for a tv interview.
Across the Atlantic, in Britain, former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson was involved in recent establishment of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. A Wikipedia entry indicates that, from the start, this aims to be slippery with the facts:
[quote]When the GWPF's website was launched in November 2009, a graph used in the logo graphic on each page of the website of '21st Century global mean temperatures' showed a slow decline over the selected period from 2001–2008. It was found to contain an error for 2003 by Hannah Devlin of The Times, who also pointed out that if the period from 2000–2009 had been chosen, then a rise in temperature would have been shown rather than a fall. The error was also commented on by Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, who said the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century. The GWPF blamed a "small error by our graphic designer" for the mistake which would now be changed, but said that starting the graph earlier would be equally arbitrary.[/quote]
Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist (!!_ is the director of the foundation. Recently, the Observer (Guardian) published an exchange of emails between him and the Observer's science editor Robin McKie, re science of climate change. I reckon Peiser came off a very tardy second best:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/07/robin-mckie-benny-pe...
Conservative media myths about global warming
Handy article from Media Matters for America begins:
[quote]The conservative media have mounted an all-out attack on climate science in an attempt to discredit efforts to fight man-made global warming. Media Matters for America has debunked prominent myths and falsehoods associated with this smear campaign.[/quote]
myts debunked include:
MYTH: The scientific consensus on global warming has been undermined by recent events
MYTH: Erroneous Himalayan glacier statement in IPCC report undermines evidence of global warming
MYTH: IPCC report was wrong about the Amazon and drought
MYTH: New study debunks link between global warming and hurricane intensity
Myths and falsehoods from the assault on global warming science
Another article from Media Matters for America slams recent Wall Street Journal piece that claimed global warming science is dead (!!):
WSJ's Stephens tortures science to claim "global warming is dead"
More snowstorm more Fox News falsehoods
I haven't posted to this thread for a while, but that doesn't mean the global warming lies and climate change hysteria have stopped. Far from it; with recent snowstorms in the US, Fox "News" has merrily claimed global warming is disproved.
From Media Matters for America:
[quote]During their recent coverage of winter storms, Fox News has repeatedly mocked former Vice President Al Gore and cited the cold and snowy weather to attempt to discredit global warming. Fox News and other right-wing media routinely use snow to cast doubt on global warming, and internal emails from Fox News' Washington bureau show that in the past Fox employees have been instructed to question climate science.
...
During one segment about the recent snowstorm, Fox & Friends aired an on-screen graphic that read, "What Global Warming?"
...
In the midst of global climate change talks in Copenhagen in December 2009, Fox News' Washington Managing Editor Bill Sammon sent an email to Fox staff questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
...
In an article titled, "Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever," FoxNews.com sought to debunk the fact that global temperatures have increased over the past 30 years, as well as the notion that human activity has contributed to the warming. But in compiling a handful of contrarian arguments, Fox largely ignored climate science and botched basic facts; even one of the skeptics Fox cited said part of the article "does not make sense."[/quote]
Broken Record: Fox Still Falsely Claiming That Snow Disproves Global Warming
See also this from Media Matters for America:
Fox Tries To Debunk Global Warming, Fails Miserably
Rick Perry wilfully ignoring facts
This thread could be immense, what with all the lies and disinformation about climate change!
Now one of wannabe contenders for US president - Texas governor Rick Perry - found to be joining the disinfo, by Washington Post:
[quote]Perry is wrong to suggest that that skepticism has gained strength among scientists.
...
So, in contrast to Perry’s statement, there have not been a “substantial number” of scientists who manipulated data. Instead, there were a handful — who were falsely accused.
...
Perry’s statement suggests that, on the climate change issue, the governor is willfully ignoring the facts and making false accusations based on little evidence. He has every right to be a skeptic — all scientific theories should be carefully scrutinized — but that does not give him carte blanche to simply make things up.[/quote]
Rick Perry’s made-up ‘facts’ about climate change
Sceptics seized on woeful paper
Something of a furore just now, as a paper that sceptics had seized on has been found sadly wanting, and so bad that the editor of the journal it appeared in has resigned.
From BBC article:
Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper
Rick Perry another anti-science US politician
Texas governor Rick Perry is currently making a bid to become a candidate for Republican Party's presidential bid.
He's among the scarier anti-science loons, among a whole batch of them; currently, the Tea Party seems committeed to pooh-poohing global warming, and taking anti-science stance. Sad, and worrisome.
Perry is more extreme than most; lots of bluff and bluster, maybe Texas style - the hell with facts, and let's pray if there are problems... Yes, pray: with Texas suffering severe drought this summer, Perry has advised the solution is prayer power; I heard that after one prayer meeting he organised, in a stadium, temperatures actually rose. But that hasn't fazed him; after all, what is reality to a man who espouses such faith?
From an LA Times editorial:
Rick Perry: He's no Galileo
The GOP presidential candidate's resistance to science, especially on climate change, is no way to win the White House.
Inhofe says God says global warming a hoax
US senator James Inhofe is a reliable font of nonsense re climate change. Now, from Think Progress:
Inhofe: God Says Global Warming Is A Hoax
CO2 literally cannot cause global warming
Media Matters for America has a piece, quoting utter claptrap from a forecaster called Joe Bastardi, who keeps being given airtime on Fox. Here's a quote from the fellow:
Fox News Science, Again
Heartless Heartland Institute gets sleazier
The Heartless Institute (aka Heartland Institute) has stooped to a new low with an advertising campaign reported on by Care2Care:
Rupert Murdoch is supporting
Rupert Murdoch is supporting disinformation on global warming - as some posts above indicate, very very noticeable if see Fox News/Wall St Journal items, even without this new report on coverage by News International, which includes:
http://www.livescience.com/23448-fox-news-climate-coverage-wrong.html
Note also that Fox is closely associated with National Geographic tv, which I think accounts for sometimes dire standards of the channels' documentaries [not a patch on standard of magazine articles; hard to find mention of global warming, or indeed ideas that maybe not all is well with the natural world]
Ha-ha-Heartland Institute makes false claim about China
Over on Slate, there's item about Heartland Institute making a bogus claim about one of its reports on climate change being translated to Chinese. Includes:
Dumb stuff about climate change
It seems from this article in Rolling Stone that Americans are way in the lead when it comest to spouting twaddle about climate change. [Also in lead when it comes to researching and warning about it - go figure!].
Includes:
The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming
The most egregious myths, misconceptions and flat-out lies about the future of the planet
n/a
How does cold heat the already hot.
Why do K & t energy budgets show a doubling of heat energy. ie the creation of energy from nothing!
AGW is as ludicrous as the so called pathogenic virus.
Both use the same technique to beguile people in to the faith based system of so called authority.
Rationality has nothing to do modern westernised life!
climate deception by dirty industry
from union of concerned scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-decept...
Cherry picked lie pilloried by scientists
Donald Trump hasn't yet assumed office, but already phoney baloney promoted, and promptly skewered by scientists: