- This topic is empty.
13 July 2007 at 2:29 pm #3442
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.Quote: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.
My words were twisted in global warming documentary: expert
Update, 22 July 2008, from the Independent:Quote: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’1 August 2007 at 4:03 am #4471
Here’s response I posted to an article by Martin Durkin in the Australian, Up against the warming zealots. Response not posted; dunno why.Quote:Curious article; seems to slant things as if smug middle classes are behind notions re global warming.
Yet, as Martin Durkin well knows, comes from scientists:
“A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said:
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.
Many other science academies and scientific organizations support the conclusions of the IPCC.”
“Hockey stick” not really discredited.
Medieval warming disputed: maybe just localised, rather than global.
“backward-looking bigotry”?? – good grief; global warming is about the present and the future.
If any bigots around, Durkin is clearly among them.
Might wonder what the Durkins of the day might have said on places like Easter Island, where islanders chopped down the last of the trees, in part to move around immense statues – and in doing so, taking their society huge leaps backwards, so the first Europeans to arrive there found a sad bunch of people, scratching a living from a rough, grassy landscape.
“God bless Australia. The DVD will be out soon.” – I hope readers don’t fall for Durkin’s attempts at smooth talking salesmanship (Ooh, those of you who liked my documentary are so wonderful and sane … and while you’re at it, maybe give me some money.)
Plenty more re his dodgy documentary on Wikipedia:
– includes, if you scroll down, rebuttals from scientists, including this in press release from the Royal Society:Quote:Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world’s population has the best possible future.1 August 2007 at 4:13 am #4472
I posted the following in response to an item on scienceblogs.com:Quote:As for me, I reckon papers can be right or wrong, but I see "Heartland Institute" on anything, and think woah! – I'll be surprised if there's any truth and balance here.
– and promptly received an email from the institute.
My post was prompted by a scienceblog post, titled: Alarmist 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: Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing … and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists This article includes statement:Quote:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who have recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame. A new study of the Karakoram, Hindu Kush, and Western Himalaya mountain ranges by researchers at England's Newcastle University shows consistent recent growth among the region's glaciers.
– which startled me, so googled for info. Readily found, and press release from Newcastle University on the paper says:Quote:New research into climate change in the Western Himalaya and the surrounding Karakoram and Hindu Kush mountains could explain why many glaciers there are growing and not melting. The findings suggest this area, known as the Upper Indus Basin, could be reacting differently to global warming, the phenomenon blamed for causing glaciers in the Eastern Himalaya, Nepal and India, to melt and shrink.
Mountain 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:Quote:I was concerned that you have the wrong impression of the Heartland Institute. We are a free market think tank based in Chicago. We are a non-partisan organization that believes free markets provide the best solutions to social and economic problems. We do not represent any business interests. … [blah blah blah] We may disagree on philosophy, but I think we are trying to accomplish the same thing.
Heartland is especially interested in school choice and healthcare reform.
Regards, Tom Swiss Director – Public Relations The Heartland Institute
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".Quote:While Europe was asleep, someone mailed a bunch of internal Heartland Institute documents to a number of bloggers including desmogblog and ThinkProgress – these two and others have since posted the documents online.
One thing that's clear from the documents is that the Heartland Institute is largely behind the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a project that purports to mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by producing reports downplaying the extent of global warming as well as the involvement of greenhouse gas emissions in producing it.
The next target appears to be schools. The plan is to fund a consultant, David Wojick, to develop modules for use in classrooms.
Among the statements it might promulgate, according to the "2012 Fundraising Plan" document, are that "whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy" and "natural [CO2] emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions".
Chris Rapley, a climate change scientist at University College London, described the project as "brain-washing".
"This strikes at the very roots of truth and freedom in a democratic society, something I would have felt the American people would find abhorrent," he said.
a single source who is so important as to acquire his own set of capitals – the Anonymous Donor.
This man – the gender is specified – gave just under $1m last year, a little less than a quarter of the institute's income.
But that's small beer compared with his 2008 contribution of $4,610,000 – amounting to 58% of the organisation's entire budget for the year!8 August 2007 at 3:10 am #4473
Newsweek article, 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:Quote:In 1633, Galileo Galilei was put on trial "for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many," namely that the earth moved around the sun. In Newsweek’s view, Galileo was a "denier" of the accepted "consensus." You know the type — hacks like Copernicus, who disputed the fact that Earth was the center of the universe, or Columbus, who disputed the international consensus that Earth was flat.
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.9 August 2007 at 9:06 am #4474
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:Quote:As the long and dreary Russian winters become balmier, billions of dollars will be saved on heating and there will be fewer cases of depression, says Vladimir Klimenko, a professor at the Moscow Energy Institute, whose lab is funded by the state-run oil and gas company.
– notice the funding of Vlad the Kilmenko: echoes of Exxon! the item conclusion includes:Quote:In the end, as the planet has indeed been much warmer in the past than it is today – despite protestations to the contrary by folks with a political agenda
– 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 Welcomes Global Warming as Answer to All Its Prayers – even this title is stupid! "all its prayers" indeed! Must dash; feeling a bit bilious13 August 2007 at 2:04 am #4475
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:Quote:What is at stake is our standard of living.
In truth, they are the mud-slingers with a political agenda that threatens the American way of life. This is the fact that they are so desperate to conceal.
– 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 Burns Truth in Global Warming Story14 August 2007 at 4:52 am #4476
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:Quote:There has been little debate and instead personal attacks, threats, loss of funding, calls for speech suppression, and even Nuremburg Trials.
Twisted 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.16 August 2007 at 9:16 am #4477
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:Quote:Grown-up scientists, theologians, historians, archaeologists and others who pursue facts and objective truths are rooted in reality and constantly adjusting their conclusions, theories and hypotheses when new information comes to light. Those who ignore facts and cling to outdated information, or outright falsehoods, can quickly embrace fanaticism. [err, like the fanaticism of the denial lobby these days?]
So it is with ”global warming,” the secular religion of our day that even has a good number of adherents among people of faith. Having decided to focus less on the eternal and whether anyone dwells there, global warming fundamentalists are pushing planet worship on us in a manner that would make a jihadist proud.
That ought to be enough to give everyone pause, along with emerging evidence that the global warming jihadists may be more full of hot air than the climate they claim is about to burn us up.
– 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:Quote:One can get a sense of who is telling the truth about global warming by the company the concept keeps.
– indeed! How often have you noticed the sceptics are supported by energy companies, and/or are died-in-the-wool righties?
Thomas: Logic of global warming jihadists: So much hot air28 August 2007 at 2:17 am #4478
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.Quote:Evangelical Christians have radically different priorities from the rest of the country about the challenges the U.S. must confront in the next 10 years.
This alone alarms me!Quote:According to a Barna poll, that’s especially true concerning global warming alarmism.
Only about a third of evangelicals gave global warming “top priority” status. They rated the issue lower than any of the other 80 groups in the survey. Topping the priority list for evangelicals was the health of churches.
Stuart Shepard, managing editor of CitizenLink, who is also a meteorologist, said major news outlets are largely to blame for the hype.
“If people get their information from the mainstream media, they’re only hearing one side of this,” he told Family News in Focus. “There are top scientists and researchers who are skeptical of the outrageous claims about global warming and they make some solid science-based arguments, but you’d never know it from the evening news.”
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.Quote:He said Focus on the Family Action has been strongly encouraging evangelicals to not allow global warming alarmism to become a defining or a dividing issue.
“Most evangelicals do not and should not see this as an issue that would rise to the level of evangelism, the sanctity of life, and the protection of marriage and religious liberty.”
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.Quote:Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the poll doesn’t mean evangelicals are not interested in taking care of the planet.
“Despite what the media may want to project upon evangelicals,” he said, “they understand that if we, as a nation, get the spiritual issues right and build strong marriages and families — most of the other problems will be solved.”
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 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?17 September 2007 at 4:11 am #4479
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 and Singer: Unstoppable hot air
You can read about Prof Singer, and his links to ExxonMobil money, on ExxoSecrets.org:
S. Fred Singer
while there’s more on Fred on DeSmogBlog:
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.”25 September 2007 at 3:24 am #4480
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:Quote:Timothy Ball chairs the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a federally incorporated nonprofit in Canada. He says his skepticism is based on assumptions about global warming that have never been confirmed. "In this case it is assumed carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will trap heat in the atmosphere, that the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase because of human industrial activity and specifically the burning of fossil fuels, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide will double," he said. Ball said that this hypothesis became fact before the research had begun, "because it fit a political agenda and the views of the environmentalists."
Global 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: NCDC:Greenhouse 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. Friends of Science – Wikipedia entry
There's strong article by Charles Montgomery, which first appeared in the Globe and Mail, centred on Timothy Ball. Includes:Quote:Leaders throughout Europe have accepted the IPCC position on climate change, and have been looking for ways to take collective action, primarily via the Kyoto Accord. Yet North Americans have lagged behind, hamstrung by a lingering debate in the media and among politicians about climate science. … who are the donors? No one will say. "[The money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals."
When pushed in another interview, however, Prof. Cooper admits, "There were some oil companies." [PR Company boss James Hoggan, who has couple of people investigating skeptics' funding]: 'I don't think that the people who are involved in this should be able to get away with it. My goal is to find out as much as we can about these people and make it public. Who are they? Who is paying them? What motivates them? How is it they can sleep at night?" '
Mr. Cool Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business
See also brief Bio of Ball, w some of his Ballocks, on DeSmogBlog. Dr. 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:Quote:On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.
Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.
As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.” That work began in May, 2010. Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.
Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling him during the talk. CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations.
CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little about climate science.” We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.
CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.
Yikes! I haven't seen original article, but seems only thing Ball got right in his piece was Dr Weaver's name!29 September 2007 at 3:44 pm #4481
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:Quote:In high-school biology class, we used to do an experiment with fruit flies. You put flies and food in a jar, screw the top on tight and wait to see what happens as the flies reproduce like mad. The goal is to see at what point the limits of the jar – air, food, space – begin to affect the ability of the fruit flies to exist. At some point, the jar becomes inhospitable and the flies die en masse. If Bjorn Lomborg, Danish author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, were to write up that high-school experiment, he would focus on the point just before the flies began to hit the limits. He would wax on about how the population of flies had never been stronger, trot out statistics to show how astoundingly well the population had reproduced over time, and gush boyishly about the excellent living conditions in the jar. … he would be correct on carefully selected points of fact, but fatally incorrect about the larger picture, or the meaning of the information he was looking at. This is the trick he plays in Cool It, and it is the same tack he took in The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (2001). … He’s not a scientist, and the book of science, alas, is closed to him. His work betrays, embarrassingly, that he doesn’t understand biology or how living systems work or any of the basic principles of scientific inquiry. … Lomborg has now proved beyond a doubt that he is incapable of contributing anything of merit to scientific discourse.17 October 2007 at 3:31 pm #4482
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:Quote:Gore is an embarrassment to the nation and should be recognized for being a despotic fool not someone who promoted the cause of peace. … Al Gore is a lying demagogue. Only fools like the mainstream media and left wing Marxist idiots would believe such a brain-dead imbecile or a shrewd conniving political exploiter. Global warming is a fool’s folly. Al, “We the People” are not idiots. … Folks, carbon gases and man causing global warming just ain’t so regardless how many people say it is. We the People will suffer greatly if we don’t realize what the Al Gore global warming agenda really is. Gore is promoting a communist one world order through international taxation and control over nation states. It will destroy us.
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 Gore’s Global Warming Lies22 October 2007 at 8:53 am #4483
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:Quote:You have to watch these liberals when they talk about the children. It’s obvious they’ve found a way to indoctrinate them, to their way of thinking, and it’s going to be difficult to make them look at the truth. … On this issue, we’re going to have to depend on foreign countries to bring us the truth.
– 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 Stossel Questions Inconvenient Truths on MSM View of Global Warming26 October 2007 at 10:23 am #4484
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:Quote:an entire Global Warming fraud industry has grown up, based on years of pseudo-scientific false alarms, and feeding scare headlines without end around the world. But the science is finally clear: Any reasonable evidence [sic] is not only missing, but can in principle not be obtained in a system as complex as the earth climate. End of story — at least among scientists with a shred of integrity left.
SCIENCE: 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:Quote:Suppose some pinko-liberal or even commie country were to go to war with the US of A – exactly how many people would die? Or even if some terrorists let off a few dirty bombs in some US cities, how many would die now and in future, inc from side effects? You can’t predict for sure? Then – according to your absurd piece on American Idiot (Thinker? – hahahaha, gimme a break) these are not real threats, and we shouldn’t do anything to prevent them happening.27 October 2007 at 3:38 pm #4485
News piece on Canada.com has some pretty damning looking claims re IPCC, by one Vivian Gray. Includes:Quote:Dr. Gray’s mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.
“The whole process is a swindle,” he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.
Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years — he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC’s final draft of its most recent report alone.
Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this [IPCC] reform effort, but he refused, saying: “The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ I could envisage would be its abolition.”
IPCC 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 saysQuote:A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal with the last article being published 17 years ago.
Listed as a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it’s funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. [oh dear, Dr Tim who’s prone to Ballocks – see above]
– hmm, a member of a committee that refuses to disclose funding sources… – and the IPCC is corrupt, eh?10 November 2007 at 2:00 pm #4486
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:Quote:It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. …
I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman …
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
Weather 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 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.15 November 2007 at 3:43 am #4487
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:Quote:Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them. … I invited sceptics to put their cards on the table, and send me documentation or other firm evidence of bias. … Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who is something of an anti-hero to sceptics’ groups as he believes IPCC projections of sea-level rise are far too conservative, had heard this argument before, and he wrote in telling me it was far from convincing. "How likely is it that my funding would suffer if I found a good alternative explanation for the observed global warming, or that I would have trouble publishing it (assuming it would be methodologically sound, of course)?" he asked. "Quite the contrary, I would see it as a path to certain fame! Scientists always strive to find something radically new and different – just reconfirming what is already quite well-known is boring, and certainly will not get you the Nobel Prize. … The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling. No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else. If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden. … But I will say this; if someone persistently claims to be a great football player, and yet fails to find the net when you put him in front of an open goal, you cannot do other than doubt his claim.23 November 2007 at 3:25 am #4488
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:Quote:The more one examines the current global warming orthodoxy, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It contains a grain of truth – and a mountain of nonsense.
“We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting.
– 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:Quote:Lawson’s concern is that nothing interferes with globalisation, but he ignores the fact that climate change could destroy more demand-and-supply chains around the world than new government policies ever could.
More importantly, however, the callousness underpinning the argument is reprehensible. The losers in this case won’t pay with their stock options, houses and retirement income. They will pay with their lives. And the winners might yet join them.
Lawson’s line is the worst kind of self-satisfied I’m alright Jack and good luck to the rest of you argument I’ve heard in a long time. He talks of adapting and of building seawalls to stop the rising tides, safe in the knowledge that his personal wealth and the wealth of his home nation will protect him from the worst of any climate disaster.
Climate change sceptics can no longer argue with the evidence that the planet is warming. Instead they say we’ll just have to adapt
28 November 2007 at 8:34 am #4489
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 Limbaugh Takes On Quantum Physics (and Global Warming)
I’ve added comment, including:Quote:If we humans are “just inhabitants”, wonder what Limbaugh might reckon to bacteria – heck, you can’t even see em, so what are those pinko liberal leftie scientists doing saying they transformed the early atmosphere and still have a huge impact? Sheesh!
this is not just being something theoretical to chat about: global warming an issue to affect everyone, no matter their political persuasion (one of dumbest things I’ve heard anyone tell me, was from woman saying she didn’t believe in global warming as she’s a conservative…)7 December 2007 at 10:10 am #4490
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;Quote:Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they’ve chosen to believe.
since we’re talking science here, where’s Jenkins justification for this sweeping generality?Quote:a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself.
what complete and utter bollocksQuote:With politicians and lobbyists, of course, you are dealing with sophisticated people versed in the ways of public opinion whose very prosperity depends on positioning themselves via such cascades. Their reactions tend to be, for that reason, on a higher intellectual level.
Is Jenkins for real? This seems more like he’s considering a career as a stand up comedian.
The Science of Gore’s Nobel13 December 2007 at 10:13 am #4491
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:Quote:The extremists are the ones who want to do drastic things to our economy before we have more answers as to how much good we can do and whether people in the other parts of the world are going to contribute. It’s the fact that our entitlements are bankrupting the next generation.
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:Quote:Just don’t for a minute think that you are going to be allowed to legislate any changes to my lifestyle in the name of curtailing global warming. No way. I love my SUV and I will be keeping it. I also prefer traditional light bulbs because they simply provide better quality light. Additionally I’ll purchase and use whatever natural resources I so chose and I won’t tolerate some pinhead environmentalist extremists telling me otherwise.
I posted response, inc:Quote:Seems to me that with the science settled (and, never mind lists of links, it is – as much as plate tectonics, or evolution; and we all know it’s obvious really: CO2 etc are known greenhouse gases, we’re adding more to atmosphere, so not rocket science to predict outcome [predicting exactly, now that’s different]), problem now with such crass selfishness, people who don’t give a rats-a about rest of the planet and the future – which far more prevalent than just CWIAS. And, problems with a bunch of scaredy-cats; just too darn scared to do the right thing.22 December 2007 at 2:58 pm #4492
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.Quote:I am writing regarding the article “Alarmism is not the way to tackle climate change”, by Kendra Okonski, of the International Policy Network. Finding the article highly unbalanced, I checked re the network, and learned it has received over US$390,000 from ExxonMobil – surely the most infamous supporter of global warming “sceptics”.
Given this, Okonski’s claim of “biases” – towards global warming “alarmism” – resulting from funding by “powerful interest groups” is ludicrous. Her piece is riddled with cherry picked facts, half truths, or worse.
It’s immensely deceptive to claim, “The science of climate change remains hotly contested.” No, it does not; witness the standpoints of august bodies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Britain’s Royal Society, and our own Hong Kong Observatory. Among all but a tiny minority of actual scientists, there is no longer debate over whether warming due to greenhouse gases is real – instead, any debates are now over just how severe it will be, and what measures are needed to ensure we don’t devastate the world as we know it.
Okonski asserts the International Government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “is also biased towards alarmism” – which is curious, given that some of the more alarming forecasts of scientists have been removed during the editing process. She appears oblivious to the fact that some observed changes – such as melting of Arctic ice, and expansion of the Tropics, have proceeded more swiftly than in even some of the more alarming forecasts.
While noting the number of people killed by weather disasters has fallen since good records began, Okonski fails to mention vastly improved warning systems, and Oxfam’s report that the number of number of natural disasters has increased fourfold since two decades ago.
With no scientific foundation whatsoever, Okonski claims the best thing to do about climate change is adapting, while helping people create wealth. Here, she is seemingly blinded to the obvious: if the worst of climate change predictions come true, adaptation will prove impossible for countless people, and there will be widespread economic reversals.
Overall, it seems Okonski’s piece stems from fear of doing the right thing, and adopting measures that economists have suggested could cost 1 percent of world income. With climate change real, the outcomes uncertain yet potentially devastating, it is alarming to read calls for yet more procrastination.28 December 2007 at 10:11 am #4493
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 (R-Exxon): Truthiness Gift for Christmas4 January 2008 at 4:51 pm #4494
Here's another letter I've sent the South China Morning Post, responding to letter from Viscount Monckton.Quote:Dear Sir: It was interesting to see that Viscount Monckton of Benchley – who once wrote an article titled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", recommending quarantine for all HIV carriers – has written to the South China Morning Post, attempting to put the editors right regarding global warming.
Sadly, Monckton fails to muster arguments that make his case. Claiming global surface temperatures have not risen in a statistically significant sense since 2001, he omits to mention that NASA ranks 2005 the warmest year in over a century, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently reported that "Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).”
Plus, in seeking a trend over just six years, Monckton has tumbled into his own trap of lacking statistical significance. The warming trend is clearly upwards, and the latest data suggests the rise is faster than previously estimated.
Monckton also refers to apparent anomalies in temperatures recorded in the tropical upper troposphere, and states that from these we now know that the relatively minor warming that ceased (sic) in 2001 was largely not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Here, he ignores the large errors in upper troposphere temperature measurements. And – as so often with global warming "sceptics" – he ignores the mountain of scientific publications that show global warming resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is real and significant, and cherry picks from the molehill of science that suggests otherwise.
In concluding that no imposts should be inflicted upon us unless we are told how much they will cost and how much effect they will have, Monckton reveals his narrow knowledge of global warming. The IPCC has forecast that measures to mitigate the worst impacts of global warming could slow global GDP growth by an average of 0.12 percentage points. The Post was correct to write of a “planetary emergency”.
We are all effectively locked in a test tube, in surely the greatest experiment man has ever performed. If the worst projections come true, this will mean the transformation of life as we know it: a dire, apparently sci-fi scenario, yet a succession of news reports tell us of warming-related events that are unfolding at a startling pace. This is not a time for debating and waiting and seeing, but for action.
Yours faithfully, Dr Martin Williams
More on Monckton being untrustworthy, in a letter from the Clerk of Parliament no less, reproduced on Climate Shifts; includes:Quote:My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.
In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.
I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords.21 January 2008 at 4:00 pm #4495
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:Quote:The Democrats (a.k.a. global warming wimps) have found the rhetorical weapon they will use for at least the next decade to decrease your liberty while increasing their power, and that weapon is the hysteria over global warming. … Environmental doomsaying is one of the most powerful tactics that liberals use to obtain and wield power. At its heart, the Democrat Party is a coalition of interest groups that feed at the trough of the government. The more power the politicians and bureaucrats have, the more contracts and benefits the groups can gobble up. … Everything you do has a carbon footprint and could be regulated by the government. If the Democrats have their way, you could face new limits on what you eat for breakfast, the way you travel to work, the computer on which you read Townhall.com, the medicines you take, the clothes you wear, the DVDs you watch, everything – everything! “Carbon footprint” is code for limitless government intrusion into every detail of your life.2 March 2008 at 3:05 pm #4496
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:Quote:creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global-warming “crisis.” They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global-warming crisis. … Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?
– 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.Quote:The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times. The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.
– 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 Water on "Global Warming" National Review Online: Skeptics To Gather In Gotham To Discuss The Cold, Hard Facts3 July 2008 at 1:32 pm #4527
From an article in the New Statesman:Quote:The last time I looked, four out of five of Amazon’s top sellers on climate were penned by deniers. And these are not just views from the fringe. A MORI poll reported by the Observer last month found six out of ten people think, wrongly, that "many scientific experts" disagree on whether human beings are causing climate change. Four out of ten people asked believed that the impact had been exaggerated.
Many climate-change sceptics like to think they are proudly independent people, refusing to be cowed by UN-sponsored orthodoxy from the IPCC. In fact, the arguments of climate sceptics have largely been moulded by a far more sinister force – the US-based conservative think tanks. A recent academic survey of environmentally sceptical books found that 92 per cent were linked with these think tanks, which include the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Since the early 1990s, these and other industry-funded front groups have been leading an anti-environmental backlash, changing the tenor of the political debate on environmental issues and bombarding the media and the public with disinformation.
The authors of the study, published in the June edition of a journal called Environmental Politics, argue that, far from being a true grass-roots movement, "environmental scepticism is an elite- driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement". The "self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised ‘Davids’ battling the powerful ‘Goliath’ of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade", given that the "sceptics are supported by politically powerful conservative think tanks funded by wealthy foundations and corporations".31 December 2008 at 3:33 am #4572
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:Quote:Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming.
– 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:Quote:the credibility of Mr. Booker’s article as a rational piece of scientific journalism falls apart as early as the first paragraph under the weight of his personal bias. Moreover, the writing is so riddled with logical fallacies that the article actually does an injustice to the “climate skeptics” whose arguments it seeks to support.
Also, George Monbiot clearly no fan of Booker; in The Patron Saint of Charlatans he writes:Quote:what can you say about a man who makes the same mistake 38 times? Who, when confronted by a mountain of evidence demonstrating that his informant is a charlatan convicted under the Trade Descriptions Act, continues to repeat his claims? Who elevates the untested claims of bloggers above peer-reviewed papers? Who sticks to his path through a blizzard of facts? What should we deduce about the Sunday Telegraph’s columnist Christopher Booker?
Nine days ago, for example, he attacked Michael Mann … How did Booker trip up so badly? By using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies.
for the Wikipedia Professor of Gibberish, this patron saint of charlatans, even the seasons are negotiable. Booker remains right, whatever the evidence says. It is hard to think of any journalist – Melanie Phillips included – who has spread more misinformation.12 January 2009 at 1:56 am #4575
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:Quote:As Democrats and their president-elect — with invaluable assistance from their media minions — continue spreading climate hysteria in order to raise taxes and redistribute wealth, a possibly inconvenient truth has just been presented to the international community: "The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science."
Additionally, the entire bogus manmade global warming theory that climate alarmists and their surrogates have been forcing down the throats of the citizenry "is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change."
Such was reported by Russia’s Pravda Sunday
Global Warming Update: ‘Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.