Why is climate science political?

[Saigon]

European governments are not conservative. They are all bankrupt socialists. LMAO!

Moron.

Which party is in power in England right now?

Which party is in power in Germany right now?

Please answer honestly.

 

[Saigon]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Science isn't a political issue.
Twisting the data to achieve your political aim is when it becomes political.

Yes, I'd agree with that. It's a good response.

So let's ignore ay science prepared by, or funded by, the solar, wind, nuclear and coal industries.

I'm looking at a link which lists 800+ peer-reviewed studies, all of which confirm that human acitivity likely plays some role in climate change.

As far as I am aware, not one of the studies has ever been faulted, accused of fraud, maniuplation or sloppy science.

These findings have been crucial in convincing the worlds 50 major scientific bodies of climate change.

Are we agreed so far?

 

[westwall]

European governments are not conservative. They are all bankrupt socialists. LMAO!

Moron.

Which party is in power in England right now?

Which party is in power in Germany right now?

Please answer honestly.

What party do you think Merkel is? Sounds like a card carrying Republican to me



Like most pupils, Merkel was a member of the official, Socialist-led youth movement Free German Youth (FDJ). However, she did not take part in the secular coming of age ceremony Jugendweihe, which was common in East Germany, and was confirmed instead. Later, at the Academy of Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for "Agitprop" (Agitation and Propaganda). Merkel herself claimed that she was secretary for culture. When Merkel's onetime FDJ district chairman contradicted her, she insisted that: "According to my memory, I was secretary for culture. But what do I know? I believe I won't know anything when I'm 80."[12] Merkel's progress in the compulsory Marxism-Leninism course was graded only genügend (sufficient, passing grade) in 1983 and 1986.[13]


Angela Merkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Science isn't a political issue.
Twisting the data to achieve your political aim is when it becomes political.

Yes, I'd agree with that. It's a good response.

So let's ignore ay science prepared by, or funded by, the solar, wind, nuclear and coal industries.

I'm looking at a link which lists 800+ peer-reviewed studies, all of which confirm that human acitivity likely plays some role in climate change.

As far as I am aware, not one of the studies has ever been faulted, accused of fraud, maniuplation or sloppy science.

These findings have been crucial in convincing the worlds 50 major scientific bodies of climate change.

Are we agreed so far?

How about the 1000+ that refute your 800. What about those? You are conspicuously silent on those.

 

[IanC]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Science isn't a political issue.
Twisting the data to achieve your political aim is when it becomes political.

" never let a crisis go to waste". politicians are willing to reward findings that useful to them. AGW is just too good to be true with all its layers of bureaucratic slop troughs

 

[RollingThunder]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Science isn't a political issue.
Twisting the data to achieve your political aim is when it becomes political.

Yes, I'd agree with that. It's a good response.

So let's ignore ay science prepared by, or funded by, the solar, wind, nuclear and coal industries.

I'm looking at a link which lists 800+ peer-reviewed studies, all of which confirm that human acitivity likely plays some role in climate change.

As far as I am aware, not one of the studies has ever been faulted, accused of fraud, maniuplation or sloppy science.

These findings have been crucial in convincing the worlds 50 major scientific bodies of climate change.

Are we agreed so far?

How about the 1000+ that refute your 800. What about those? You are conspicuously silent on those.

That's because "those" are a fantasy existing only in the diseased, deluded brains of dim-witted dingbat denier cultists like you, walleyed.

 

[Saigon]

How about the 1000+ that refute your 800. What about those? You are conspicuously silent on those.

There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change.

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.

 

[IanC]

Saigon- have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?

f

Not particularly - given there are now more than 800 peer reviewed scientific papers available on climate change, focusing on one you seem to have found a problem with seems like learning about a Ford Mustang by examining only the distributor cap.

Secondly, the 'hockey stick' to me was less an accurate scientific statement than an alaogy that the non-science public could easily understand. At that level I thought it was fine.

Taking it too literally never seemed terribly clever to me.

it seems to me that whenever you are shown to be less than correct you simply show distain for the 'one' instance, and then want to change the subject to something else.

someone else, Myles Allen, has been doing the same thing lately.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NpOcGhPwnw&feature=player_embedded]Professor Myles Allen - Climate Change: So Last Decade - YouTube[/ame]

at least Allen had the fortitude to respond when his hypocrisy was commented on
- Bishop Hill blog - Myles Allen writes

and of course that response brought another, this time from an IPCC reviewer that wanted Mann98,99 and the hockey stick graph out of AR4-
Myles Allen and a New Trick to Hide-the-Decline « Climate Audit

Myles Allen has written here blaming Bishop Hill for “keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies” like the Hockey Stick:

My fear is that by keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies, you are excluding them from the discussion of what we should do about climate change
But it’s not Bishop Hill that Myles Allen should be criticizing; it’s John Houghton who more or less made the Hockey Stick the logo of the IPCC. Mann was told that IPCC higher-ups wanted a visual that didn’t “dilute the message” and they got one: they deleted the last part of the Briffa reconstruction – Hide the Decline. If, as Allen now says, it’s an “irrelevancy”, then Houghton and IPCC should not have used it so prominently. And they should not have encouraged or condoned sharp practice like Hide the Decline.

In the run-up to AR4, I suggested that, if the topic was “irrelevant”, as some climate scientists have said, then IPCC should exclude it from the then AR4. Far from trying to keep the topic alive in AR4, I suggested that it be deleted altogether. I guess that there was a “consensus” otherwise. If Allen wants to complain, then he should first criticize IPCC.

the damage done by the hockey stick graph is immense, and simply ignoring it will not repair the damage. the warmers have already sucked out enormous amounts of publicity from it but now that it has been proven as a fraud they want to just stop talking about it and the scandals that should be made public.

 

[IanC]

How about the 1000+ that refute your 800. What about those? You are conspicuously silent on those.

There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change.

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.

I realize people get worked up over this topic and tend to exaggerate, but....

are you serious??

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

I'm not worked up, but I didn't mean the '3' literally, anymore than you meant the '1000' literally.

We both know that the number of recent peer-reviewed papers which conclude that human acitivity plays some role in climate change outnumber the opposite by dozens to one, if not hundreds to one.

 

[rdean]

To Republicans, all science is political.

Only magic is real.

 

[IanC]

the vast majority of papers are simply collections of data that can, and have been, used by both sides. until 2000 the paradigm was that the medieval warm period was real and warmer than today. people have noticed, and measured, the glacier and icecap retreat for more than 150 years. sea level rise has been documented for over 100 years and it has remained steady at ~2mm/year. thermometers have have recorded temps for the last 150 years but it has only been the one-sided adjustments of the last 12 years that have made the increase look disproportionate.

the last 30 years has seen the rise of computer models (a good thing), but they have been given far to much credence and claims of accuracy far beyond their capability (a bad thing). the inputs and assumptions for those climate models are incomplete and contrary to the real world. solar is considered insignificant and feedbacks are considered positive contrary to just about every natural system there is.

you have been told one side of the story and it sounded reasonable so you believed it. I have listened to both sides of the story and I dont particularly believe either. I dont know how old you are but I was around for the ice age scare of the 70's. it all made sense and seemed reasonable then too. nature doesnt give a fig about what we believe or how pretty our theories are. the difference between the doomsday forecasts then and now is that this time mankind is being blamed, it is a hook to gain power over our lifestyles that politicians cant resist.

 

[IanC]

Saigon- you seem to like peer reviewed papers by legitimate climate scientists. I suggest you visit R. Pielke, Sr's site for a glimpse into the 'other' side. he is an author and coauthor of a great many papers, he has ongoing discussions with many of the bright lights of your side of climate science, and his links to papers are seldom paywalled.

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. | by Roger Pielke Sr.

 

[Bfgrn]

How about the 1000+ that refute your 800. What about those? You are conspicuously silent on those.

There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change.

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.

Here is a little background information. The peasants for plutocracy on the right you are arguing with here want you to believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated. Even though the most blatant evidence of their plan to launch a well funded PR and disinformation campaign was leaked years ago when the American Petroleum Institute issued their 'action' plan. And that action had nothing to do with science. It had everything to do with preserving their profits.

Global Climate Science Communications
Action Plan

Victory Will Be Achieved When

Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.

Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.

Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.

Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.

Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.

Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.

Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.

Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.



Industry’s Anti-Global Warming Misinformation Campaign Reminiscent of Big Tobacco’s Strategy

The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel–far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry’s notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers’ own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.

The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.

Check out the full article here and the original documents here.

 

[IanC]

How about the 1000+ that refute your 800. What about those? You are conspicuously silent on those.

There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change.

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.

Here is a little background information. The peasants for plutocracy on the right you are arguing with here want you to believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated. Even though the most blatant evidence of their plan to launch a well funded PR and disinformation campaign was leaked years ago when the American Petroleum Institute issued their 'action' plan. And that action had nothing to do with science. It had everything to do with preserving their profits.

Global Climate Science Communications
Action Plan

Victory Will Be Achieved When

Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.

Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.

Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.

Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.

Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.

Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.

Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.

Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.



Industry’s Anti-Global Warming Misinformation Campaign Reminiscent of Big Tobacco’s Strategy

The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel–far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry’s notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers’ own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.

The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.

Check out the full article here and the original documents here.

hahahaha

and yet you dont believe what the climate scientists said in their own words in the climategate emails?

 

[IanC]

from bfgrn's post-

The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel–far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry’s notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers’ own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.

The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:

the concensus climate scientists have been actively speading misinformation and suppressing inconvenient data for years as is made clear in the climategate I&II emails. which is worse? I think that being lied to by those that you trust is more harmful than those that are the outside opinion. another question; which is worse, the scientist that is willing to lie because he thinks the ends justify the means, or the other scientists that refuse to point out the lie because they fear for their professional standing? how many other scientists were willing to publically lambast Mann and the hockey team other than Muller?

 

[Bfgrn]

There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change.

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.

Here is a little background information. The peasants for plutocracy on the right you are arguing with here want you to believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated. Even though the most blatant evidence of their plan to launch a well funded PR and disinformation campaign was leaked years ago when the American Petroleum Institute issued their 'action' plan. And that action had nothing to do with science. It had everything to do with preserving their profits.

Global Climate Science Communications
Action Plan

Victory Will Be Achieved When

Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.

Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.

Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.

Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.

Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.

Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.

Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.

Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.



Industry’s Anti-Global Warming Misinformation Campaign Reminiscent of Big Tobacco’s Strategy

The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel–far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry’s notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers’ own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.

The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.

Check out the full article here and the original documents here.

hahahaha

and yet you dont believe what the climate scientists said in their own words in the climategate emails?

Maybe it was the plethora of investigations debunking your claims.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

 

[Bfgrn]

from bfgrn's post-

The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel–far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry’s notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers’ own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.

The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:

the concensus climate scientists have been actively speading misinformation and suppressing inconvenient data for years as is made clear in the climategate I&II emails. which is worse? I think that being lied to by those that you trust is more harmful than those that are the outside opinion. another question; which is worse, the scientist that is willing to lie because he thinks the ends justify the means, or the other scientists that refuse to point out the lie because they fear for their professional standing? how many other scientists were willing to publically lambast Mann and the hockey team other than Muller?

Let me ask you ONE question...do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated?

 

[code1211]

How about the 1000+ that refute your 800. What about those? You are conspicuously silent on those.

There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change.

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.

The question is not whether there is "some part" being played but if the contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere by the activities of Man is the prime driver of Climate change.

The rise of CO2 has been pretty consistent over the last 120 years and the rises and the falls of the temperature of the world, obviously, do not follow this consistency. The contribution by Man is a small fraction of the total CO2 added annually.

There are, also obviously, other factors that either overpower or render CO2 impotent altogether as a driver of climate.

As a doubter, all I need to do is observe what has actually happened in the real world.

As an alarmist, you must prove why the evidence from that actual world does not match your theory and then justify why the governments of the world need to completely wreck the world economy, which teeters today on the brink of collapse, in favor of sanity.

You are free to proceed.

 

[Bfgrn]

How about the 1000+ that refute your 800. What about those? You are conspicuously silent on those.

There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change.

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.

The question is not whether there is "some part" being played but if the contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere by the activities of Man is the prime driver of Climate change.

The rise of CO2 has been pretty consistent over the last 120 years and the rises and the falls of the temperature of the world, obviously, do not follow this consistency. The contribution by Man is a small fraction of the total CO2 added annually.

There are, also obviously, other factors that either overpower or render CO2 impotent altogether as a driver of climate.

As a doubter, all I need to do is observe what has actually happened in the real world.

As an alarmist, you must prove why the evidence from that actual world does not match your theory and then justify why the governments of the world need to completely wreck the world economy, which teeters today on the brink of collapse, in favor of sanity.

You are free to proceed.

Criminal Neglect Of Future Generations

By Dr. Brian Moench

By every scientific measure greenhouse gases are heating the Earth rapidly and forcing us all to participate in a game of climate Russian roulette. In fact, Russia is one of this year's biggest losers. Temperatures 25 degrees hotter than normal, causing apocalyptic wildfires, have turned central and western Russia, including Moscow, into a ghoulish hell to rival J.R.R. Tolkien's Mordor. Death rates are double the norm from the heat and smoke, thousands have already died.

20 million Pakistanis are now homeless because of flooding from monsoon rains. Flooding in China has killed thousands. Desperation, starvation and diseases like cholera are inevitable. Crops in Russia, China and Pakistan and many other countries have been devastated, causing suspension of grain exports and price spikes. Millions who struggle to feed themselves in a normal climate will be unable to afford enough food to survive.

In many countries like the Sudan, Kenya and Bangladesh, millions of people have already become climate refugees, abandoning their homes and countries because sustaining life there is no longer possible. Climate disasters are mounting in on virtually every continent. Record breaking heat in our East and South, unprecedented flooding in Tennessee and Iowa, and a chronic, deepening drought in the Western US have given us just a taste of the misery other countries are now enduring.

This summer's events fit exactly the scientists' projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming. Notwithstanding the Kool Aid being broadcast at Fox News, even "snowmageddon" fits into the models of a human caused climate crisis.

Last year the lead article in the Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, written by 29 distinguished medical scientists called the climate consequences of the greenhouse gas phenomenon, "The biggest global health threat of the 21st century," and will "put the lives and well being of billions of people at increased risk." The report goes on to state that, "Even the most conservative estimates are profoundly disturbing and demand action. Less conservative climate scenarios are so catastrophic that adaptation might be unachievable." The authors said "what is needed now is a public health movement that frames the threat of the climate crisis for humankind as a health issue."

Note these words from the president of the World Medical Association. "Climate change represents an inevitable, massive threat to global health that will likely eclipse the major known pandemics as the leading cause of death and disease in the 21st century."

TheLancet.com