Climate science denial is in a sorry state when big name deniers screw up the simplest of right-wing talking points. Take Stephen Moore [please!] — the Wall Street Journal editorial board member, Cato Institute senior fellow, National Review contributing editor, and regular CNBC and Fox News commentator. He was on the Diane Rehm radio show Wednesday about climate change impacts in the United States, with Obama science advisor John Holdren, American Progress president John Podesta, and Bush environmental advisor James Connaughton. As you’ll see in this post from Wonk Room, Moore has no clue that the “1930s was a warmer decade than the last decade” talking point ain’t about global temperatures (see “Must read from Hansen: Stop the madness about the tiny revision in NASA’s temperature data!“).
Moore argued that the White House’s new climate impacts report is “Stalinistic”:
What I object to about this report is some of the language in this is sort of almost Stalinistic, that there’s an unequivocal conclusion that it’s inarguable that this is happening, that there’s overwhelming agreement among the scientists. None of that is true.
Listen:
Moore also cited the repeatedly debunked Oregon Petition and Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus, arguing it is “highly irresponsible” not to debate the science of man-made climate change. Even though Dianne Rehm admonished Moore for his anti-science outbursts, he continued to pollute the airwaves with Pollyannish complacency . . .
– We’ve talked about global warming as climate improvement.
– The good news is that the bad news is wrong.
. . . an endless stream of discredited lies about global warming and carbon pollution. . .
– John just said nine of the last ten years are the warmest on record. That just isn’t true. In fact, they’ve gone back, and it turns out NASA made a mistake in the model which didn’t get any publicity. John, actually, the truth is the 1930s was a warmer decade than the last decade.
– If there’s a slight uh, global warming trend — and we’re talking about relatively slight, heh — John, there’s just no question that the slight warming of the temperature actually improves agriculture, it doesn’t hurt agriculture. In fact agricultural output would go up.
– In fact, I’m old enough to remember when the scientific consensus that there was going to be cooling, remember, in the 1970s we’re going to have global cooling and we’re all going to starve to death and we’re not going to have agriculture. So you can’t, heh, have it both ways. You can’t say cooling is going to hurt agriculture and warming is going to hurt agriculture.
– We’ve reduced carbon emissions more than Europe has.
. . . apocalyptic and false warnings about the cost of action . . .
– I call it economic hari-kari for this country.
– The economic consensus is this will affect middle class families in a very negative way.
– The one thing I want people to be very clear on: If we do something like the cap and trade, it’s going to cause a gut-wrenching decline in the number of jobs here and it’s going to cause a decline in people’s living standards. Maybe that’s something we need to do to deal with global warming. It’s going to mean the cost of filling up your car, gasoline costs is going to go up, the cost of heating and air conditioning your home is going to go up, the cost of um, the cost of uh, buying any good or service that’s produced here will go up, because energy is a part of it.
– I was in Wheeling, WV, going down the Ohio River. That’s the epicenter of the Rust Belt in America. Steel factories, chemical plants. A big coal-fired power plant. By the way, John, that’s Democratic country, those are Democratic votes. If we do cap and trade, that’s all wiped out.
. . . and ad hominem attacks:
– The reason I think John and a lot of Democrats don’t want to do [a carbon tax] is there’s a bit of dishonesty here, you hide what the tax really is.
– To use this term “denier” is to put down the debate.
When speaking to like-minded audiences, however, Moore apes Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and calls global warming a “scam.” Last month, Moore proudly waved his denier credentials before an audience of conservatives in New Jersey, telling them to “roaring applause”:
I happen to believe that global warming is the biggest scam of the last two decades.
You can listen to the entire program here.
[For a discussion of my use of the term denier, see "Anti-science conservatives are stuck in denial." Moore obviously qualifies as a denier -- indeed, he is more like an uninformed professional disinformer, if that's possible.]
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Just curious.
Since Moore is clearly correct
[JR: Snip!!]
I heard part of this discussion but was pulled away by a meeting. I must say, I was apalled that Ms. Rehms would have this totally discredited bozo on and treat him as a serious discussant. I was also disappointed that Dr. Holdren didn’t simply laugh him off the show and call him what he is — a charlatan.
It was gratifying to hear Ms. Rehms challenge Moore on his more egregious statements, but honestly, why allow him any air time at all? I believe in presenting all sides of an issue, if all sides are equally informed, committed to honest inquiry, and a search for truth. Moore is none of the above and his previous statements should have been ample evidence of that.
At some point, the media has to stop feeding this faux controversy. It is irresponsible to let known liars and distorters use the media to spread known lies.
I would count it as a personal favor if the monstrously ignorant hypocrites such as the otherwise annonymous “Gary” in the above would either use their full names or make up names entire so as to avoid even the possibility of confusion with me.
As for “Gary’s” “digging into the facts”, the obvious falsehood — to the point of childish nonsense — of such a claim scarcely requires any further comment.
What a waste to indulge such a dangerously delusional idiot. Like stopping work to listen to a polite, well-spoken but totally whacked mad man.
We get a healthy lesson about spotting such blatant demagoguery – thank you for transferring his audio into text… it is so much easier to spot the foolishness.
Why would Moore purposefully build such a reputation?
Commenter “Gary” wrote: “Since Moore is clearly correct and Romm is clearly wrong as usual, do any of you actually believe in Romm’s silly rants?”
You are a despicable liar and you deserve nothing but insults, derision and contempt in response to your deliberate lies.
Unfortunately, the Diane Rehm show regularly provides a platform for corporate-funded, phony “conservative” propagandists to spew their drivel. Her Friday “weekly news roundup” programs are consistently stacked with corporatist “conservative” media types who regurgitate corporate talking points as “news analysis”.
Diane Rehm may seem to occasionally, mildly admonish them, but her comments only serve as a jumping-off point for them to respond with more scripted corporate propaganda.
Gary — Go study “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
“Why would Moore purposefully build such a reputation?”
There’s a large market for global warming denial. Millions of people want to hear someone tell them global warming isn’t a problem and there are many to meet this demand.
Millions of people want to hear someone tell them global warming isn’t a problem and there are many to meet this demand.
It is true there is a market demand for confirmation bias. But the fraction of the population that consumes this bullsh– is roughly 1/7 of the population.
They can be ignored and we can move on if we choose to so we can properly direction society to adapt and mitigate man-made climate change.
Best,
D
As is his wont, Gary the annonymous stops by to allow us to laugh at his ignorance and deceitful nature.
Mildly off-topic: Just a couple of links I dug up this morning while refuting a denialist in another blog:
The first graph in this Wikipedia article and the chart in this NOAA article show that we are warmer now than we were during the Medieval Warm Period.
I should have known this, but it had managed to escape my attention until now!
At what point in this timeline is it okay not to afford any respect or courtesy to the Denier cult?
Is there no level of urgency at which the math makes it clear that ANY time spent arguing with liars, professional obstructionists and the defiantly ignorant is time wasted that should have been spent working on cutting emissions and adding renewable energy?
I believe that at this point in the debate, with the USGCRP’s “Global Climate Change Impacts on the United States” report in hand, the denier voice on the issue of climate change and our necessary response to it is no more valid than the voice of the KKK on civil rights issues.
Why do journalists insist on allowing long debunked denier points to be spread? I certainly see why it is important to allow opposing voices on an issue, but that doesn’t excuse willful lies and distortions. All parties to a debate ought to operate within the framework of an objective, fact-based reality. The deniers shouldn’t be allowed to make counterfactual statements, because this confuses the general public – which is quite obviously the goal of these people.
First commenter “Gary”:
Do you mind if I call you Gary Abusey? It seems to fit, because abuse is clearly what you came here to dish out.
I do believe civilized discourse is better than angry rants if the aim is to convince your opponent, and certainly if it’s to persuade onlookers you have the more correct argument.
But then there are those who do not care about arriving at any sort of truth. Whether for some larger political goal, or merely for their own amusement, their purpose is to disrupt rational dialogue and to sow confusion. And Gary Abusey is of their ilk.
Because what Gary Abusey is saying, at bottom, is that a big chunk of physical science, developed over some 150 years, is utterly silly. And that is utterly silly.
Dave wrote (in part): “Why do journalists insist on allowing long debunked denier points to be spread?”
I am certain that John Holdren and John Podesta can hold up their end. So in this case I am in favor of putting Stephen Moore on a panel with them. Let the public see his drivel for what it is.
I agree wholeheartedly with MarkB’s comment about why we have so many high-profile deniers: They’re happy to provide any pretext, no matter how obviously false, for deniers to keep on denying.
That’s the horrible cycle: The people in it with the money (e.g. the fossil fuel companies) are happy to pay the willing liars who are, in turn, happy to fulfill the fantasies of the ideologically-driven deniers.
The media goes along because they know it will [1] get ratings because conflict is more interesting than consensus, and [2] doing so insulates them from the criticism that they’re biased. This is laughably wrong, simply because “bias” has nothing whatsoever to do with saying, “This side is demonstrably right, and that side is demonstrably wrong. Period.” If they had someone on who insisted man never landed on the moon, the Earth was flat, or whatever other wackaloon idea you can name, the media would treat them like wackaloons. But the paid or ideologically driven or just plain ignorant clowns get a pass on climate chaos.
My prediction: This will continue to be the case until something so monstrous happens that not even the media, wrapped in their delusions of adequacy, can continue. By then, we will have won the battle and lost the war.
Congratulations, deniers. You’ve found a way to poison our planet and kill untold members of future generations, all for the sake of money or simply the satisfaction of “winning” a PR battle.
The deniers shouldn’t be allowed to make counterfactual statements, because this confuses the general public – which is quite obviously the goal of these people.
Stalinist.
Game, set, match. Moore and Gary for the win.
Nope… Calling up a “Stalinist” is the same usage as Nazi and so invokes Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies
“…the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress.”
And that Hansen guy compared coal trains to trains of death, an image derived from the Holocaust. Not much smarter, eh?
In Australia, a country with saner politics, they’re about to postpone any carbon fidgeting. Because they fear it’ll harm their economy. That’s what one gets if there’re some responsible politicians about and not just eco maniacs.
However, we’ll all have to live with people not having opions we all like. And considering how much ground the AGWists have been loosing recently and will likely continue to loose, childish calls for public censorship will continue to replace sensible arguments and actual discussion.
People want an ongoing debate because they don’t anymore believe in any kind of concensus.
Actually, Stalin’s goal was to supress *factual* statements.
In regard to grammar and spelling, apparently.
Behold those who are overturning the work of thousands of scientists.
And why is it that more and more scientists move over to the sceptical side of the debate? And not the other way?
Or do they lose their credibility when they assume disagreeable opinions?
Michael — There are but a few noisy nuts (who might have a degree in some science, but more typically engineering or medicien). All major scietific and engineeering associations have statements supporting the concensus.
Rather than posting long refuted nonsense here (and elsewhere), why not use the time to read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
or is it beyond you? I doubt that.
That’s not really an answer.
And discrediting the increasing number of scientists doubting the alleged concensus doesn’t help your case. Just to say they’re all nuts is……well, not good enough.
They don’t. It’s that simple. Every major science organization in every major country now accepts the reality of global warming. Ten years ago, they didn’t, it’s taken additional scientific work and data to convince the last of the hold-outs.
What you have are, as David says, a bunch of noisy shills and cranks who often hold other unscientific beliefs, as well.
Roy Spencer’s a scientist working in climatology. He believes that the tons of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels simply … disappears. Poof! He believes the increase we see that tracks our burning of fossil fuels is actually due to natural sources. Somehow, magically, the CO2 we emit disappears and somehow, magically, via unknown sky-fairy physics, just enough natural CO2 is being added to the atmosphere to match the isotope signature of carbon in fossil fuels.
And … he’s a creationist.
Crank.
Richard Lindzen believes that smoking cigarettes is virtually harmless.
Crank.
They lose their credibility when they say stupid stuff, like “cigarettes are virtually harmless”.
This is another right-wing myth. Scientific surveys of professional scientists show no such thing.
This is why the lists of these “increasing numbers of scientists” include …
1. TV weather readers
2. Dead people
3. People who when finding themselves on the list vocally complain “take me off the list, I do accept climate science and AGW!!!” Only to find themselves on the next edition
4. Engineers
5. Computer programmers
etc.
The last such list put together had something like two or three actual climate scientists on it, one a creationist, another one believing that cigarette smoking is harmless.
They have to include a bunch of non-scientists, and within the scientists, almost no climate scientists, in order to generate such lists.
You’re being scammed.
Do you like being lied to?
“They lose their credibility when they say stupid stuff, like “cigarettes are virtually harmless”.”
Or in the case of Moore, random verifiably false statements like:
” the truth is the 1930s was a warmer decade than the last decade”
“the scientific consensus that there was going to be cooling, remember, in the 1970s we’re going to have global cooling and we’re all going to starve to death and we’re not going to have agriculture.”
“We’ve reduced carbon emissions more than Europe has.”
and other false statements intended to scare the public:
“The economic consensus is this will affect middle class families in a very negative way.”
Such statements, when repeated constantly, don’t necessarily need to be true to be effective. As long as they are repeated regularly by a number of different people, many in the public will believe them.
“And why is it that more and more scientists move over to the sceptical side of the debate? And not the other way?”
You question assumes that more and more scientists have moved over to the “sceptical” side of the debate. Proof?
And don’t even think about citing some fabricated list of 31,000 dentists, gynecologists, cartoon characters and dead people, or that fraudulent list of 650 actual scientists, half of whom were misrepresented, many of whom have demanded that their names be removed for the list.
Michael:
It really doesn’t matter how many times you repeat lies — they remain untrue.
No, there aren’t more scinetists switching sides.
And no, Australia has stengthened tis stand on climate over the last several years — probably because they are experiencing devastating climate induced daraughts — actually, they’re not draughts; they are the new climate for australia.
Please stop making assertions with no basis out of some perverted ideologic blindness. That may work with your Fox News and Rush limbaugh buddies — we know our stuff here. It won’t fly.
Michael says…
“That’s not really an answer.”
Really? Why not?
Are you afraid of a book?
Afraid you might learn something?
People want an ongoing debate because they don’t anymore
believe in any kind of concensus.
In regard to grammar and spelling, apparently.
Behold those who are overturning the work of thousands of scientists.
Oh, mighty Defender of the Faith, please forgive this Australian for his use of English (not American English, but the English kind.)
Behold those who would defend the righteous religion of the Warmunists.
[Seriously ... if you're going to call someone out for their grammar or spelling, it might behoove you to put into context their usage of the language. In this case, his spelling and grammar are correct, even if the grammar looks a bit archaic. Read a little. Something written before 1900, even.]
Michael –
I won’t stoop to defending coal. Burning it for power production is clearly an antiquated and deadly practice. Coal is best liquefied or gasified, and converted to a cleaner energy source, while recovering the heavy metals and radio isotopes for use in power production and industry. Leaving aside carbon emissions, the heavy metals and other garbage that is spewed into the air by coal plants is horrendous. A more widespread crime than is the use of depleted uranium in the Middle East.
However, the best alternative — nuclear power — is constantly condemned by the same people who (rightfully) condemn the use of coal. In essence, it is these people who have forced us to soil the planet and the air.
I hate to agree with T. Boone Pickens, but we really should be using nuclear for electricity, and natural gas for automotive transportation. Recover and use coal intelligently. Perhaps TDP could make coal worthwhile.
Let’s try this posting again…
And … he’s a creationist.
Crank.
Richard Lindzen believes that smoking cigarettes is virtually harmless.
Crank.
… and those involved with ELF believe as you do. As did one of the most notorious dictators of the 20th century (whose name, I fear, when invoked, causes postings made here to fail to show up, so I will not mention him by name.)
Do these unfortunate associations with well-known kooks also sully the pro-warming viewpoint?
Sauce for the goose is good for the gander, my friends. Before removing a mote from your neighbor’s eye, remove the beam from yours.
OK, “Concerned Citizen”, I’ll call your bluff. Quote me any reputable piece of literature which spells “consensus” as “concensus”, or “lose” as “loose”.
True, poor spelling on my part.
However, it doesn’t change the fact that people don’t want to be told just the one side of the argument.
And picking on someone’s spelling mistakes can seem a bit tedious I think. If you’ve got nothing else to say…
TomG,
I don’t consider it an answer because it doesn’t address my question. To simply suggest all dissenters are nuts is utterly ridiculous.
That you deemed it necessary to imply that I might be ‘afraid to learn something’ highlights that supporters of the AGW theory tend to talk down on people who don’t just buy climate alarmism.
Michael writes:
“And why is it that more and more scientists move over to the sceptical side of the debate? And not the other way?” &
“Or do they lose their credibility when they assume disagreeable opinions?”
FYI, scientists do science. Not debates, and not opinions.
The physical evidence for Global Warming is robust.
All over the globe–temperatures are rising; sea water is heating and expanding; troposhere is warming; borehole measurements show warming; high latitude areas are warming much faster; ice of all types are melting; species are moving; night time radiative cooling is reduced.
Michael, a six grader could understand the physics here. Most college science majors already do. Evne the simplest understanding of the physics (yes, those same pesky physics which keep air planes flying, water running downhill, and dandelions yellow)
So, from what corner of the culture wars do you hail from? Your motives are unclear at this point, except that in general you are attempting to reduce the effectiveness of this site.
Michael, a democracy requires a reasonably well informed public. On this most important issue of Global Warming, edcuation is crucial. What we do today will have tremendous impact on how well our country is doing in the future.
This site, and many others, are presenting facts and news on what is likely the most important issue to face this country. You and your fellow travellers are using every strategy ever devised to confuse and disinform the American public. Stop it. The world is watching.
Michael:
> “And why is it that more and more scientists move over to the sceptical side of the debate? And not the other way?”
You’ve already been asked for proof of that once by Jim Eager. Why have you ignored that? Could it be because you have none and just made it up because it reinforces your denial and delusion?
Your scientific illiteracy and tired, old denier talking points won’t gain any traction here – we’ve seen and rebutted them all before.
Michael, you are not listening. THE WORLD IS WATCHING
Marc Morano runs the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative anti-environmentalism think tank. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
James M. Inhofe has voted in favor of big oil companies on 100% of important oil-related bills from 2005-2007 http://www.sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=James_M._Inhofe
Yep, as I predicted, Michael cited the fraudulent list of 650 actual scientists, half of whom were misrepresented, many of whom have demanded that their names be removed from the list.
Michael trusts Inhofe, a US Senator with zero scientific training, and Moreno, a political and public relations operative with zero scientific training, over the world-wide scientific community.
In other words, Michael would not know a clue if he tripped and impaled himself upon it.
Michael,
http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 12/ 11/ inhofe-morano-recycles-long-debunked-denier-talking-points-will-the-media-be-fooled-again/
If you are sincere about this issue, read up on it, and make some informed comments. In the meantime, I will go with:
“Looks like a duck, etc…”
Alright, I’m terribly sorry to bother you with my stupidity.
Apparently Romm has seen fit to remove one of my posts, I can live with that.
The science has not been settled. Climate models and projections may or may not come true.
Everyone in the debate has an agenda. You could question the motives of all involved parties. But you seem to do that only with regard to the people who have opinions you disapprove of.
However, the aggression some posters on here display will bring ever more people to question the alleged ‘consensus’. You’ll have to live with not everyone believing in AGW. And you’ll have to cope with frustration, something which not all of you seem to be able to anymore.
[JR: It isn't stupidity on your part. It is that you have chosen to embrace a political philosophy and a worldview whose leading think tanks and pundits and media outlets are pushing disinformation -- and you don't understand or have little interest in what the science actually says.
The phrase "The science has not been settled" is devoid of meaning. I've said many times The science has not been settled. We don't know if unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases will be an unmitigated catastrophe for the human race -- or whether it will actually be the end of civilization as we now know it. But from the perspective of whether unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases could possibly be a good thing or even a mildly bad thing -- that science has been settled.]
For those interested in the science, I will re-post the link to the latest synthesis report from the Copenhagen conference, held in March, 2009:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/ news/ press-releases/ files/ synthesis-report-web.pdf
(Thanks to Morris for locating this link)
Apologies for continuing the diversion into grammar, but I think the discussion would be improved if all sides better understood what they are writing.
Up above, Michael (the Aussie) wrote (in part): “However, we’ll all have to live with people not having opions we all like. And considering how much ground the AGWists have been loosing recently and will likely continue to loose, childish calls for public censorship will continue to replace sensible arguments and actual discussion.”
Then A Concerned Citizen jumped in to protest criticism of Michael’s grammar and spelling.
Sorry, Citizen. Some of his spelling may be correct in the Australian mode. But not “opion” — that’s just carelessness. And as for vocabulary, there’s a big difference between “loose” and “lose”, and he used the wrong word. Unless, of course, he really meant we’re “loosing ground” — that is, freeing up territory for our side.
Shorter Michael:
There must be a talking point I can use that wasn’t refuted years ago…hmmm…let’s try this one…hmmm…OK, how about this one? No? This one? This? This?
Golly gosh, it’s like all the talking points I use are numbered or somethin’!!
Best,
D
Upthread, Michael (the Aussie) asked a couple of questions:
“And why is it that more and more scientists move over to the sceptical side of the debate? And not the other way?
“Or do they lose their credibility when they assume disagreeable opinions?”
In the next post, David B. Benson answered (in part):
“There are but a few noisy nuts (who might have a degree in some science, but more typically engineering or medicine). All major scientific and engineeering associations have statements supporting the consensus.”
David is essentially right, but he might have answered more directly. In any case, it’s clear you missed his meaning. And then Jim Eager asked you to prove your core assumption, which is that more and more scientists are moving to the “skeptic” side of the “debate.” You missed his point as well.
Allow me. (I repeat your questions only because we’re so far downthread.)
“And why is it that more and more scientists move over to the sceptical side of the debate? And not the other way?”
Over the past ten years or so, most scientists came over to belief in AGW. This happened because ongoing research built up more and more evidence that human activities are causing the planet to get gradually warmer. In other words, your assumption is wrong.
“Or do they lose their credibility when they assume disagreeable opinions?”
No, they lose credibility when their opinions have no valid basis — when they cannot come up with any evidence to support those opinions. This happens all too often.
Michael wrote: “The science has not been settled.”
Not perfectly settled. Climate is complicated, with many interacting factors. Climatologists don’t understand all of them as much as they’d like to. But the broad outlines of the picture are clear.
“Climate models and projections may or may not come true.”
This is so. Climate models give a range of values for any factor’s outcome, to better account for errors and uncertainties. That’s why those outcomes are called projections. It distinguishes them from predictions, which everyone assumes are both precise and accurate (even when they don’t necessarily believe a given prediction.)
Projections are therefore more likely to come true than predictions. But there’s no guarantee; “always in motion is the future.” Both sides should remember this, because both sides make predictions about climate.
“Everyone in the debate has an agenda. You could question the motives of all involved parties. But you seem to do that only with regard to the people who have opinions you disapprove of.
“However, the aggression some posters on here display will bring ever more people to question the alleged ‘consensus’. You’ll have to live with not everyone believing in AGW. And you’ll have to cope with frustration, something which not all of you seem to be able to [do] anymore.”
First, it’s not an alleged consensus, it’s a consensus. To support that, I’ll be glad to refer you to the work of Naomi Orestes and others.
I’m beginning to see that you’re new to the climate debate. (It’s hard to tell from just a first name.) How many times would you have to correct the same unsupported assumption before you felt frustration?
As the moderator here has seen fit to dispose of a rather lengthy post I made last night, I am no longer interested in debating in this forum. He, and those of like mind, are discredited utterly, in my opinion, because of the censorship exercised here.
I will leave you with a thought, however.
Climate change projections made by computer models, oft-cited by those who are most shrill in their dire warnings of global catastrophe, are “cloudy” at best.
(In case you were wondering, the scare quotes around “cloudy” are not misused for emphasis. That was done intentionally to bring attention to the word itself. Research to divine my meaning.)
Hmm… one more time.
Oxford English Dictionary. Archaic variant of “consensus”.
Michael’s other misspellings were not quoted by the poster to whom I replied.
Moore: “In fact, I’m old enough to remember when the scientific consensus that there was going to be cooling, remember, in the 1970s we’re going to have global cooling ”
Apparently he’s actually old enough that he’s losing his memory since we all know that there was no such consensus, just a few articles in the popular media (which I remember as a youngster). Newsweek eventually apologized for its global cooling article. I’m not holding my breath for Moore.
And remember folks that the Heartland Institute has an open checkbook for anybody with slightly plausible credentials who is willing to be critical of AGW and the IPCC. And they don’t need any peer review, just an account to deposit the Heartland check into.
Deniers need to realize that while the 1st Amendment gives them the right to any opinion, they have no right for any of us to pay attention to it, or publicize it on our blogs. I only wish that Joe could remove denier posts _before_ they motivate dozens of responses from others here, since people seem to be unable to ignore them. They have polluted countless blogs already and their pollution has no more value for me than toxic waste in my drinking water.
Let’s all practice some self-restraint. When you see one of those posts here – take a deep breath, don’t respond. Do some yoga. Write a letter to your Congresscritter. Joe lets a few through for demonstration purposes and responds himself in rare cases. Let him be the beginning and end of that here.
Given:
Every major organization on the planet has indedependently affirmed their concern over Global Warming http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Most (all?) major US governmental organzations with a stake in this issue has weighed in in similar fashion.
As JR points out above, the ” We don’t know if unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases will be an unmitigated catastrophe for the human race — or whether it will actually be the end of civilization as we now know it”
And I assume most of the deniers: a) are human b) have children or relatives with children.
Am I really supposed to believe that all these denier talking points are coming from concerns about “fairness, debate, disagreeable opinions, credibility, sensible arguments, actual discussion”? That somehow, out of nowhere, all these concerned citizens have developed an interest in physics and models and weather stations? And the tenacity to keep presenting the same disinformation over and over again despite at every turn being (politely for the most part) told how they are (to quote somebody) not even wrong?
It just doesn’t scan.
To reiterate: a) massive threat, b) everyone (who counts) agrees, c) inaction/delaying condemns all the future children of the world to “hell and high water” And out of nowhere all these amateur scientists put up websites on statistics and air vents? And pushing a messaging agenda which would make Frank Luntz blush?
In case this is too obtuse, the point is that the fundamental position taken by deniers is untenable. You cannot pretend to be concerned about things like “reasonable discussion” and “credibility” and then advocate throwing the future of the planet in the dumpster through delay and denial. Concepts like “reasonable discussion” require a basic understanding of humanity–concepts like condemning the future to an environmental disaster requires something I don’t even want to speculate on. Can’t do both.
Watts Up?
Michael wrote: “And why is it that more and more scientists move over to the sceptical side of the debate?”
You are a liar. You may be a deliberate, knowing, intentional liar. Or you may be a gullible idiot who has been bamboozled by the deliberate lies of others, which you are now ignorantly and recklessly repeating.
Either way, you are part of a corporate-funded, pseudo-ideological movement that is using lies to delay action to mitigate anthropogenic global warming, and you are thus objectively contributing — in your own small way — to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
To suggest that global warming deniers are no worse than holocaust deniers is too kind.
Michael states above…
“However, it doesn’t change the fact that people don’t want to be told just the one side of the argument.”
Shouldn’t you practice what you preach?
You continuously bring up tired old right wing, libertarian political philosophy that has no connection with reality.
When presented with a book to read that presents the other side of the “argument” and it’s pointed out that you might learn something from it, you accuse others of talking “down” on you.
If you’re going to criticize “climate alarmism” shouldn’t you know exactly what it’s all about?
Michael:
> However, the aggression some posters on here display…
Following the script perfectly – when faced with insurmountable evidence or calls for evidence that you cannot provide to validate your claims, play the victim card. Whine about the brutish delivery of your opponent and not the content of his argument.
Do you have the saying “put up or shut up” in the States? If not, I’m guessing it doesn’t require explanation.
~~~
‘A Concerned Citizen’,
No one here is listening to you. We get our climate science from climate scientists. You should try it – it’s amazing how it can alleviate ignorance.
Michael said: “You’ll have to live with not everyone believing in AGW.”
We already live with not everyone believing in AGW.
It does not matter. Their non-belief does not change the science–or physical reality–one iota, as neither reality nor scientific truth depends on popular acceptance. Belief only affects social and political reality, and in case Michael hasn’t checked recently, the non believers are losing badly in that arena as well.
Make no mistake about it, Michael, a price will be put on carbon, and very soon. Deal with it.
Morris, if you are suggesting that deniers are motivated by personal profit, their actions are still incomprehensible to me. The executives of oil companies have much greater profits at stake, and presumably even they have children or relatives who have children, and are human.
Do they really believe their own debunked theories, or do they imagine somehow their wealth will insulate them and their families from global famine?
It will be interesting when the deniers finally realize that they are not immune from the consequences of climate change. We all share the same earth and there will be no place to hide from drought, violent weather, and billions of refugees banging on their doors.
Gail — The deniers sometimes remind me of the 18 year old Marine who when ordered to charge a machine gun nest does so. After, he’s never been shot before, much less shot dead.
Ha ha hormones! Has anyone done a study to see if the percentages of deniers are the same for men and women? Present company excepted, of course. For all you dads, including my own, a sincere and heartfelt wish for a Happy Father’s Day.
Gail — Based just of the handles used (and writing style) of those deniers on the sites I visit, men far outnumber women.
Well, in my own life, Significant Other is convinced that we will find a technological fix in time to save us from catastrophic outcomes. He loves machines especially large loud ones.
We had a disagreement this weekend when I stated (wholly without evidence!) that the US military has a ginormous carbon footprint. He insisted that it is a negligible percentage of GDP.
I have had a difficult time finding any evidence to support either point of view and would welcome links to studies that document the relative contribution of the defense department.
The one link I found is this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ 2007/ sep/ 27/ ethicalliving.carbonfootprints?gusrc=rss&feed=environment
“Amory Lovins, the world-renowned energy consultant, agrees that the US military has a “fat fuel-logistics tail” and believes that this is a “very teachable moment for the military” on reducing its immense fossil fuel consumption.
And it is indeed immense: according to a report in Energy Bulletin earlier this year, the Pentagon is the single largest consumer of oil in the world. If the Pentagon was a country, it would be the 36th biggest consumer of oil. The US military officially uses 320,000 barrels of oil a day, but this total only includes “vehicle transport and facility maintenance”. What about the 130,000 US contractors in Iraq rebuilding the ruined infrastructure? (Lovins estimates that about a third of the military’s oil is used to run generators, the vast majority of which power air-conditioning units.) And compared with the second world war, the military in Iraq and Afghanistan is using 16 times more fuel per soldier, according to a Pentagon report published this year.
Which seems to support us both – that the military is the largest purchaser of fossil fuels in the world, but even so, it is dwarfed by 60 times as much by the rest of the US economy (if you google Amory Lovins and believe him).
This is so off-topic but I’m going to post it anyway, thanks for any information.
Gail,
I am not sure what we are looking at with most of this denier structure.
It just doesn’t scan right. So many contradictions. Here are just a few of the contradictions we are expected to believe:
*They claim and attempt scientific interest in Global Warming
*They dismiss the science of Global Warming
*They claim to be trying to have a “reasonable discussion” about Global Warming
*They use every sneaky debater trick in the book to pull the conversation into chaos
*They helpfully go out and develop lists of scientists to disprove Global Warming exists, and to help the rest of us understand the lack of consensus
*They ignore 99.99% of the literature and the actual consensus
*They are so concerned about understanding the “hockey stick” that they delve into statistical science and set up slick websites (where every thing works perfectly (note to ameteur deniers, there should be some problems with links and spelling and stuff on your “ameteur” sites)) to demonstrate just where Mann etc went wrong, again acting as “citizen scientists”
*They make fundamental blunders which they simply won’t acknowledge, and distort every detail of Mann et al’s work
*they show up at actual real Global Warming web sites and distribute their stuff
*they delete anything on their own sites which doesn’t support what they are pushing
*They are working hard to research every temperature station in the world in order to show the temperature record is wrong
*They ignore all the melting ice, permafrost, etc like somehow that can’t be a temperature indicator
And dozens more. There is just no place where they are consistent
There is likely a missing piece which explains their behavior. Or a missing structure, and several missing pieces.
The Center purchases more light refined petroleum product than any other single organization or company in the world. With a $3.5 billion annual budget, DESC procures nearly 110 million barrels of petroleum products each year.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/desc.htm
Morris, I am going to have to take some time to wade through that.
It seems there are no standard ways to measure climate footprint and that makes for plenty of methods to obfuscate.
Thanks for the link!
Morris — Insane?
Deniers, that is.
*They are working hard to research every temperature station in the world in order to show the temperature record is wrong
*They ignore all the melting ice, permafrost, etc like somehow that can’t be a temperature indicator
Correction:
o They take random pictures of many temperature stations in easily accessible places, without bothering to take temperature measurements in order to show the temperature record is wrong
Ahem. Sorry. Carry on.
Best,
D
So, Concerned Citizen says “…dire warnings of global catastrophe, are “cloudy” at best.”
OK, so let’s say for argument that he is correct and climate scientists aren’t 99% certain that were are facing impending climate catastrophe.
That would mean our situation is like driving on an unfamiliar road at night in the fog. We don’t know what’s in road ahead; maybe an obstruction, a sharp turn, a cliff?
Under such conditions, the normal person would say we need to slow down and be careful. The denier mentality is to keep going at full speed, or actually to speed up (Drill, Baby, Drill!).
So then, when we consider that climate scientists are saying there is NOT great uncertainty, that we are clearly facing terrible consequences, the denier viewpoint is obviously completely irrational.
BBHY:
Thank-you! Great analogy! I would add that it’s impossible to have a rational debate with someone who refuses to accept, or fails to comprehend the facts.