Climate Change Hoaxers Running Out of Steam

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited July 2015

http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/

 

A Geologist explains why....

Quote:


 Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.


 

The evidence is clear:  The ice caps aren't melting.  The sea isn't rising.  The temperature isn't rising.  Extreme weather is not occurring more frequently.  This, despite Co2 measurements increasing dramatically over the past century.  

 

The only thing that the hysterical, hyper-ventilating climate change enthusiasts have left are Hail Mary passes such as "the heat is being stores in the oceans!" and "global warming always pauses!"  These are nothing but rampant speculation.  The facts show the reality:  

 


  • We know that temperature increase does not follow Co2 increase.  In fact, the opposite is true.  

  • Despite Co2 increasing dramatically, the Earth's temperature has not gone up significantly in the last 100 years.  Any warming that has been measured is easily explained by measurement anomalies from inaccurate equipment a century ago, urban heat island effect, outright data manipulation, and large (normal) variances in temperature over the years and across parts of the world.   

 

I'll step back now and wait for the onslaught of pseudo-intellectual liberals who will calmly and assuredly explain to me why they, the Embracers of Science and Reason, now believe in the religion of global warming instead empirical evidence.  

 

<makes popcorn> 

«13456712

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 224
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,399member

    I was curious about the article, and you cited an opinion piece for reference. // I the removed second part. I don't feel like acquiring an infraction.

  • Reply 2 of 224
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

     

    http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/

     

    A Geologist explains why....

     

    The evidence is clear:  The ice caps aren't melting.  The sea isn't rising.  The temperature isn't rising.  Extreme weather is not occurring more frequently.  This, despite Co2 measurements increasing dramatically over the past century.  

     

    The only thing that the hysterical, hyper-ventilating climate change enthusiasts have left are Hail Mary passes such as "the heat is being stores in the oceans!" and "global warming always pauses!"  These are nothing but rampant speculation.  The facts show the reality:  

     


    • We know that temperature increase does not follow Co2 increase.  In fact, the opposite is true.  

    • Despite Co2 increasing dramatically, the Earth's temperature has not gone up significantly in the last 100 years.  Any warming that has been measured is easily explained by measurement anomalies from inaccurate equipment a century ago, urban heat island effect, outright data manipulation, and large (normal) variances in temperature over the years and across parts of the world.   

     

    I'll step back now and wait for the onslaught of pseudo-intellectual liberals who will calmly and assuredly explain to me why they, the Embracers of Science and Reason, now believe in the religion of global warming instead empirical evidence.  

     

    <makes popcorn> 


     

     

    As regards climate change, are you claiming that numerous government agencies, departments and panels, alongside independent organizations, (not just in the US, but from all around the globe) are all (secretly?) collaborating in a broad conspiracy theory to lie to the public, fudge scientific studies on such a huge scale, deliberately misinterpret data and publish fraudulent conclusions?

     

    If this giant overarching conspiracy exists, as claimed, then what is the motivation behind it? Who's getting paid to make all these allegedly false claims - and who are their paymasters? How many scientists are going along with this apparent fraud, knowing that they could lose their credibility, future employment and livelihoods if outed? How come government, notorious for inertia, sluggishness and being hidebound to tradition, are raising the alarm and advising us to change or ways and lifestyle - especially here in the US - where for a century, we have had an infrastructure and lifestyle based upon cheap and abundant fossil fuel consumption? How come the mainstream media has bought into the alleged AGW scenario, when the promotion of such material is of either no benefit, or detrimental to the financial status of the corporate owners of the mainstream media outlets? Have they generally bought into the conspiracy theory too, and why?

     

    As a result of (alleged) human industrial activity causing/contributing to climate change, there is an ongoing $50 billion divestment campaign from fossil fuels - which includes the Rockefeller Foundation (William Rockefeller ironically founded Standard Oil), the World Council of Churches, and dozens of other prominent institutions, organizations, cities and universities. Why are they doing this, if AGW is a load of proverbial hot air, especially when energy investment is the basis of an industrial society? Have they all become anti-capitalist conspiracy mongers, except on the opposite side of the political divide to Alex Jones and company?

     

    What is the most solid, peer-reviewed data you can present which makes a watertight proof for hoax and fraud? Does the burden of proof lie not with with the person making the claim, but for someone else to disprove - or vice versa? And which party should shoulder the burden of proof?

  • Reply 3 of 224
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

     

    As regards climate change, are you claiming that numerous government agencies, departments and panels, alongside independent organizations, (not just in the US, but from all around the globe) are all (secretly?) collaborating in a broad conspiracy theory to lie to the public, fudge scientific studies on such a huge scale, deliberately misinterpret data and publish fraudulent conclusions?


     

    Collaborating might be too strong a word. More like endorsing the status quo established by a few because it is lazy, easy and the money is good.

     

    Not at all related but this week Apple has been dealing with #bendgate which was established by one guy with a YouTube channel. In about two days it just became a "fact" because one guy bent one phone on a video. In part it is established so easily because a lot of syndicated newsfeed services added it to their feed. A lot of local morning news folks read it off because they found it interesting. There are loads of quasi-tech commentators on YouTube elking out some sort of living commenting on technology. They of course took this one video as gospel and a means to attack Apple because in endorsing the attack it elevates them and their presumed expertise and authority.

     

    Climatology isn't a firmly established science. It is a proto-science. It is a growth from Meteorology. However when one can go from predicting the weather to controlling and influencing the outcome of entire governments and economies, the motivations really shouldn't be questioned. Even if everyone has the same motivation at the same time and not in collaboration with each other, the motivation is easy to understand.

     

    Quote:


     If this giant overarching conspiracy exists, as claimed, then what is the motivation behind it? Who's getting paid to make all these allegedly false claims - and who are their paymasters? How many scientists are going along with this apparent fraud, knowing that they could lose their credibility, future employment and livelihoods if outed? How come government, notorious for inertia, sluggishness and being hidebound to tradition, are raising the alarm and advising us to change or ways and lifestyle - especially here in the US - where for a century, we have had an infrastructure and lifestyle based upon cheap and abundant fossil fuel consumption? How come the mainstream media has bought into the alleged AGW scenario, when the promotion of such material is of either no benefit, or detrimental to the financial status of the corporate owners of the mainstream media outlets? Have they generally bought into the conspiracy theory too, and why?


     

    No one in this day and age loses their job for being wrong. They just repackage and resell the same bad assumptions as new information in this increasingly mislabeled information age. As someone who has watched every financial and government pundit pretty much ignore every bubble and swear the rules no longer apply and every media organization never call them on their bad predictions and outcomes, it isn't a conspiracy, it is just the way things are at this stage. Who was fired for the first tech boom or the housing boom or monitization and bond boom that has replaced all of them? Who will be fired now that we are firing missiles into Syria to support Iraq because of course the war on terror was made up by a warmonger and was ended by a man with a peace prize now using the same authorization and same language to support the same actions in the same place over a decade later?

     

    As for changing the ways, if you have a lifestyle based upon the common man being empowered due to cheap energy and you want to limit and control that common man, your first step is to limit his ability to get cheap energy. Then that man isn't empowered anymore and what you have left is the ability to control.

     

    Quote:


     As a result of (alleged) human industrial activity causing/contributing to climate change, there is an ongoing $50 billion divestment campaign from fossil fuels - which includes the Rockefeller Foundation (William Rockefeller ironically founded Standard Oil), the World Council of Churches, and dozens of other prominent institutions, organizations, cities and universities. Why are they doing this, if AGW is a load of proverbial hot air, especially when energy investment is the basis of an industrial society? Have they all become anti-capitalist conspiracy mongers, except on the opposite side of the political divide to Alex Jones and company?

     

    What is the most solid, peer-reviewed data you can present which makes a watertight proof for hoax and fraud? Does the burden of proof lie not with with the person making the claim, but for someone else to disprove - or vice versa? And which party should shoulder the burden of proof?



     

    Well for now the $50 billion is a rather nebulous pledge. Who follows up and makes sure there is follow through after the headlines have become old and stale? Someone did this recently for Richard Branson and discovered he hadn't delivered at all bringing in around 10% of what had been promised over 10 years. The pledge you mention has the following terms, The standard divestment pledge includes an agreement not to make new investments in the top 200 oil, gas, or coal companies. It also includes a pledge to sell any assets tied to those investments within three to five years and to invest in green energy companies.

     

    So who follows up and makes sure they don't have any ties in any fashion to the top 200 companies? What if they just purchase the subcontractors and make their money that way instead? What if their return is too low and they excuse themselves or run the timeline out a few years? What does it really mean?

     

    What if I don't invest in Chevron? What if instead I invest in the drilling company that is making record revenue while taking orders from Chevron for drills so Chevron can drill for oil? Have a lost a cent? What if if a subsidiary of Chevron sets up another company that invests in green energy and loses their ass and covers the losses using oil money? What if that subsidiary company is owned by Rockerfeller and others but the stock price is supported by the fact the losses are underwritten by oil money and the dividend doesn't drop either. Is there really any change or any loss of money there? I say this because that is how this stuff is played out. There are reasons companies like Apple have strategies called Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich while claiming to be champions of the environment and of human rights as well. The crony-capitalists always know how to pledge the action and preserve their dollars while really putting the burden on the backs of the middle and lower classes.

     

    As for who should support the claims, the support should always be provided by those calling for change and action. In that case it is those claiming that human action has altered the climate. In addition they not only have to prove the former claim but an additional claim that the change is damaging. Good intentions alone aren't enough.

  • Reply 4 of 224
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,470member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

     

     

     

    As regards climate change, are you claiming that numerous government agencies, departments and panels, alongside independent organizations, (not just in the US, but from all around the globe) are all (secretly?) collaborating in a broad conspiracy theory to lie to the public, fudge scientific studies on such a huge scale, deliberately misinterpret data and publish fraudulent conclusions?

     

    If this giant overarching conspiracy exists, as claimed, then what is the motivation behind it? Who's getting paid to make all these allegedly false claims - and who are their paymasters? How many scientists are going along with this apparent fraud, knowing that they could lose their credibility, future employment and livelihoods if outed? How come government, notorious for inertia, sluggishness and being hidebound to tradition, are raising the alarm and advising us to change or ways and lifestyle - especially here in the US - where for a century, we have had an infrastructure and lifestyle based upon cheap and abundant fossil fuel consumption? How come the mainstream media has bought into the alleged AGW scenario, when the promotion of such material is of either no benefit, or detrimental to the financial status of the corporate owners of the mainstream media outlets? Have they generally bought into the conspiracy theory too, and why?

     

    As a result of (alleged) human industrial activity causing/contributing to climate change, there is an ongoing $50 billion divestment campaign from fossil fuels - which includes the Rockefeller Foundation (William Rockefeller ironically founded Standard Oil), the World Council of Churches, and dozens of other prominent institutions, organizations, cities and universities. Why are they doing this, if AGW is a load of proverbial hot air, especially when energy investment is the basis of an industrial society? Have they all become anti-capitalist conspiracy mongers, except on the opposite side of the political divide to Alex Jones and company?

     

    What is the most solid, peer-reviewed data you can present which makes a watertight proof for hoax and fraud? Does the burden of proof lie not with with the person making the claim, but for someone else to disprove - or vice versa? And which party should shoulder the burden of proof?


     

    Pardon me, but you're kidding, right?  Do you honestly mean to tell me that you only believe Big Oil and the military industrial complex stand to profit by embracing one side or the other?  This is about much more than financial gains...it is about global wealth redistribution and raw political power.  The United States will bear the brunt of of any "solutions" to this non-existent problem, while the developing world (including China and India) will not see virtually any impact.  Moreover, The Green Cartel will continue to profit over "sustainable" materials and sources of power, including wind, solar and even carbon credits.  This is about control, power and money.  As is everything.  The only difference between us is that you actually seem to believe only one side is playing the game.  

  • Reply 5 of 224
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

     

     

    Pardon me, but you're kidding, right?  Do you honestly mean to tell me that you only believe Big Oil and the military industrial complex stand to profit by embracing one side or the other?  This is about much more than financial gains...it is about global wealth redistribution and raw political power.  The United States will bear the brunt of of any "solutions" to this non-existent problem, while the developing world (including China and India) will not see virtually any impact.  Moreover, The Green Cartel will continue to profit over "sustainable" materials and sources of power, including wind, solar and even carbon credits.  This is about control, power and money.  As is everything.  The only difference between us is that you actually seem to believe only one side is playing the game.  


     

    What exactly is the "Green Cartel"?  Who are its members? Where do they meet and plot their agenda? How did they acquire so much power to persuade? The first reference to this unfamiliar group I came across in a search engine was an article about Mexican lime farmers; the rest in the list were even more obscure. I guess you are talking about some shadowy sinister organization which has the financial and PR clout to take  on, and (hold to ransom) the mega-powerful fossil fuel and energy infrastructure, alongside other traditional "ways of going about things" in industrial (western style) societies? I smell a conspiracy theory here....

     

    Considering that the US has greater economic and military might than any developing nation - perhaps most combined - then how, and why, are we permitting ourselves as a nation to shoulder the (alleged) economic cost of implementing the agenda of this mysterious Green Cartel? If, as you say, this is all about "following the money", considering that more than 50% of the entire Wall Street corporate portfolio is directly or indirectly connected to traditional energy production - overwhelmingly based on non-renewable sources (coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear) in the US - one would have expected that "following the money" would lead, not to shenanigans on the part of the "Green Cartel", but by the vested interests and entrenched industrial giants in fossil fuels, motor vehicles and associated industries.

     

    A quick look at the subject of shenanigans on the subject and we quickly find that these industrial powerhouses have been doing exactly that - in a very well-funded and organized campaign since the mid 1990s. A book well worth reading on this subject is "Climate Cover-Up - The Crusade to Deny Global Warming" by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore. 

     

    An exposé of planetary scale.” James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

     

    brief synopsis -

    Quote:


    "Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry’s own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.

     

    The success of those plans is self-evident. A Yale/George Mason University poll taken late in 2008 showed that — 20 years after President George H.W. Bush promised to beat the greenhouse effect with the “White House effect” — a clear majority of Americans still say they either doubt the science of climate change or they just don’t know. "Climate Cover-Up" explains why they don’t know. Tracking the global warming denial movement from its inception, public relations advisor James Hoggan (working with journalist Richard Littlemore), reveals the details of those early plans and then tracks their execution, naming names and exposing tactics in what has become a full-blown attack on the integrity of the public conversation.... "





     


    So, if there is no human influence in global warming, or even no global warming due to any cause, then why would certain well-placed groups systematically set out to spread disinformation, when the powers-that-be, across party lines, had already concluded that human activity played (a) part in climate change/global warming? If the entire phenomenon of human activity induced climate change is all a big hoax - then I'll ask the same question that I posed before:  Since 1991, there have been 13,950 peer reviewed studies on this subject - 13,926 of them conclude that human activity plays at the very least, a part in climate change; 24 deny human influence. How has this apparent "Green Cartel" manage to coerce or threaten 10s of thousands of scientists in dozens of relevant disciplines - into perpetrating such a massive hoax? What is the motivation? Why would think tanks on the side of the petroleum (etc) industries have to inject gibberish and propaganda into the dialog if the science, and the facts, were on their side?


     


    Occam's razor is a handy tool in this debate. You know - "if it quacks like a duck" etc.
  • Reply 6 of 224
    brbr Posts: 8,320member
  • Reply 7 of 224
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

     

    But it's all a hoax, right?

  • Reply 8 of 224

    lets review the facts:

    -95% of climate experts work for the government

    -if your a climate expert who works for the government and you disagree about global warming then you loose your funding or get fired depending on your job.

    -NEVER will you find a list of the so called "consensus" list of scientists who agree

    -the last article i read about sea levels indicated that the reason we dont see higher levels of water on our beaches is because the sea is only rising far offshore where we cant see it.

    -as soon as it became obvious that the weather wasnt getting hotter they started calling it "climate change"

  • Reply 9 of 224
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,340member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichL View Post

     

     

    But it's all a hoax, right?


     

    Science is predictive. The predictions in the report haven't materialized. Reissuing them several times with every more alarming and strident language doesn't change that fact.

  • Reply 10 of 224
    asciiascii Posts: 5,363member

    The article is a good summary of scientists' attempts to explain why global warming has been slowing for 15 years while CO2 output has been rising.

     

    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being

     

    At first they dismissed it as a blip but now it's been too long and they're actually trying to explain it. That is the correct approach.

  • Reply 11 of 224
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

     

     

    Science is predictive. The predictions in the report haven't materialized. Reissuing them several times with every more alarming and strident language doesn't change that fact.


     

    Some of the predictions haven't materialized for recent timeframes. Overall, the predictions have been overwhelming correct.

     

    Science is an iterative methodology. Predictions, right or wrong, lead to further observation, experimentation and refinement of models. A few of the predictions were wrong and scientists, as ascii pointed out, have put forward reasons why. The models used by climate scientists are constantly improving but the conclusion is always the same - man-made climate change is real and a significant threat to our way of life. The level of certainty in this conclusion is only going up too.

  • Reply 12 of 224
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,340member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichL View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

     

     

    Science is predictive. The predictions in the report haven't materialized. Reissuing them several times with every more alarming and strident language doesn't change that fact.


     

    Some of the predictions haven't materialized for recent timeframes. Overall, the predictions have been overwhelming correct.

     

    Science is an iterative methodology. Predictions, right or wrong, lead to further observation, experimentation and refinement of models. A few of the predictions were wrong and scientists, as ascii pointed out, have put forward reasons why. The models used by climate scientists are constantly improving but the conclusion is always the same - man-made climate change is real and a significant threat to our way of life. The level of certainty in this conclusion is only going up too.


     

    You are correct in that most of us would label the science of knowing and predicting past and future science to be more of a proto-science at this stage.

     

    That doesn't mean people won't begrudge it the growing pains that all science goes through in refining itself with regard to models, conclusions, etc.

     

    However that isn't what has happened. This being treated as a solid hard science without outcomes that cannot be disputed when it is clearly far from that.

     

    Increasingly intense hurricanes? How about no hurricanes making landfall for a decade in the U.S. I can post links to lists of failed predictions. You can excuse them or kill the messenger or what have you.

     

    The climate changing is a norm. Proving we are driving it and that the outcome is harmful has not been proven and appears to be going in the other direction as the claims and predictions don't pan out. The costs are also astronomical to alter the outcomes. We are basically talking about one generation undoing the entire environmental impact of all of humanity within a very recent timeline. The baseline assumption, that there is a normal climate and we have moved the entire planet off that norm is a false one.

  • Reply 13 of 224
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,399member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Proving we are driving it and that the outcome is harmful has not been proven and appears to be going in the other direction as the claims and predictions don't pan out. The costs are also astronomical to alter the outcomes. We are basically talking about one generation undoing the entire environmental impact of all of humanity within a very recent timeline. The baseline assumption, that there is a normal climate and we have moved the entire planet off that norm is a false one.

    Your statement is factually incorrect, because there has never been a claim of static temperature. You just made that up, then used it to bolster your statement. It annoys me because it's dishonest.

     

    The predominant claims related to the level of fluctuation post industrial compared to a similar period preceding that era.  I've mostly stayed out of this, because I've always been of the opinion that too little attention is paid to other effects of pollution. The OP also linked a ridiculous article. I just never bother to uncheck notifications, so I get them.

  • Reply 14 of 224
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,340member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Proving we are driving it and that the outcome is harmful has not been proven and appears to be going in the other direction as the claims and predictions don't pan out. The costs are also astronomical to alter the outcomes. We are basically talking about one generation undoing the entire environmental impact of all of humanity within a very recent timeline. The baseline assumption, that there is a normal climate and we have moved the entire planet off that norm is a false one.

    Your statement is factually incorrect, because there has never been a claim of static temperature. You just made that up, then used it to bolster your statement. It annoys me because it's dishonest.

     

    The predominant claims related to the level of fluctuation post industrial compared to a similar period preceding that era.  I've mostly stayed out of this, because I've always been of the opinion that too little attention is paid to other effects of pollution. The OP also linked a ridiculous article. I just never bother to uncheck notifications, so I get them.


     

    Static and normal are not the same. Don't misread a sentence and then point fingers about why you are annoyed.

  • Reply 15 of 224
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member

    Let's hear it for the newest group to join the great climate change conspiracy:  the senior brass in the Pentagon. The Pentagon's shift is brought to us by Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel, a Republican who was a member of the Chevron board of directors.

  • Reply 16 of 224
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,470member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

     

    Let's hear it for the newest group to join the great climate change conspiracy:  the senior brass in the Pentagon. The Pentagon's shift is brought to us by Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel, a Republican who was a member of the Chevron board of directors.


     

    I haven't been around much and just realized this thread was still going.  Now the narrative is that "even the military" thinks climate change is a threat.   I am literally laughing out loud right now.  Of course the "top brass" consider the dire predictions made by the climate scammers a threat.  They are horrific:  Rising sea levels.  Population displacement.  Mass death and destruction.  Brutal competition for dwindling resources. Mass extinction!  Major climate disruption with increasing frequency and intensity of storms.   If those things came to pass I'm sure the military would be be very concerned.  You think it might have some impact on U.S. security?  

     

    But sammi, BR and others...here's the thing:  None of the predictions of the past 25 years have come true.  GAT is not rising despite humans pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other gasses into the atmosphere.  Ice caps are not melting.  Sea levels aren't rising at any abnormal rate.  Storms are not becoming more intense or more frequent.  All of this was supposed to come to pass, but it hasn't.  That's because the theory of anthropogenic global warming is not provable.  Sure, it makes perfect sense in lab conditions.  But the natural environment has tends of thousands of additional variables, some of which are so massive we almost cannot comprehend them.  

  • Reply 17 of 224
    rubaiyatrubaiyat Posts: 277member



    The world is full of thermometers: glaciers that have been in rapid (accelerating) retreat since the commencement of industrialisation, shrinking ice coverage at the poles, tree lines that are moving up mountains, tropical species and diseases that are spreading away from the equator, rising water levels, acidification of the oceans, more intense storms both hot and cold (energy drives both), more intense and wide spread fires etc etc.

     

    …and that is not even the actual recorded temperatures themselves.

     

    The denialism that is most prevalent in the USA goes hand in hand with biblical literalism, faith healing, get rich quick schemes, diets, guns, drugs, corporate worship, economic voodoo etc. Because they are all based on the same feelings vs thinking.

     

    There is a visceral fear and suspicion of people who think for a living, and actually paid attention at school, because it goes against all the self-centred notions that have been drubbed into you all your life.

     

    Closing your eyes and pretending the "bad things" will go away is something children do, and mummy and daddy are there to reassure you it will be alright. Well, you are all grown up now, time to open your eyes. Pretending the problem away is not going to work. Mummy and daddy are not going to fix this one for you.

  • Reply 18 of 224
    rubaiyatrubaiyat Posts: 277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

     

    How about no hurricanes making landfall for a decade in the U.S.


     

    You are kidding us right? (Ignoring the predictable notion that the U.S. is everything).

     

    I was just in New York and New Jersey last year and they were still cleaning up after Sandy.

     

    Is this to prove how little Americans pay attention or read? Or just don't want to know?

     

    The thing that makes it really hard to discuss anything with Americans outside of what has happened within their immediate, very small, circle of acquaintance is the fact they are not even interested in anything else. Therefore ipso facto it doesn't exist.

  • Reply 19 of 224
    rubaiyatrubaiyat Posts: 277member

    "Climate Change Hoaxers Running Out of Steam" should be "Climate Change Denialists will never run out of lies".

     

    The mistake most people make is trying to reason with them. It is like playing Bash the Shark, as soon as you hit one lie on the head they make up another.

     

    Just pat them on their Alfoil Caps and go "Sure, sure, feel better now?"

     

    Assuming they aren't just one of the hoard of Fossil Fuel Shills that are spreading all this rubbish over the internet.

     

    Cigarettes are a lost cause, this is the new Big Lie that pays Big Bucks.

     

    btw You do know that Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post (the original "reference") and he has put an enormous amount of resources into the big lie that Global Warming is just a leftist scientist conspiracy? In fact to my knowledge a huge proportion of all the links circulating the internet go to stories manufactured on his stable of Fox News, ACP and the vast media empire he controls, not to mention all the politicians he feeds and gets to bark on queue for him.

  • Reply 20 of 224
    rubaiyatrubaiyat Posts: 277member

    Spent a little time tracking down the origins of the initial article authored by Tom Harris and Bob Carter.

     

    Search for Tom Harris and you hit the impressive sounding International Climate Science Coalition, they appear to be one and the same. ICSC is a PR firm in Ottawa financed by the world's dirtiest mining industry, the Canadian tar sands. Guess who Bob Carter is? He's their chief "Scientific Advisor".

     

    Bob Carter is also paid by the Heartland Institute a Chicago based conservative "think tank" whose other clients are the Tobacco Industry.

     

    The ICSC shares the IP address with other impressive sounding organisations, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and Australian Climate Science Coalition.

     

    If anyone else out there would like to earn some spare cash, you can join in.  Create your own Astroturf Coalition. A few hundred dollars will get you impressive sounding names on some website somewhere.

     

    When Australia began legislating for plain cigarette packaging the Alliance of Australian Retailers suddenly popped up to represent "outraged (Mum and Dad) retailers" in Australia who relied on tobacco sales and the public was told would be driven to bankruptcy. It was quickly unveiled as set up by Chris Argent, the director of corporate affairs at Philip Morris, and turned into a self inflicted wound that cost Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco $9 million and got them a large black eye.

     

    I wonder if Chris Argent still has his job, a professional puppeteer should not be seen with his hand up the puppet.

     

    Next time, if there is one, speak to Tom Harris he seems to be available as "Facts for Hire".

     

    The same PR companies that work for the Tobacco companies are making huge money out of the Gun Industry and now Coal and Oil.

     

    So the question arises who are SDW2001 and trumptman? Dupes, fellow travellers or employees of the polluters or their PR hacks?

     

    That will be more interesting than trolling through the endless lies one by one.

Sign In or Register to comment.