• Reply 2901 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Climate Fraud and Hypocrisy


    As the Earth's climate continues to change at an accelerating rate, the juggling and magical thinking and outright hypocrisy of climate change deniers continues to accelerate as well. While there are many examples of the remarkable ability of deniers to hold onto mutually contradictory beliefs and ideas, here are four well-worn arguments regularly put forward by deniers in public forums despite the fact that they've all been debunked (over and over and over) by scientists:

    Deniers claim that climate models are bad, but they're happy to rely on far less reliable economic models to argue against taking action: One of the classic arguments of climate deniers is that the multitude of climate models is bad. Yet at the very same time, they promote the conclusions of a couple of economic models that say that doing anything about climate change will bankrupt the global economy. In fact, climate models are far superior to economic models. Climate models are far more rigorously tested, far more firmly based in physical reality, and far more unanimous in their projections than the economic models that have been applied to the problem of climate change. Indeed, you can find one set of economic models that says that mitigating greenhouse gases will be relatively cheap and another set that say it will be extremely expensive. You cannot find a state-of-the-art climate model that says the climate won't change with growing greenhouse gas concentrations.......

    Government action is anathema; the answer is let the free market work (oh, but we can't have markets for carbon):....

    Deniers argue that comprehensive observational data on the world's changing climate are wrong, but then point to cold weather in this or that location to argue that the world cannot be warming:.....

    Deniers seize on a few minor mistakes in the IPCC report to claim its overall conclusions are invalid; but then use massively flawed scientific arguments to dispute real climate science:....

  • Reply 2904 of 3043


    (For 'warmists' read '99.9% of scientists in the fields of paleoclimatology, metereology, climate, environment and every single discipline of natural history, the Pentagon, NASA, The British Department of the Environment and the governments of every single industrialised nation on earth'. Warmists. )
  • Reply 2906 of 3043

    That three-page .pdf is, of course, a load of dishonest bullshit.


    The original number contacted was 10,157 and of those, 69% decided they didn’t want any part of it,

    Because they could tell the questions were bullshit, asked by bullshitters, The Science and Public Policy Institute, who are a notorious and deeply irritating pressure group who exist to spread misinformation.

    "Oh, well", they said. "We'll count the people who wanted no part of it as 'no' then," and added them to the denier column anyway:


    but they were the original target population. When the figure of 75 believers is set against that number, we get a mere 0.73% of the scientists they contacted who agreed with their loaded questions.

    "And then we'll try and claim that 0.73% is a representative number for the scientific community", they said, and then jazzguru found a link on one of his stupid climate blogs and posted it here with no comment of any kind.

  • Reply 2907 of 3043
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

    That three-page .pdf is, of course, a load of dishonest bullshit.

    Because they could tell the questions were bullshit, asked by bullshitters, The Science and Public Policy Institute, who are a notorious and deeply irritating pressure group who exist to spread misinformation.

    "Oh, well", they said. "We'll count the people who wanted no part of it as 'no' then," and added them to the denier column anyway:

    "And then we'll try and claim that 0.73% is a representative number for the scientific community", they said, and then jazzguru found a link on one of his stupid climate blogs and posted it here with no comment of any kind.


    Surely you're not insinuating that the material that jg post is BS?

  • Reply 2908 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Slate Mag: Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem.


    Consider the case of climate change, of which beliefs are astonishingly polarized according to party affiliation and ideology. A March 2010 Gallup poll showed that 66 percent of Democrats (and 74 percent of liberals) say the effects of global warming are already occurring, as opposed to 31 percent of Republicans. Does that mean that Democrats are more than twice as likely to accept and understand the scientific truth of the matter? And that Republicans are dominated by scientifically illiterate yahoos and corporate shills willing to sacrifice the planet for short-term economic and political gain?

    Or could it be that disagreements over climate change are essentially political—and that science is just carried along for the ride? For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science.

    Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic, are used over a period of decades to advance a political agenda that happens to align precisely with the ideological preferences of Democrats. Coincidence—or causation? Now this would be a good case for Mythbusters.

  • Reply 2909 of 3043

    Oh look. Heavens above. I have just filleted jazzguru's last post and he has completely ignored it.

    Instead he has replied with another post!

    And this post is a link, with no comment!

    Only in this one suggests that the only climate scientists in the world are American members of the Democratic Party!

    Good lord, it's almost as if he's simply posting links with an explicit political agenda and refusing to discuss them, almost as it it's his blog.
  • Reply 2910 of 3043


    Running out of sources are you?
  • Reply 2911 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    New Study: Ice caps not likely to face rapid, irreversible melting as previously thought


    The study, published today in journal Nature, conflicts with previous research, which suggested that Arctic temperatures are already on track to exceed the threshold required to trigger rapid, irreversible ice loss.

    Researchers from Polar Bears International said sea ice in the Arctic, which polar bears use as a platform on which to hunt seals and breed, is unlikely to undergo a rapid and irreversible decline when temperatures rise beyond a certain threshold.

  • Reply 2915 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member

    I must say these PO threads do flow much better with certain members on my ignore list.

  • Reply 2916 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member

    Disinformers defend Foxgate email saying unequivocal warming of the climate should always be disputed

    Discredited WattsUpWithThat blogger makes up more stuff, while scientists and media critics slam Fox News


    Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon was widely condemned yesterday for an email telling the network?s staff not to report on even the most widely accepted scientific facts without immediately challenging them, as I reported here.


    The only ones defending Fox News are, predictably, the originators and repeaters of the very disinformation that FoxNews reporters are being ordered to repeat. The leading online disinformer, discredited former TV weatherman Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat, actually went so far as to fabricate phony claims about the email in order to defend Fox News

    Yesterday, he wrote (falsely) that it was a ?stolen email? and ?illegally obtained? ?on the basis of no facts whatsoever. In fact, as MediaMatters explained to CP, ?It was provided to us by a recipient.? I think that was pretty obvious from the story and from the email itself, which was clearly sent to a great many people in FoxNews. It would be hard to imagine that no one on the distribution list thought the email was journalistically inappropriate.

    So why would Watts make up such a libelous claim, one that is so transparently false and easily checked (notwithstanding the fact that it is his modus operandi)?

    He was trying to make a bizarre and torturous equivalence between the massive hack of Climategate emails and Foxgate in order to try to smear Al Gore (and me). #FAIL

    Let?s move on to the more interesting, but still erroneous, critique from disinformers like Watts. They claim that Fox News is only following standard ?journalistic? practices. First off, anyone who actually believes that FoxNews is following journalistic practices should read Howell Raines: ?Why has our profession ? helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt??. Raines, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former NY Times executive editor, explains

    For the first time since the yellow journalism of a century ago, the United States has a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party?. In a bygone era of fact-based commentary typified, left to right, by my late colleagues Scotty Reston and Bill Safire, these deceptions would have been given their proper label: disinformation?.

    [Ailes] and his video ferrets have intimidated center-right and center-left journalists into suppressing conclusions ? whether on health-care reform or other issues ? they once would have stated as demonstrably proven by their reporting.

    As for Fox News, lots of people who know better are keeping quiet about what to call it. Its news operation can, in fact, be called many things, but reporters of my generation, with memories and keyboards, dare not call it journalism.

    The Foxgate email sent to Media Matters did little more then confirm what everybody already knew about FoxNews.

    But what of the claim that FoxNews in this particular case was just trying to bring fair and balanced coverage to the climate story? Recall that, as MediaMatters explained, the Foxgate e-mail was ?sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon ? less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations? World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was ?on track to be the warmest [decade] on record.? ?

    Sammon wrote ?we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.?

    As Dan Kennedy, an assistant professor of journalism at Northeastern University in Boston, told TechNewsWorld:

    His memo on climate change, by contrast, underscores what Fox has become: not a news organization, not even an honest opinion outlet, but a source of political propaganda. The real obligation of journalists is to help their audience understand that the scientific community is almost unanimous that the climate is changing, that human activity is a major cause and that voluminous amounts of data support that view.

    For the record, the 2007 Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded its review of scientific literature and relevant observations:

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level........

  • Reply 2917 of 3043
  • Reply 2918 of 3043
    Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice


    Antarctica is disintegrating much faster than almost anybody imagined ? see ?Nothing in the natural world is lost at an accelerating exponential rate like this glacier.? In 2001, the IPCC ?consensus? said neither Greenland nor Antarctica would lose significant mass by 2100. They both already are.* As Penn State climatologist Richard Alley said in March 2006, the ice sheets appear to be shrinking ?100 years ahead of schedule.?

  • Reply 2919 of 3043
    Long Wait May Be Over For Science Guidelines


    Long-awaited guidelines ordered by President Obama last year to prevent government research from being altered or suppressed for political purposes so the integrity of government scientists can be protected could be released as early as Friday.....


    "It's about letting scientists, like those who are here today, do their jobs free from manipulation or coercion and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient, especially when it's inconvenient," he said.

  • Reply 2920 of 3043

    Warning: ?Greater exposure? to Fox News will lead to ?increased misinformation? on policy issues, especially climate science


    AWorld Public Opinion (WPO) poll finds that a remarkable 60% of those who watched Fox News almost daily believe that ?Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring,? whereas only 30% who never watch it believe that.* Only 25% of those who watch CNN almost daily hold that erroneous belief ? and only 14% who listen to NPR or PBS almost daily.

    This is not terribly surprising given that, as we learned this week, as of last December, Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon has required reporters and producers that report on even the most unequivocal scientific facts about global warming to dispute those facts ? IMMEDIATELY.?

    Erroneous views turn out to be commonplace among regular Fox News viewers, as ThinkProgress explains:

    Last week, World Public Opinion (WPO) released a poll exploring political information in a post-Citizens United national election and found that 90 percent of voters ?said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently.

    ? More troubling, the poll also found ?strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign.? WPO said that voter misinformation contained beliefs about current issues such as TARP, the Recovery Act, health care reform, the economy, and climate change that were ?at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.?

Sign In or Register to comment.