You just have to laugh when you see articles like this.
Excerpts from an article by Mike Sandler:
Humans have put too many heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, and now the Earth is running a fever. But there’s also an increasingly toxic atmosphere in the blogosphere, where climate deniers strategically confuse the issue, delay meaningful government action, and harass scientists and authors.
For decades, the media presented the climate “debate” as two sides that were evenly or closely matched. Then a few years ago, around the time Hurricane Katrina struck and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar and he and the IPCC were awarded a Nobel Prize, the media began to realize that climate science is real and has consequences, and the “other side” is almost all empty rhetoric.
…
More sophisticated denier methods often appeal to:
- Free speech (as if achieving consensus on climate science somehow takes away their Constitutional rights) or
- The nature of scientific inquiry means always questioning your assumptions (ironically, the people who question the science of climate change, are likely those who question all science).
Gosh, excercising free speech and questioning assumptions, why, why, they’re TERRIBLE!
You can read the whole thing here. but I wouldn’t count on being able to leave comments:
Climate Deniers are Polluting the Blogosphere
Of course the thought hasn’t occurred to Mr. Sandler that the bulk of opinion has shifted.
Time and again I have asked Google to allow me to filter out “news” from the Huff and Puff Post. Even their asinine headlines give me a headache. So far, no action from Google.
My sense is that the “toxicity” runs warmer at the believer sites … a sure sign of being on the wrong side of logic. Now the nuclear industry, governments, and people haters are left wondering what happened to the water tight climatological argument.
To get a sense of the strange bedfellows entwined within the AGW movement, take a look at ‘The Optimum Population Trust’.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.media.html
“OPT chairman Roger Martin said PopOffsets, launched earlier this month and thought to be the first carbon offsetting scheme to channel funds into family planning, had received much praise…”
If you poke around on their site you find that they want to reduce the population of the UK to 20 million – they are a little vague on the selection criteria for the chosen people – but no doubt the more equal humans will emerge in due course.
Mike Sandler;
More sophisticated denier methods often appeal to:
The nature of scientific inquiry means always questioning your assumptions (ironically, the people who question the science of climate change, are likely those who question all science).>>
My expectation is that Mr Sandler, by way of his slur above, intended to smeer skeptics as religious zealots who deny science. That he finds irony in the questioning of assumptions and scientific conclusions other than his own firmly held belief system is deeply… deeply… ironic. Alas, it is an argument founded not upon facts, evidence or reason, but on the least sophisticated of all possible arguments, the simple dismissal of any opinion contrary to his own. This too is deeply… tragicaly… and disturbingly… ironic.
One thing that I really enjoy about WUWT is the back & forth between folks of different opinions! The scientific discourse on this blog is just amazing, and WUWT tolerates a wide range of opinions. Trolls pop in, but sometimes they can stimulate good discussions.
However, RealClimate, HuffPo etc. have little to no tolerance to those who don’t drink their brand of Kool-Aid. This makes for very boring reading, as the comments sections are full of fan-boy banter, climate freaks preening one another etc. I have to force myself to some of these sites just to keep tabs!
The AGW proponents better get used to the fact that, with ClimateGate, a very cold past winter across the northern hemisphere, healing Arctic ice cap and other facts, the majority of the electorate is turning against carbon control legislation. They have an uphill climb, and they sure don’t like it!
“I’ll surely go to greentard hell!”
I am not a denier. I am an adhominer.
“ZT (21:31:27) :
[…]
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.media.html
“OPT chairman Roger Martin said PopOffsets, launched earlier this month and thought to be the first carbon offsetting scheme to channel funds into family planning, had received much praise…”
”
Does that mean i can continue running my car if i pay the OPT to have somebody else sterilized?
Think of all the tax dollars we could have saved if we knew an Oscar, a hurricane and a prize would decide climate science.
“Then a few years ago, around the time Hurricane Katrina struck and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar and he and the IPCC were awarded a Nobel Prize, the media began to realize that climate science is real and has consequences, and the “other side” is almost all empty rhetoric.”
I posted this….let’s see if it gets through…
What makes you think, Mr. Sandler, that the people who don’t blindly accept the AGW theory only get their information from the funny papers? Your comments are insulting at best. Many of us “deniers” work in science, climate related science in fact.
When temperature data is found to have been tampered wth, the IPCC’s AR4 found to be based on 1/3 non peer-reviewed papers, emails from scientists essentially in control of the premier climate science institutions actively working to thwart papers not in agreement with their own, and the mainstream media including yourself refuse to permit the general public to hear from qualified climate scientists present dissenting views…..people have an obligation to do precisely what you decry.
It is unfortunate that so many are blindly accepting “facts” that are not. As the public comes to find that Michael Mann spliced apples onto oranges in a clever trick to hide a decline, and realize it is but the tip of the iceberg of a great swindle of science, you and the media will find yourselves furiously peddling backwards to avoid looking the fool.
Let your readers see the blogs of Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, and let them draw their own conclusions.
Time for a b*llshit bingo, get 5 right and win a prize, a smile on your face 🙂
[x] heat-trapping gases
[x] the Earth is running a fever
[x] increasingly toxic atmosphere
[x] climate deniers
[x] delay meaningful government action
[x] harass scientists and authors
And thats just from the first paragraph (O_o)
The press in general is incredibly incompetent. This was well articulated by this piece on the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/24/sports/la-sp-0424-dwyre-20100424
In fact, this one piece illustrates what good lapdogs they really are.
davidmhoffer (21:32:22) You should love this:
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President – March 2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/…/ofbnp-council-final-report.pdf
“Recommendation 1:
Form an Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and assign Faith- and Community-Based Liaisons to EPA regional offices………………..
Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the EPA could help to unleash this potential and activate faith- and community-based networks to promote energy efficiency, environmental responsibility, and green jobs.”
Wow Smokey (21:03:09), that Mishin guy really tells it! I too know Russians, as I did my grad research there in the early 90’s. Those folks see everything in stark reality.
You have millions upon millions of people all across the world who have seen the Climate Hoax for what it is, and are not about to fall under the hypnotic spell any more.
They see the weather not co-operating, they see the greed, they remember the failed predictions and they see the corrupted frenzy for monetary gain.
The only support left is the polical power, those cashing in and those still hoping for a true environmentally sane outcome.
And those untold millions tell thier friends all about it.
Denialism, as the HuffPo calls it, went grassroots.
It is it’s own Tea Party and it interconnects with all the others wanting to take back thier country/climate.
And it’s the grassroots that calls the Climate Hoax’s bluff.
Now that is a real torrent.
The HuffPo is now in the Reactionary drivers seat.
This makes me so sad,
I feel so Bad,
LIke a Cad,
and they are mad,
Can’t we all just get along and think of the children, the children who write opinion at Huff Po.
Huff PO has got me so worked up I wrote really bad poem.
Peace V.
“Climate Deniers are Polluting the Blogosphere”
I suppose clean water can be said to be polluting a sewer, since it’s something that’s not “naturally found” in that system. The dilution ratio is still pretty low, lots more clean water can be added.
“…clogging up the blogosphere”
To the CAGW faithful, I am a large glob of hair and grease impeding the free-flowing of their movement to its final destination.
Good. Glad to be so helpful to their cause. 🙂
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and to discuss their opinions openly with others:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkP_OGDCLY0]
>Free speech (as if achieving consensus on climate science somehow takes
>away their Constitutional rights) or
I suppose that every would-be despot has to start someplace, taxing carbon dioxide emissions is easier to sneak past the general public than openly taxing our oxygen intake. I sincerely wonder about this angle, as one of the common themes on ‘my’ side of the fence is that most involved (at/near the top of the totem pole) seem to seek either profit or control and I find this rather disturbing. Judging by the behavior of many of the principle proponents of this issue (individuals and organizations both), I’ve found myself doubting their motives, their character, and unfortunately their honesty – something I’ve been almost wholly unable to do here. Unless of course this really is just intriguing window-dressing to sell weather gadgets and temperature dataloggers… 😉
>The nature of scientific inquiry means always questioning your assumptions
>(ironically, the people who question the science of climate change, are
>likely those who question all science).
I find this funny as this questioning is partly what led me here, and my assumptions were definitely challenged – it didn’t take very long to realize that those assumptions weren’t very well founded. Well, that and I think that labelling someone a ‘denier’ because they’re asking honest questions is a bloody rotten thing to do. Turns out I’m not the only one on this side of the fence that thinks so either – over the past few months many people in my circle confessed to having doubts about the issue – not because the blogosphere is littered with ‘denialist propaganda’, but because the issue as advertised doesn’t ‘add up’ to them. Polar Bears aren’t dying off, Arctic/Antarctic ice isn’t vanishing, green leafy plants love the CO2, earth isn’t turning into a fireball – what’s the problem?
Cheers.
“Gerard (21:26:50) :
“For decades, the media presented the climate “debate” as two sides that were evenly or closely matched.”
Huh? When was that, exactly? The only time I knew there was a ‘debate’ was when mainstream journalists about ten years ago suddenly all started screaming in unison “the debate is over, the science is settled”.”
The debate started at the end of the 60’s and into the 70’s. At that time we were told we would enter an ice age if we did not mend our evil polluting ways. So we passed air pollution laws that forced manufacturing abroad, and our deindustrialization did help clean up the air (over here, but Taipei and Seoul, and after that Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong make LA’s air in the 70’s look clean. Taipei is actually pretty clean now since it’s manufacturing has moved to China). Carbon cap and trading should put an end to the manufacturing thats left in the Us.
‘climate science is real and has consequences’
That’s actually true. But I don’t think Mike Sandler understand why though.
This is a most extraordinary article, if it deserves to be called an “article”. None of it either bears close resemblance to the truth or displays any understanding of the substance of the debate (a debate that has only just started and was stifled for twenty or more years – something the author would know if he were talking out of his head and sitting on his posterior rather than the other way round).
Despite my gross corpulence I am a qualified tap dancer. A native British form of tap dancing is clog dancing, clogs being wooden shoes. People found rhythmic contact between clogs and a solid surface was entertaining, so clog dancing became a popular performing art. Tap dancing as we know it today is another form of essentially the same art, the main difference being that metal taps on light shoes allow a greater variety of steps to be performed. Although I tap, I have never clog danced. For many years I have wished to do so. Now I don’t need to because I am clogging-up the blogosphere. Finally my dream has been fulfilled.
I was watching Cris Matthews on Hard Ball tonight with James Cameron the film director and marveling at their utter confusion over the climate debate. These two gentlemen insist that big oil is behind the AGW skepticism – that’s you, me and all the other simple working stiffs that are NOT BUYING IT. The situation has moved beyond a typical political fight, IMO, and has now moved on to reveal a mass psychosis of some kind. Two intelligent men seemingly incapable of understanding the rouse that has gone on here or perhaps incapable of accepting the fact that they have allowed themselves to be taken in by this massive con. I’m betting that when the history is written about this whole episode the most fascinating part will be the degree to which people rationalized their faith in the religion of global warming.
We should combine Manmade Global Warming Skeptic Day with Draw Muhammed Day into one global event and then see what the HuffPo thinks of that.
“Clogging up the blogosphere?
Cor blimey guv’na, don’t tell Gordon Brown. He’ll wanna ‘troduce a blogosphere congestion tax
Sandler says..
The key word there is NATURE. Don’t worry about us “deniers” questioning the science. Your problem is that MOTHER NATURE is questioning your questionable science.
And she is providing the very answers you blinkered alarmists refuse to see.
“You just have to laugh when you see articles like this”
You’re right; I did, because that is all it is worth.
Does he ever write anything of substance, or is it all “whining like a six year old” kind of stuff?