People send me stuff.
I’m sure readers remember the billboard put out by Heartland that didn’t go over at all well with many. Here’s another asking “Who do you believe”?
It’s a tough question for the pro AGW side, and an easy answer for everyone else. You can choose your answer in the poll.
This billboard was done by CFACT.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
_Jim says:
February 10, 2013 at 7:33 am
”
Gail Combs says February 10, 2013 at 2:59 am
…
You cite some really, really credible sources there ma’am; how many of them would you reckon would stand up against a strong and complete ‘cross’ examination in light of actual facts?”
You say Quigley was a liar?
3 part interview with Quigley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgjc3LdMnK0&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Mentions a continuum of secret societies.
Quigley was a professor of Bill Clinton. He was sympathetic to the hidden agendas of American foundations he documented in his book Tragedy And Hope.
Sometimes, the brazenness with which “skeptics” forge quotes and lie is still stunning to me. Take this alleged quote by Stephen Schneider, which is provided here by Gail Combs on February 10, 2013 at 3:56 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221492
“~ On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.~”
which is commented by Gail Combs as alleged evidence for the accusation that Stephen Schneider promoted to be untruthful for non-scientific motives:
However, the above quote is a forged version, from which essential parts that are important for the message have been deliberately stripped. This is the original statement by Stephen Schneider:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
(J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989. cited after Stephen H. Schneider, Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial, APS News, 1996, 5(8), http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf)
With the full quote it becomes clear that Stephen Schneider did not promote lying. Instead, he addressed the difficulty one has as a scientist and human being to convey results from scientific research, which may have societal consequences, in an effective way to the public through the media, which do not provide much space for a nuanced argument. He speaks about a “double ethical bind”, and he makes clear that his desire is to be both effective and honest. This quote demonstrates that Stephen Schneider was thinking about such problems. It’s a good thing to be reflective about these kind of problems, not a bad thing.
The brazenness is particularly stunning in this case, since the original quote can actually be found under the link that is provided by Gail Combs. Nevertheless, a distorted version is given here.
It is not Stephen Schneider who promoted that climate scientists should be lying. Instead, it’s fake skeptics who are lying when they use distorted quotes to defame climate scientists and make libelous accusations about them. Forged versions of the Stephen Schneider quote with the according misrepresentation of its content can be found all over the “skeptic” blogosphere. What does this say about the honesty of such “skeptics” in general?
I believe both comments completely.
Looking at the website and listening to soundbites provided at CFACT.org, I have come to the conclusion that those people are not in the business of accurately reporting about science. They are not friends of truth and facts. It’s apparently politically and ideologically motivated Agit-Prop of a lobby organization.
REPLY: Sorta like Fenton Communications and RealClimate. – Anthony
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 10, 2013 at 8:47 am
Well, that doesn’t change the meaning at all.
Jan Perlwitz, what scary scenarios do YOU come up with to get loads of media coverage?
BTW, ever heard of the Rule Of Holes?
Jan Perlwitz:
Your quote simply has a few extra self-justifications. The overall tone of what he said remains unchanged. To paraphrase:
Skeptics, generally (there are always going to be outliers) insist that proper scientific rigor is demonstrated, evidence is shown, and conclusions are, at the very least, credible.
The only climate “crisis” is the sheer WASTE of resources attempting to “fix” a non-issue.
Chris, Dirk, and John, this is so funny: I am a global warming sceptic and politically from the moderate (Dutch) left, which would make me in the USA essentially a Communist. BTW, I voted neither.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 10, 2013 at 8:47 am
Sometimes, the brazenness with which “skeptics” forge quotes and lie is still stunning to me. Take this alleged quote by Stephen Schneider, which is provided here by Gail Combs on February 10, 2013 at 3:56 am
———————————————-
Congratz Jan, you’re the proud winner of the ‘stupidest argument I’ve heard all week’ award!
I mean, really! Do you think by stuffing fingers in your ears and waving you arms you can cause anybody here to doubt the message Schneider was clearly conveying? Do you even believe your own lame argument?
Far from obscuring the matter, Gail’s revision clarified the main points. Clearly in your case it needs to be simplified further, since apparently you’re getting confused by the supporting details. Let me lay it out for you in small chunks and see if you can keep up:
1) Schneider notes ‘on the one hand’ that ethical scientific behavior is to speak the scientific findings and nothing more, with full qualifications and uncertainties.
2) Schneider notes ‘on the other hand’ that offering up scary scenarios, simplifying and dramatizing the findings, and pretending certainty with the media is the way to motivate broad based support and capture the public’s imagination.
Ergo – To be an effective activist contradicts ethical scientific behavior. This is the main point Schneider is making. Once you’ve fully digested this simple point, you’ll be in a position to rationally examine the remaining meaning in Schneider’s statement.
Please don’t hesitate to let me know if I can be of further service in explaining what words mean to you in the future.
Perlwitz is trying to defend the indefensible: Schneider’s tacit permission to the alarmist crowd to lie when they do not have the facts on their side. From his comment, I see that Perlwitz has taken Schneider’s advice:
As I’ve frequently pointed out, if it were not for psychological projection, Perlwitz wouldn’t have much to say. Here, Perlwitz is accusing a skeptical organization of doing exactly what RealClimate, SkS, and similar alarmist blogs do: lie to thew public, as Schneider advised.
CodeTech wrote on February 10, 2013 at 10:01 am http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221648
You are the one who is lying. He did not say such a thing. This is a malicious interpretation of what Stephen Schneider said, and what I said. Something is read into a text, what is not being said, because you want it that way. What else is new here.
Actually, you are right. That is what true skeptics do. Unlike to what one can study here how the likes of you, the fake skeptic crowd behaves, usually, which prefers distorting quotes and misrepresenting what climate scientists actually say.
Mindert Eiting says:
February 10, 2013 at 10:44 am
“Chris, Dirk, and John, this is so funny: I am a global warming sceptic and politically from the moderate (Dutch) left, which would make me in the USA essentially a Communist. ”
The definition of communist is internationally agreed upon I think. (You want a global socialist state with the expropriation of all means of production; later (magically) the socialist state dissolves and communism without any government takes its place.) If you think that that makes sense then you’re a communist, otherwise not.
It’s the definition of conservatism in Germany that is flakey – the CDU is indistinguishable from the Green party.
D.B. Stealey:
Re your post at February 10, 2013 at 11:43 am.
The assertions of Jan P Perlw1tz get progressively more bizarre with each post he makes.
in his post at February 10, 2013 at 8:47 am he accused Gail Combs of forgery saying
He then quoted what Gail Combs had quoted before writing
Please not that he repeatedly claimed the quotation provided by Gail Combs was forged and that Gail Combs had lied.
He then posted the same quote with a few additional sentences which – in fact – clarified that the point made by Gail Combs was correct.
After that he provided three paragraphs which claim ‘black is white’ and repeats the assertion that Gail combs had provided a forgery.
So, according to Jan P Perlw1tz
1. it is ”forgery” to quote verbatim unless every word of a statement is provided.
and
2. it is a lie to accurately summarise what the statement says.
So, I suppose in the world of Perlw1tz a $10 bill is a forgery when a small piece of its corner is missing and it is a lie to say it is worth $10 when put into a bank.
Richard
Mark Bofill,
Perlwitz is amusing. He keeps digging his hole deeper.
As you correctly point out, Perlwitz is clearly condoning lying:
Perlwitz is easy to figure out: liars believe that everyone else lies, too.
Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come.
============
Gore is correct. The misleading hype over Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. What we are going to see is more and more politicians blaming their failure to plan for storms on the “global warming” bogey man.
So, when a storm does hundreds of millions of dollars in damage because the politicians failed to keep the infrastructure maintained, it isn’t the politicians that are to blame. It is the rest of us that are at fault for heating our houses and driving to work.
We should be heating our houses in the winter with solar panels and traveling to work in the all electric trains and buses that politicians promise us will appear any day now. All paid for by a carbon tax on the oil that no one will be using once we switch over to electric trains and buses.
And the debt that keeps piling up? Those same politicians that are worried about the effects of global warming on the children? They don’t seem the least bit concerned with selling the children into indentured servitude as more and more of their paychecks are eaten up in servicing the interest on the debt, and less and less for actual government services.
Mark Bofill on February 10, 2013 at 11:25 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221705
openly endorses forging quotes so that “skeptics” can reinterpret them to give them a meaning “skeptics” would like to give them:
This is a seldom open admission that it was OK to forge quotes for propaganda purposes, coming from a fake skeptic.
And of course, richardscourtney on February 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221766
defends the providing of a forged quote, from which the context was stripped, and he supports the malicious reinterpretation of what the quote said, although the full quote including the stripped parts make clear that the quotes says actually something else.
Then he even defends the forging of quotes with an absurd analogy:
As if the full context of a statement didn’t matter for the understanding of quote fragments.
No surprise here. Mr. Courtney is a “skeptic” activist who is actively making propaganda against research and their results in climate science, and he tries to sabotage research in climate science through political channels. One could suspect the motivation for his doing comes from his professional connections to the coal industry.
D.B. Stealey wrote on February 10, 2013 at 12:49 pm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221769
There is no statement by me, in which I have condoned lying. You show once more a major failure of logic, Stealey. When I defend Stephen Schneider against the false accusation to have condoned lying, with the argument that a statement by him is maliciously forged and misinterpreted, I am certainly not condoning lying.
Ah, is this the reason why you believe that thousands of climate scientists all over the world are lying, when they accept the paradigm of anthropogenically caused climate change and global warming in their publications or public statements, and why you believe that all major scientific organizations and academies all over the world acknowledge the validity of the results from scientific research about anthropogenically caused climate change and global warming and why you believe in an omnipotent, global conspiracy of liars that allegedly promoted an AGW hoax? Yes, it’s plausible that this could be the reason.
Perlwitz continues to amuse, and he is digging his hole ever deeper by pretending that Schneider was not condoning lying for the cause. Of course he was, only a blinkered idiot would believ otherwise… or someone lying on Schneider’s level.
I note that Perlwitz has no support for his fantastic claims. Readers and commenters are not stupid. They know exactly what Schneider meant. So does Perlwitz, but he refuses to admit to the truth. Because if he did admit to the truth, his whole globaloney CAGW narrative would collapse. As it is, there is zero measurable scientific evidence supporting even AGW — much less the preposterous CAGW nonsense.
Mark Bofill on February 10, 2013 at 11:25 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221705
openly endorses forging quotes so that “skeptics” can reinterpret them to give them a meaning “skeptics” would like to give them:
Far from obscuring the matter, Gail’s revision clarified the main points. Clearly in your case it needs to be simplified further, since apparently you’re getting confused by the supporting details.
This is a seldom open admission that it was OK to forge quotes for propaganda purposes, coming from a fake skeptic.
—————————————————————————-
And the conversation continues to deteriorate…
Being unable to address the substance of my post in any way shape or form, this pathetic troll comes back with yet another unfounded distortion.
Jan, you’re being boring. Here I was looking forward to an interesting debate. Couldn’t you step up your game a bit? My kids argue a better case than you for Pete’s sake.
Perlwitz says:
“Ah, is this the reason why you believe that thousands of climate scientists all over the world are lying…”
I challenge the mendacious Perlwitz to name even 1,000 scientists who are on the record as believing in the CO2=CAGW narrative. For every 1,000 Perlwitz can name, I can name 10,000.
Ball’s in your court, Perlwitz. Start naming names, or everyone will know you’re blowing smoke as usual.
Gore cleverly didn’t say that Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming. He said it is a sign of what is to come. And signs aren’t the real thing, they are indicators, just as the sign of a steep hill ahead isn’t the steep hill ahead.
Bit of a game here. The Heartland again goes for the theatrics, not the logic or science or even the “truth” (in that the quote doesn’t attribute Sandy TO global warming, just a “sign”, however he is implying that connection. Which he is doing. Two wrongs, and all that.)
The Heartland has been clear about fighting fire with fire, ad hominem with ad hominem. The ad puts the belief of science into the belief of an individual, a fallback to the credibility of authority. The Heartland did not speak for me in the Unabomber fiasco, and doesn’t speak for me now.
I want very much to win this debate, but not by becoming the type of people who are on the other side. The Heartland may not feel this to be much of a concern because, other than what they believe, they are the same as the those on the other side.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 10, 2013 at 1:58 pm
“Ah, is this the reason why you believe that thousands of climate scientists all over the world are lying, when they accept the paradigm of anthropogenically caused climate change and global warming in their publications or public statements, ”
The THEORY of CO2AGW has been promoted to a PARADIGM now? You’re delusional.
D.B. Stealey wrote on February 10, 2013 at 3:12 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221859
No, Stealey, I didn’t say just “scientists”, I said “climate scientists”. These are people who actually work and publish in peer reviewed specialist journals in the field. You probably would present as “scientist” anyone who claims to have got some science degree at some point in his/her life, in whatever field ever and whether he/she works as professional scientist or not, even if it is the dentist next door. Like it was done by a “skeptic” organization with the fraudulent Oregon Petition.
I did not talk about a “CO2=CAGW” narrative. “CAGW” stands for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. I didn’t say anything about such a thing, and I don’t use this term. This term doesn’t appear anywhere in the IPCC Report, either. It’s a term that is used by “skeptics” for propaganda purposes.
A 1:10 ratio?
The only challenge I would accept is one based on what I actually said, i.e, listing working and actually publishing climate scientists, based on publications in peer reviewed specialist journals of the field. For every one of those scientists I name who agrees with the paradigm of anthropogenically caused global warming from greenhouse gases, you have to name 10 other climate scientists who work and publish in the field and who have been documented to disagree with the paradigm that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions cause global warming.
Based on those terms, I am going to be game. Are you?
Mark Bofill wrote on February 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221851
1. I do not believe you that.
2. You defended the forging of a quote as a legitimate “revision” of a statement. I am not going to honor such a propositon by engaging in a dialogue with you.
There are enough of the “skeptic” crowd here who are similar minded to you. Aren’t you satisfied when they give you confirmation?
Perlwitz, why did you misquote me, then agree with what I actually said? That didn’t make sense…