Guest Opinion By Russell Cook
While attending the 10th International Conference on Climate Change in Washington D.C. late last week, Dr S. Fred Singer asked me to send him material he could forward to New York Times reporter Justin Gillis, in response to Gillis contacting him about an article he was writing on Naomi Oreskes, ‘star’ of the “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie. Dr Singer was not only aware of my recent prominent review of the movie, I was one of the names seen in the leaked October 2014 email chain in which Dr Singer pondered suing Oreskes. Dr Singer values my work work because I do what reporters such as Justin Gillis do not do.
Although I immediately sent an email to Dr Singer upon returning home, Gillis apparently already gleaned what he wanted from Dr Singer for his 6/15/15 article, “Naomi Oreskes, a Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate”, which was material to skewer Dr Singer while portraying Oreskes as something she is not, an independent ‘discoverer of corrupt skeptic climate scientists.’
First, Gillis’ errant description about Oreskes’ so-called discovery:
Dr. Oreskes’s approach has been to dig deeply into the history of climate change denial, documenting its links to other episodes in which critics challenged a developing scientific consensus.
Her core discovery, made with a co-author, Erik M. Conway, was twofold. They reported that dubious tactics had been used over decades to cast doubt on scientific findings relating to subjects like acid rain, the ozone shield, tobacco smoke and climate change ….
If Gillis had either read the material I sent to Dr Singer, or if he had simply undertaken basic due diligence on the claims about Oreskes, he would have seen that she is little more than a johnny-come-lately on talking point insinuations about skeptic climate scientists being no more than people who operate, as Gillis describes one paragraph later, under “methods that were honed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s and have since been employed to cast doubt on just about any science being cited to support new government regulations.”
As I’ve described at length in my GelbspanFiles.com blog posts about this baseless accusation:
- Oreskes derives the talking point on ‘tobacco industry shill experts’ / ‘fossil fuel industry shill experts’ from the main promulgator of it, global warming alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan. “Naomi Oreskes’ Problems, pt 1”
- the talking point begs for deeper scrutiny into its lineage and into the people pushing it. “Naomi Oreskes’ Problems, pt 2”
- and Oreskes’ claims about ozone depletion ‘contrarians’ only points to a huge problem surrounding people at the epicenter of the skeptic climate scientist smear effort being the same as those who tried to trash Dr S Fred Singer’s criticisms about Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). “Worried about Global Warming or Ozone Depletion? Then Destroy Critics Who Say Those aren’t Problems.”
Repeating the words from that last blog post from Dr Singer circa a 1994 Washington Post article (archived ironically in, of all places, the organization I term “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action”):
It is interesting to watch the proponents of the ozone-CFC theory squirm when under scientific attack. They resort to evasion, double-talk and often outright prevarication. ….
Unfortunately, this lesson from CFC-ozone policy has not been learned by our public officials. They prefer to believe the myth of a “scientific consensus” and seem eager to repeat the same mistakes for the global warming issue where the potential for damage by ill-advised and hasty policies is so much higher.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Justin Gillis to divulge any of that to his NYT readers or who the real lightning rod is in the global warming issue, Dr S. Fred Singer.
Toward the end of his article, Gillis skewers Dr Singer this way, on Singer’s effort late last year to find out if he could take any action against Oreskes’ movie (web link identical to what is in Gillis’ NYT article):
In the leaked emails, Dr. Singer told a group of his fellow climate change denialists that he felt that Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway had libeled him. But in an interview, when pressed for specific errors in the book that might constitute libel, he listed none. Nor did he provide such a list in response to a follow-up email request.
What organization did Gillis link to for the ‘leaked emails’? Desmogblog, the organization Ross Gelbspan says he helped to found (8 seconds into this audio interview), the same organization that co-founder James Hoggan says was built around the works of Ross Gelbspan, in particular, his “smoking gun evidence” that skeptic climate scientists and fossil fuel industry officials were conspiring to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.” For all her efforts to push that accusation, who does Oreskes cite as the source of it? Ross Gelbspan.
Has anyone, from Al Gore to Naomi Oreskes, the New York Times, James Hoggan, or Ross Gelbspan ever provided anything beyond pure guilt-by-association accusations, have they ever provided a scintilla of evidence proving people such as Dr Singer operated under any kind of pay-for-performance situation, in which instructions were given to lie to the public and to knowingly fabricate reports everyone knew were false?
No, they haven’t. The idea that the New York Times seems to totally miss here is something I was told by a prosecuting attorney during my brief jury duty service just a day ago, that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the accused need not respond to the accusations to remain innocent, and that it is entirely upon the accuser to meet the burden of proof in the accusation. Not only is this the way the US law works, it is plain common sense.
After nearly two decades of a constant barrage of accusations that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie, the best the New York Times can come up with is “trust us, our source has third-hand hearsay evidence which we won’t question in any manner.” Elaborating on what I tweeted to Justin Gillis and another reporter after their hit pieces against Dr Willie Soon in February, there is no Pulitzer Prize to be won from repeating worn-out talking point accusations, but a Pulitzer could be won if reporters turned the tables on the people who created the accusations.
a Pulitzer could be won if reporters turned the tables on the people who created the accusations.
Yeah, I wouldn’t go holding my breath waiting on that one.
it only takes one reporter though …
Takes more than that. It takes a reports whose story is taken seriously by the Pulitzer Board. Pal review in newsprint.
It would be as llikely as a sceptic getting a Nobel for demolishing CAGW with contrary evidence. Simply won’t happen.
Andrew Jennings. FIFA reporter.
The “Proof of guilt” is with Oreskes et el, and it boils down to the very simple:-
………… SHOW ME THE MONEY ……………
DID THEY PROVE A SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL CONNECTION BETWEEN SCEPTICS AND BIG OILS???
Too obvious, for even a simpleton like me to ask, let alone trained, objective, unbiased, professional, reporters and EDITORS/OWNERS found on the NYT and Guardian newspapers.
An insider CAGW Whistleblower working for IPCC or NOAA is my hope for the citizens of the world.
Make it NOAA. Most in the US would ignore anything with respect the IPCC, as they fo other UN orgs.
NOAA, on the other hand, would be revealed to be just another government agency. They still hold a reputation left over from the space race, and the public trusts their professionalism. That’s the same trust once placed in the IRS, Veterans Administration, Enivironmental Protection Agency, Governments Services Agency, Secret Service, the CIA, and FBI that has been destroyed in the last few years. It would not take much for the general public to dismiss NASA as just another politically and monetarily corrupt agency if a whistleblower stepped forward. Eliminate trust in the GISS and NCDC and what data sets remain? That would totally destroy the AGW movement in the US.
I think you may have NOAA mixed up with NASA.
NOAA had little if anything to do with forays into space.
Just as NASA had little to do with studying the climate.
NOAA, along with NASA falls within the United States Department of Commerce. Both are DoC agencies, though there is a persistent presumption by many that NASA is a military agency – shocking isn’t it? So, NOAA satellites are designed, built, and launched by the DoC. It is especially interesting that NASA has always been part of the DoC.
http://www.space.com/29159-buran-soviet-shuttle.html
You’ve neglected to consider that every one of the 197 Institutions of Science on the planet — the national Science Academies of the US, UK, France, Germany China, Japan, et al, and the Scientific Professional Societies, plus NASA and NOAA, and ALL Major Universities, all conclude AGW — NO exceptions.
The only way for AGW to be discredited is for the overwhelming evidence to disappear — which is as likely as the evidence for Evolution, or Plate Tectonics, or Relativity, to suddenly evaporate.
warrenlb
And just what is this overwhelming evidence of man-made global warming catastrophes?
@RACookP#1978
You know where to find it climate.nasa.gov, or in the IPCC Assessments, or in the reports by the NAS or AAAS — or in the 10s of thousands of peer reviewed research papers supporting AGW.
@RACookPE1978
Can you name a National Science Academy, Scientific Professional Association, or major University that disputes AGW? Just One?
Mr RACOOKPE..
..
You ask the question “And just what is this overwhelming evidence of man-made global warming catastrophes?”
…
That is the wrong question.
..
The question to ask is “And just what is this overwhelming evidence of man-made global warming?”
…
And the answer to that question is in most scientific publications of the past 30 years.
Don’t change my question: ONLY if there IS ACTUALLY a catastrophic global warming threat (due to man-s use of fossil fuels CO2) is there ANY need to change or reduce global warming.
ONLY if there is an absolute link between man’s beneficial release of CO2 to the atmosphere, AND that increase of CO2 IS actually linked to actual (NOT “potential” or “feared” or “possible” global warming is there ANY possible reason to limit CO2 and to artificially raise energy prices worldwide.
Not. The benefits of added CO2 in the atmosphere, and man-released CO2 from fossil fuel production and use in general, are ENTIRELY beneficial to the world’s people. The benefits of warming between 0 and 4 degrees worldwide are entirely helpful. Above 4 degrees – that 5% chance of it being that high? A few might be harmed. the remaining 99.7%? All benefit. We have 85 years to see and to mitigate the potential harm to the very few potentially threatened by a possible increase over 4 degrees.
The rest of your only hyped, only propagandized “global warming”?
Good for people, good for their welfare and health. “Uncivilized” (poor) areas and communist/socialist monopolies do need to clean up their work and their pollution. (But the CAGW catestrologist community is not demanding that, is not criminalizing the communist and third world corrupt dictators in their zeal to attack the capitalist system and send money to the corrupt.)
Arguments from authority are empty of content, Joel. They work only for the timid-minded and the scientifically illiterate.
I’ve looked through the journals of the last 30 years, and have concluded there’s no viable evidence of human causality in the recent climate warming.
The only possible evidence of a human cause can come from a unique prediction made using climate models. But climate models cannot make predictions. Their limits of resolution are literally orders of magnitude too coarse to predict the effect of increased CO2 (or of cumulated GHG emissions) on the climate.
There isn’t a single journal article that can refute that point. Nor can anyone from an official scientific organization.
@Pat Frank
And you assert that the conclusions of every scientific institution on the planet are wrong, but offer no contradictory evidence? Why should anyone pay attention to your unsupported claims?
warrenlb:
You write
Please try to not be silly.
Scientific institutions do NOT provide scientific “conclusions”: they represent and promote what they consider to be the interests of their Members, Associates and Fellows.
Importantly, there is no evidence for discernible anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW); none, zilch, nada. Three decades of research conducted world wide at an annual cost of more than $5 billion per year has failed to find any.
And, contrary to the ignorant assertions of you and Joel D. Jackson, the literature of the last 30 years contains no evidence of discernible AGW (except for the paper by Santer in the 1990s which was soon discredited as being a deliberate artifact of his data selection). The total absence of any such evidence in the literature is why you cannot cite any paper that does provide any evidence of discernible AGW.
So the questions properly directed at you, warrenlb, are
Why do you support the political propaganda from every scientific institution on the planet when you cannot provide any evidence to support their propoganda? Why should anyone pay attention to your unsupported claims?
Richard
@RACookPE1978
What is your answer to my question ‘can you name one Scientific Institution that disputes AGW?”
Define “AGW”!
you don’t know this acronym? and you’re posting on WUWT?
So you admit you can’t define it.
Good. Your complete humiliation is on the way.
Name any Scientific Institution that promotes AGW and I’ll label it as corrupt, not scientific.
warrenlb is being doubly silly, Richard, because I’ve provided plenty of evidence from my own work; .here (pdf), here (pdf) and here, among others.
Including that climate modelers are not scientists and not competent to physically evaluate their own climate models; climate models that, in any case, provide no physical meaning.
But none of that exists for warrenlb, despite that it’s been right in front of his eyes for months. Apparently evidence isn’t evidence unless it confirms his prejudices. For warrenlb, it appears even not-evidence is evidence so long as confirmation can be manufactured.
Pat Frank:
Yes, warrenlb keeps making a fool of himself with his daft Appeal to Authority by claiming Scientific institutions make scientific “conclusions”.
A scientific institution exists to represent the interests of scientists, and a trade union for plumbers exists to represent the interests of plumbers. I am sure warrenlb would recognise that trade unions representing plumbers do not bend pipes, but he keeps pretending scientific institutions conduct research. And he seems to think he can get others to share the delusion that opinions of scientific institutions are scientific “conclusions”!
Richard
The magna carta is 800 years old this year. Here is the relevant part from the copy held at Hereford cathedral regarding being innocent until proven guilty.
http://www.herefordcathedral.org/visit-us/mappa-mundi-1/special-exhibitions
It was incorporated in the US Bill of rights so this presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of both UK and US law.
In Europe this presumption is reversed
Tonyb
and
Curious.
History note:
Tomorrow, June 18, is the 200th anniversary.
Napoléon meets Wellington at the battle of (……..)
There might be some sort of metaphysical lesson in here somewhere.
H/T to Old AF Sarge and Chant Du Départ.
http://oldafsarge.blogspot.com/
Another miss conception this time about Napoleon….he was 5,8″. Not a short man, just propaganda of the era which survives today unquestioned….
Correction, 5.6″
In Australia, twice in quick succession the previous Labor government tried to turn the presumption of innocence in to a presumption of guilt.
First, Roxon’s tightening of the offense provisions of the anti discrimination act. Someone could say you called them whatever or said something they thought was offensive. You would be assumed guilty and have to prove innocence. There would be no compensation even if you were found to be innocent, a flood of letters(including from myself) just manahed to have this torpedoed. Then shortly after came the ASADA affair-drugs in sport. Nobody seemed to notice-the sportsmen were assumed to be guilty and have to prove their innocence. NO actual evidence was ever there. NONE. It was a total beat-up and political smokescreen that directly and most falsely slandered the sportsmen and their clubs.
Alas, the high powers are trying to get rid of the core principles of Magna Carta. ONLY we, the People can do anything about it. ONLY rebellion has any hope of stopping the very rapidly moving(was creeping) world fascism. In the context of global warming/climate change/whatever witch hunt of the day, humanity itself is being presumed guilty and denied the right to defend itself against baseless accusations.
High Treason
Don’t forget the singling out of land holders under the ALP’s native vegetation in Queensland – and the tree police to go with it
And now the Abbott Government (a Republican equivalent) is proposing to strip Citizenship based on accusations of authorities at the discretion of the minister. No presumption of innocence, no court of appeal, no right to even defend yourself.
This is not a problem confined to the Left, it is a systematic attack by politicians on both sides of the Left Right divide who are happy to disguard our rights and freedoms to do what they please.
“In Europe this presumption is reversed”
Say what ?
You are ill-informed, sir.
This presumption is not reversed in the UK unless you are extradited under the EAW
Hi Tonyb
thanks for reminding us off this great document
so sad and disturbing to see it forgotten and it’s hard won ideals under attack on both sides of the pond
our President will certainly hold no celebration
as an American, I certainly appreciate the English Barons of 1215
and happy that there their notions held sway for a little while
they did not live to see the fruition of their risk
and you and I may see it undone
Circular reasoning is plausible if one step on the circle is given absolute faith.
That is the case with the NYT with respect to scary climate change (and the Guardian too).
But it doesn’t make it justifiable – unless their faith is true. That’s a new religion.
And that’s climatology.
Reporters? What are these reporter things of which you speak?
Not holding my breath, either, but do remember how fickle reporters can be, especially when it comes to saving their own skins when they are caught red-handed in not doing their jobs. If they smell blood in the water over the entire Gore-Gelbspan-Oreskes ‘crooked skeptics’ accusation, they might turn on each other when it comes to blaming somebody for never checking the veracity of the accusation.
(And many thanks to Anthony for allowing me to have another guest post here!)
I took two reporters to take down Nixon’s plumbers.
It’ll take a few more than that to get the CAGW crowd.
Then the msm would need to push it.
Yes, but Nixon was GOP. It only takes rumors to bring them down….
Oreskes was number one witness in John Cook’s Denialism 101 course too. Dreadful.
Naomi Oreskes is proof positive that a talent for character assassination can get one a tenured position at Harvard University.
“innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt” – in criminal cases. In civil cases only a “preponderance of evidence” is required.
In the US, criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. Mr. Cook is either misinformed or has misremembered.
I stand corrected, but my point remains that our collective friends on the Al Gore side haven’t even given us a lame version of the ol’ college try to provide us with evidence that skeptics are paid and instructed to lie.
No argument there.
Oreskes latest effort is just part of a desperate, “Battle of the Bulge” type all out attack of ‘skeptics’ in the lead up to Paris in the hope that they will capture the fuel dumps of public and government opinion at the great boondoggle event. Oreskes has been tasked with character assassination, some other mob with OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ( when the ocean is arguably only becoming more neutral, i.e pure H2O like), someone else again with killing off the hiatus etc.
The kool ade bill must be horrendous but heck, its all on the public purse.
From the looks of “her,” she’s got a bulge down low too. “That’s not your mother, that’s a man BA-BY!!!”
@Legend, first impression? I had the same one , looked at the pic after your comment again, yikes it just got re-inforced. This person is one angry human, living a lie.
That is uncalled for.
“With her husband, Ken Belitz, and daughter, Clara, the family lives in San Diego. Her older daughter, Hannah, attends Stanford.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/naomi-oreskes-hunts-motives-behind-climate-change-doubt-mongering/
In the NYT 1986 “Style” section:
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/29/style/naomi-oreskes-is-wed-to-dr-kenneth-belitz.html
Is it not unusual that a student from California be featured in the NYT?
Nice story about Patton. Thanks.
But the subject is Anthropogenic Climate Change, not weather.
According to “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” it’s all about the weather….
Katrinas every two years…
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/03/18/storm-surge-hurricane-climate-change-global-warming/1997113/
warrenlb:
Climate is average weather.
So, change weather and you change climate. Also, change climate and you change weather.
You see, warrenlb, it is your ignorance of such basic information as ‘climate is average weather/’ which leads you to repeatedly promote the ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacy: you don’t know enough to do anything else.
Richard
@richardscourtney
Not knowing the basic difference between Climate and weather may be a reason they keep you on as an editor for Energy and the Environment.
warrenlb:
It seems you cannot resist taking any opportunity to demonstrate both your ignorance and your stupidity.
I wrote the true, accurate and correct statements
And you have replied with this idiocy
But I stated “the basic difference between Climate and weather”; i.e. weather is weather, and climate is average weather. My knowledge of such things is why I have the great honour of being on the Editorial Board of so prestigious a technical journal as E&E, and your ignorance of such things is why your posts only provide rubbish.
The IPCC Glossary provides this definition of climate.
Now, warrenlb, a man in your situation would apologise for having been so very, very wrong but, of course, I don’t anticipate your providing such an apology.
Richard
The New York Times is basically the mouthpiece of the illiberal left. I submitted a post concerning the Pope”s so-called “encyclia” on climate change [to the] effect that if The Pope cared about the poor, he would foster their need for cheap energy. The rise of GDP correlates well with availability of cheap energy (Huber and Mills, 2005, The bottomless well).
Did the nytimes post my comment for all to read? No. In doing so, they made Goebbels proud.
Stalin,
They were supporters of Stalin. Walter Duranty.
Yep.
He cares about us all. Hence his encyclical.
Human evolution from conception… Selective-child policy (i.e. pro-choice doctrine) earns the Nobel Prize in Denial of scientific fact and, more so, self-evident knowledge. As well as rejects any semblance of moral philosophy.
As for science, the scientific method reduces it to a frame-based philosophy, where accuracy is inversely proportionate to the product of time (or motion) and space offsets from an established frame of reference, specifically to limit secular abuse and excess. Claims that rest on assumptions of continuity and uniformity; that substitute inference for deduction; and that elevate the significance of correlation to causality, are not science, but rather philosophy. And then only where there exists a probable path where the scientific method may ever be applied.
That said, does The New York Times include disclosures of preconceived perspectives, including bias and prejudice, with publication of their [news] reports? It seems only fair that people’s capital and labor not be devalued, their quality of living not be diminished, and human life not be debased, with a liberal interpretation of the scientific method.
That; is an existential thought.
Not that it changes anything; but, it keeps people’s politics, and science, in perspective. Most people seem to operate with a common set of principles. However, the secular incentives/penalties are always predating our integrity and conscience.
In my view Fred’s greatest contribution as a sceptic was during the various ozone layer scares in the 1970s. The heroic narrative of the series of wolf cryers over a succession of phantom wolves is strained to the extreme by others (Roan, Dotto) long before Oreskes. Whereas, turn the table and tell the tail of a series of fear-merchants…and the narrative runs like honey.
We’ve been around this loop with Justin Gillis before. He is an intellectual fraud. Not previously believed possible, he brings the NYT’s credibility down to a whole new low. When you stand with Justin Gillis you look up at Tom Friedman…
It is hard to beat Walter Duranty. An apologist for mass murder.
He didn’t exactly apologize for it. He denied it was happening in the Ukraine.
Agreed, but Judith Miller made an effort.
And here I though 0 Kelvin was the lowest, these guys are setting a new (low) standard. -1K??
A comment at Chiefio suggested that the warming side is used to a top down [hierarchy], so they assume their opponents must also work in that way. That’s why they look for some dubius mastermind, and can’t think of any other way.
One of the strangest aspects is that the alarmists are all too keen to condemn big business as placing profits before people or planet, and to claim that any critics are ‘obviously’ being funded by big business, but they then go and promote renewable energy, which is nothing other than a big business with very few scruples as to how it makes its profits. Which also funds activist groups to promote its products.
Somehow, they can’t see that this is exactly the misdemeanour they are accusing others of.
Oh, they know it, it’s just their usual practice of projecting…blaming others for doing the devious deeds that they themselves are doing.
Noble cause corruption will allow any method, path or logic.
You see, because it’s unethical to make a profit and perhaps become rich by providing goods and services that people want. The only ethical way to become rich is by taxing the productive (who provide goods and services that people want) at the point of a gun, and then turn around and fund your cronies’ hare-brained schemes. Look up what these politicos are worth, people, before and after they took office. Do you realize there’s no rules against our legislators using inside stock market information? And you thought all they did was exempt themselves from Obamacare.
Did the NYTs look into the “Jewish science” episode of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s?
That Deutsch Physik thing almost cost Heisenberg his career.
Sorta has a familiar ring to it, huh?
“…“Her courage and persistence in communicating climate science to the wider public have made her a living legend among her colleagues,” two climate researchers, Benjamin D. Santer and John Abraham, wrote in a prize-nomination letter in 2011…”
Yes, but not in the way she would want. For anyone investing in her grasp of climate science, you should know that she is still banging the drum for the “97% of scientists…” claim. She is one of those parasites that manage to get a career in the media by latching onto one newsworthy subject, proclaiming her absurd point of view, then writing reams of articles denouncing all those who disagree with her to be engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy.
Please give that witch a pointy black hat.
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.VT%2fdnlGaj%2f6Y8KFGVS7b7g&pid=15.1&H=160&W=160
(With apologies to Margaret Hamilton. Her “green” was just make-up.)
I’m not all that keen on “he said, she said” articles. And as a mother, I have already lived through the silly two-word arguments kids have, aka “Did too!” “Did not!” That’s when I get my fly swatter out and hit a few kids in da head in the back seat of the car.
In this instance, it seems this is an argument over low hanging fruit with precious few bringing a cogent argument to the table that is back on topic having to do with Earth’s on again off again fever.
Because we are adults here, I will not get out the fly swatter. Instead I suggest to the combatants that they all take a pass.
With all due respect, there is no “he said, she said” equivalency here. We’ve had around 20 years of AGW being boiled down to a 3-point mantra of “The science is settled” / “skeptics are industry-corrupted” / “reporters may ignore skeptic material because of points 1 & 2”, with the last point being one of the more brilliant propaganda tactics ever conceived, leading to a journalistic malfeasance problem of epic proportions. All I’ve done is point to just how badly every aspect of the accusation falls apart no matter which angle you view it from. In my view, the ‘corrupt skeptics’ accusation is one of the primary barriers to the greater public seeing what is truly going on here, faulty science that must do all it can to distract the public from seeing its faults.
Yes I’d ignore dear Pam on this point…
+10
I don’t know Anthony I am at the edge of giving up. I know that many of the people on here are much more scientifically literate than I am, but in the last week I have tried in vain to convince people that humans have indeed walked on the moon, a 757 can make the type of high speed turns that they made on 911 (I didn’t even get into if heat can melt steel), how light refracting off the little drops of sweat or water on your skin are not caused by chemtrails, that a pressure cooker type device on your kitchen counter can not turn unprocessed garbage into a useful amount of oil, because there really, really, yes really, is such a thing as conservation of energy and matter,and this pressure cooker has not invented cold fusion.
So, how on earth we can deal with The NYT if they are hell bent on ignoring all facts I don’t know. Since 1972 I have been interested in global warming, but then The NYT called it “the next ice age.” Nothing has change, ice age, warming, change, disruption whatever, humans are to blaim. We can’t fight this. logic, facts can not win, only emotion can win, and we can’t get emotion on the side of facts and truth.
You have to pick your battles, Tom. Most of the idiots in the world will have little if any impact on your life, other than being an endless source of amusement. Some are more dangerous, and they’re the ones you target.
Time to invest in tin foil, your acquaintances have a lot of hats to purchase.
They’d never be convinced they’d qualify for such hats; his investment in tin foil would be a waste of time and money.
Progress is a slow and erratic process – two steps forward, one step back. It seems right now we are taking one step back – maybe our job is to make sure that it won’t be three steps.
“Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree today.”
Martin Luther
(why yes, I do come from a long line of Lutheran ministers.)
Do not dispair. Give them a copy of Blowing Smoke,or your favorite equivalent. Back away slowly, as their minds might go.
Tim, don’t give up! I used to be a Gore Groupie and I managed to break the global warming spell! There is hope. You don’t need to convince everyone, just find enough people who are open to evidence. They are only harder to find than tin foil hat wearers because they make less noise.
in the last week I have tried in vain to convince people that humans have indeed walked on the moon, a 757 can make the type of high speed turns that they made on 911 (I didn’t even get into if heat can melt steel), how light refracting off the little drops of sweat or water on your skin are not caused by chemtrails, that a pressure cooker type device on your kitchen counter can not turn unprocessed garbage into a useful amount of oil
Why do you feel it is important for you to convince others on these particular points? Also, did any of the people you argued with manage to convince you of any of their points? Or did they resort to one of the many logical fallacies that many of us have learned to identify by reading the posts at WUWT? Personally, when somebody tries to convince me of anything, my first reaction is to clam up and regard them as a zealot. If you want to change other people’s opinions, the adversarial approach is probably going to be counter-productive since many people are emotionally committed to their opinions.
Particularly when dealing with “progressives”, I find that most of them, even the apparently well educated ones, are not very scientifically or mathematically literate. Or perhaps a better way of saying that would be to employ a term used by the Japanese in this context, onchi or “tone deaf”. These people are scientifically tone deaf. When arguments are put to them, they can’t tell the butter from the margarine. They just don’t “get” the details that are so important to you and I. So when I debate, I try to state simply why I believe this and don’t believe that to be the case, I respond in detail to any questions they put to me, I actively try to maintain a respectful and calm tone, and I ask others to do the same. If others can’t or won’t follow my reasoning, i they ignore my questions, or if they are unwilling to discuss or explain their own reasons, that’s their business. There’s no need to make it a contact sport. Rather than trying to push home any advantages and gain victory over them, I try to plant some seeds of doubt that may later bloom in their minds. And I find that this does work to a certain extent. Just being a role model of someone with a different opinion who is reasonable and non-confrontational can have a persuasive effect on getting other people to reexamine their preconceptions, as Anthony Watts’s example demonstrates.
Their real motto: “All the news that’s fit to slant.”
More amateur reporting from the Times, it’s actually very sad to see what they’ve become. Back in the 80’s, I actually paid real cash to have the Sunday edition delivered to my home. Now I might use it as easily combustible material to help torch up one of our giant, plant food producing, bonfires.
You can wrap all the dead fish caused by 8.17 pH sea water. Being acidic and all
/sarc
There are a few reporters on the sceptic side,Christopher Booker,a couple of writers for the boston herald, james delingpole.. anyone know of any?
There’s a couple fairly prominent ones in Australia – most notably Andrew Bolt.
trust the NYT? trust the MSM? nope.
btw i think the Gallup figures are too high:
16 June: Politico: Dylan Byers: Trust in American news media remains low
The latest terrible, horrible, no good, very bad, not-at-all-surprising news from Gallup…
Confidence in newspapers is currently at 24 percent, eight points below the historical average. Television news is at 21 percent, nine points below the historical average…
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/trust-in-american-news-media-remains-low-208949.html
Mooney’s another case study!
15 June: WaPo: Chris Mooney: How the climate debate keeps us from just letting science be science
Someday, to be sure, this pattern will cease — ***just as soon as the issue is resolved on a political level and there’s less motivation to argue over it…
But in the meantime, we should all contemplate why we can’t just take a deep breath and let mysteries be mysteries — even as the people actually capable of sorting them out, the researchers, get to work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/15/how-the-climate-debate-keeps-us-from-just-letting-science-be-science/
No Chris Mooney. This will end when government money stops flowing to climate science. Lindzen described climate change best when he said it should be no more than a mild curiousity to scientists that the earth has warmed slightly in the last century.
That is rich coming from Looney Mooney. He has yet to challenge any of the glaring inconsistencies or downright falsehoods he reports on from the consensus brigade. What he really means is let the circus go unchallenged under the guise of science.
Lest we forget:
“When all else fails scientifically, it’s time to use smears, slurs, ostracism, and general character assassination. (Actually this was the first choice and used all along. It has just reached new heights of absurdity).”
Jo Nova in Climate Change: The Facts, page. 168.
“top-tier”, “prominent” “pure scientific excellence”, “not co-opted by the ***United Nations”:
17 June: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Behind the Scenes With the Pope’s Secret Science Committee
These are the top-tier researchers doing research for the Vatican
Several dozen of the world’s most prominent scientists sprang from their seats and left the Vatican hall where they were holding a conference on the environment in May 2014… Among the horde was Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Since 2004, he has also been a member of a 400-year-old collective, one that operates as the pope’s eyes and ears on the natural world: the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
He had a message for Pope Francis…
“The pope has his own experts, who are completely secular,” said Ramanathan. “Not all of them even believe in a god. They are there for pure scientific excellence, and they are not co-opted by any country. They’re not co-opted by the ***United Nations.”…
More than a dozen faith leaders heard from one of the world’s top climate scientists, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, about how the earth went “from glacial chaos to climate paradise” during the last big climate transition 12,000 years ago, and what we may be in store for next…
And they heard Jeffrey Sachs, prolific writer and Columbia University economist…
Members of the academy don’t always get feedback from the pope or Vatican officials on their work…
The pontiff never revealed his thoughts on a 2011 report documenting the melting Himalayan glaciers, which provide water to a billion people…
They were compelled by the work of Sachs — who’s also director of the ***United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network — according to Martin Rees, a British astronomer and an academy member since 1990…
Nigeria’s poor are asking far simpler questions than the pope and his scientific advisers about the changing world around them.
“You begin to wonder,” he (Cardinal John Onaiyekan, the archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria) said, voicing their perspective, “are the gods angry?” (THE END)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-16/how-the-pope-got-religion-on-climate-change
Your point
Naomi Oreskes is clueless and a fanatic.
Oreskes does not understand that the green scams are scams, a colossal waste of limited public funds. The green scams do not work.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-167/
http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/04/germanys-energiewende-leading-to-suicide-by-cannibalism-huge-oversupply-risks-destabilization/#sthash.8tE9YRDj.PSllYaQF.dpbs
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402
http://news.yahoo.com/prime-indonesian-jungle-cleared-palm-oil-065556710.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
Oreskes does not understand basic biology. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is unequivocally beneficial to the environment. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing times.
Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 enable plants to reduce the number of stomata on their leaves which enables plants to live and thrive with less water. More atmospheric CO2 is a good thing rather than a bad thing.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
The optimum level of atmospheric CO2 for C3 plants (all plants including cereal crops except for grasses) is 1200 ppm.
Oreskes does not understand basic paleo climatologically history and appears to be completely ignorant concerning what is happening to the sun. The planet cyclically warms and cools driven by solar cycle changes and is about to abruptly cool. Scary global cooling is going to be the number one environmental problem.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Oreskes does not understand the developed countries have increased their debt to GDP ratio by 50% since 2007. That was a significant mistake. There will be consequences when the next economic crisis appears. The public will not support green scam mandates that will triple of the cost of electricity and result in the loss of more jobs to Asia during an economic crisis.
[snip insulting comment, name calling -mod]
Why don’t they include the Gulf War oil fires in the list of scares that Singer expressed skepticism about. Somebody should tell Oreskes that often the non-consensus or skeptical position is later validated by empirical evidence. Although you would have thought that she might have understood this, since she is the author of, “The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science”.
“During Operation Desert Storm, Dr. S. Fred Singer and Carl Sagan discussed the possible environmental impacts of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan argued that some of the effects of the smoke could be similar to the effects of nuclear winter, with smoke lofting into the upper atmosphere, with global effects and that he believed the net effects would be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the Year Without a Summer. He reported on initial modeling estimates that forecast impacts extending to south Asia, and perhaps to the northern hemisphere as well. Singer, on the other hand, said that calculations showed that the smoke would.. be rained out after about three to five days and thus the lifetime of the smoke would be limited.”
Final score in the Kuwaiti oil fires round:
Popular alarmism based on modeling 0 : Singer’s skepticism 1
Next contestant please…
Strangely there seems to be little studies after 2000. Perhaps because it recovered so well so quickly despite it being such a massive and prolonged unresponded spill.
Been an operational meteorologist since 1982. Since 1993, predicting global crop yields/production and energy demand(mainly in the US) based mainly on weather/climate but also considering factors like CO2 fertilization.
My daily observations and analysis(that include studies on weather/climate data that go back as far as records go back) tell me that the last 3 decades featured what was probably the best weather/climate in almost 1,000 years(since the Medieval Warm Period) for life on this planet.
I operate independently, making money only when being right, losing money when wrong.
Imagine if this same criteria was used to judge/pay climate scientists and climate models.
Guys like me, that make a living being accountable for our positions and statements on weather/climate, get called deniers or flat earthers or crooks in an attempt to discredit our authentic scientific view because it doesn’t fall in line with the “settled science”.
Were my career or reputation be at stake, government or grant funding or position working for/with an entity that represents the “settled science” be effected, would my position be different?
Offer me a lucrative, prestigious job or a bundle of money and we’ll find out. At least that way, I can be wrong some of the time and still get paid then too (-:
@Mike Maguire
Your sense of self sufficiency is, sadly, becoming a rare commodity here in the US these days. I too understand your work ethic and can only pray that some our children will carry on that ethic. Too many schools nowadays seem to be preaching the “government line” socialist crud… Go on some welfare kick and suck the life out of the hard workers still plugging away. I doubt you would really be happy changing your colors to exist on the government dole.
Dahlquist
@Mike Maguire
What is your ‘authentic scientific view’ of the findings here: http://climate.nasa.gov ?
warrenlb:
You ask Mike Maguire
What findings?
Do you mean the four unreferenced facts at the bottom of the page?
If so then what relevance does that have to anything written by Mike Maguire?
Or are you merely again trying to demonstrate that you know nothing?
If so, then people here already know that.
Richard
@Richardscourtney
My question was directed at Mike Maguire, not you.
warrewnlb:
Your question was meaningless whomever it was directed at, and that is why you cannot clarify what you were asking.
Ric hard
@richardscourtney
You claim to be an expert on Climate (although your posts argue otherwise), and an editor for a peer reviewed journal. So I found out:
‘According to a search of 22,000 publications, Courtney has not published any research in the area of climate change. [But] He has written opinion papers expressing his concern over the loss of jobs in the coal industry as a result of the UK’s movement towards renewable energy. He has published one article in the journal Energy and Environment, which has previously been criticized for its peer review process.’
And this:
According to SourceWatch there has been some confusion as to whether Richard S. Courtney holds an academic degree. Courtney’s profile states that “Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements.”
Is this record correct? If so, how is it that a ‘prominent peer-reviewed journal’ would employ you as an editor?
Actually, you could be wrong all of the time, witness Paul Erlich.
”…he could forward to New York Times reporter Justin Gillis, in response to Gillis contacting him about an article he was writing on Naomi Oreskes..”
I’m surprised that Singer didn’t suspect the NYT, of all newspapers, of bad will in their request. I think something similar happened to Anthony when he was plied by Muller on BEST. There is zero guileless interaction with hard wired, CAGW activists and their support group. The science was ‘designed’ by one of the worlds most evil misanthropist elitist ideologues. He didn’t go beyond high school, let alone study science and all these rent seekers bought in to it and have become robots. There isn’t much science in this movement. How can you trust them. The kindest thing I can say about such naive expectations of rapport with the central synod of the climate mafia, is that it is coming from incurably nice guys. I hope this is lesson enough for everybody else.
I’m beginning to think what this planet needs is a good astroid strike to hit the reset button on Mankind. The inmates have taken control of the asylum.
As long as it hits everybody equally, ( well I guess a small local event on a certain site on a large house on the “threatened by rising sea levels” coast of Kalifornia might be an exception as long he is the only one there). I get your point though although the way things are falling apart we won’t need that at all.
Please resist that line of thinking Jtom – it’s what the warmunists want: decimation of the human race.
Themselves and their cronies excepted, of course.
They also want folks like you dispirited. Chin up!
Tomorrow Pope Francis issues his encyclical.
Some are calling it a call-to-arms, i.e. revolution:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-1-reason-popes-climate-encyclical-scares-gop-big-oil-far-right-and-super-rich-2015-06-13?link=mw_home_kiosk
Well, good old fashion revolutions were all about killing human beings of an opposing race, political organization and government.
Perhaps Pope Francis is just using “Anthropogenic Climate Change” as yet another means to distract and delude public knowledge from the Pedophile ways of the Catholic Church aka the Western Church i.e. the Latin Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Church
Very different from the Eastern Church:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
Whether, Albert Arnold Gore Jr.
Gore is a Protestent, i.e. Baptist after Southern Baptist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
Will Pope Francis’s Encyclical prode Al Gore to convert and enter the 2016 Presidential Race?
Ha ha
Would you kindly explain what you mean by pedophile ways of the Catholic church?
Have known many fine Catholic priests and never encountered any who would even be suspected of being pedophiles.
And pedophile clergy were discovered in other religions as the scandal unfolded.
Projection, my thinks.
“The idea that the New York Times seems to totally miss here is something I was told by a prosecuting attorney during my brief jury duty service just a day ago, that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the accused need not respond to the accusations to remain innocent, and that it is entirely upon the accuser to meet the burden of proof in the accusation. Not only is this the way the US law works, it is plain common sense.”
Very disappointing argument here. What does criminal law have to do with this situation?
It was brought up as analogy I believe. In court, assertions must be backed up with incontrovertible evidence, not by computer simulations of what the truth might be.
The evidence is freely available to both sides, not hidden away, not subject to revisions.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The analogy falls a little short though: the court is interested in justice (eg OJ received justice); Science is interested in Truth.
No, courts are not interested in justice.
Courts are interested only in ensuring that due process is followed.
Truth and justice are incidental by-products of that.
One has to forget about the science arguments for a moment here, Oreskes is not a scientist, she is a person making an unsupportable, non-original claim that skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie under a sinister arrangement orchestrated by industry people. Granted, I should have said such accusations need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt or at least with a preponderence of evidence, but Oreskes, Gelbspan, Gore, the NYT, et al have not even proven their accusation beyond mediocre so-so doubt. Their entire accusation centers around the single leaked “reposition global warming” memo phrase “evidence” I mentioned (Gore spells it out full screen in his movie), which was deliberately taken out of context beyond belief and portrayed to be something it never was meant to be. When the complete political wing of AGW is built around an effort that potentially can be described as outright libel/slander, they have a monster problem on their hands if the greater public ever sees that for what it is.
@Russell Cook
“..unsupportable, non-original claim that skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie under a sinister arrangement orchestrated by industry people. ”
I agree that this claim is incorrect. The skeptics don’t lie. Rather, they have a particularly severe case of Confirmation Bias, and cannot bring themselves to accept the findings of Science. And so they invent their own world by claiming that every institution of science on the planet is populated by scientists in a conspiracy to delude the public — or are incompetent (except themselves of course) — or both.
Russell Cook wrote: “Their entire accusation centers around the single leaked “reposition global warming” memo phrase “evidence” I mentioned (Gore spells it out full screen in his movie), which was deliberately taken out of context beyond belief and portrayed to be something it never was meant to be.”
That reposition-as-doubt tactic isn’t necessarily sinister. It could be employed on behalf of a good cause when confronted by an audience that is unwilling to be converted and won’t spend the time to listen to a fully worked out and highly technical argument. I don’t have any examples that spring to mind, but it’s likely that some good causes have utilized a Sowing-Doubt strategy in the past, at least in part.
Warrenlb wrote: “[Skeptics] invent their own world by claiming that every institution of science on the planet is populated by scientists in a conspiracy to delude the public — or are incompetent (except themselves of course) — or both.”
Scientists are presumed innocent and correct based on their expertise and assumed objectivity. Those presumptions have worn thin over the past decade in light of 1) their failed predictions and 2) their partisan behavior. It’s not crazy now to presume the worst of them, or at least their leading lights.
Oreskes poses as a serious academic and intellectual. Now THAT is a funny pose.
She identifies as one. That’s all you need in today’s academy.
The New York Times.
“All the news that fits, we print.”
Whatever transpires in future, the internet is a permanent record.
For example during his heyday in the ‘20s monkey gland doctor Serge Voronoff received much favourable publicity in the New York Times but when he died in 1951: ‘… as Voronoff was no longer respected, few newspapers ran obituaries, and those that did acted as if Voronoff had always been ridiculed for his beliefs …. The New York Times, once one of his supporters, spelt his name incorrectly and stated that “few took his claims seriously” …’ (Wiki):
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=voronoff+%2B+new+york+times
The global warming contagion
Is so difficult to kill,
If the politicians don’t infect you
The media sure will!
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/skeptics-at-the-forefront-of-freedoms-defence/
A late entry here, bit I believe that the assertion that an accused is “innocent until proven guilty” is wrong.
Anyone accused is, by virtue of the fact that they are accused, guilty. Otherwise, we would not have a police force, charges would not be laid, and we would not have courts.
The “innocent untill…” meme is a legal fiction which applies ONLY in the context of a trial in a courtroom. It has the utility of providing a baseline from which the prosecution must prove its case IN A COURT.
So, in reality, if you are accused, you are assumed to be guilty.
In English and related law, the statement is “presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. Obviously if the accused is proven guilty then they were guilty at the time of the accusation. Innocence is never proven only guilt. A failure to prove guilt has not proven innocence (the evidence may not be sufficient to prove guilt in the guilty) therefore the presumption of innocence stands.
p.s. As an aside, I prefer the English ruling of guilty, but insane, to the American ruling of not guilty because of insanity. At least in the English form the case is closed, whereas technically because no-one has been convicted in the American form the case remains unsolved.
Thanks to all you science guys. I enjoy reading your posts and the comments. As an attorney I feel duty bound to contribute from my expertise. The legal standard in criminal law is to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” not “beyond a shadow of doubt.” We would likely never convict anyone with such a high standard.
I’ll correct the original blog post at GelbspanFiles. But we can potentially ‘convict’ the pushers of the smear of skeptics since they can’t even be bothered with providing us with ANY solid evidence to back up the accusation that people like Fred Singer knowingly lie and fabricate false reports, instructed and paid to do so. That was my entire point. Oreskes and any other accuser is all show and no go. This is a cancer that eats the AGW side of the issue from within, when its loyal followers lose all faith in their leaders to prove skeptics are crooks.
Maybe Dr. Singer should pursue that libel suit after all. He could obtain the same legal team that little Mikey Mann is using in his libel suit. Oh wait, then Dr. Singer *would* be affiliated with at least Big Tobacco…dang! / sarc
.climate change denialists. is both totally untrue, has those attacked has such have never denied that climate changes, and a basic smear job , has it designed to liken CAGW sceptics to holocaust deniers , which has no place at all in science.
Therefore if it seen you know the author has little respect for honesty and is just hopping that by throwing enough mud some of it it stick.
That a journalist uses this approach is perhaps to be expected, the real issue is when ‘scientists’ use this approach, has many in ‘the team’ have and the worst aspect of is the silence of their fellow professionals who see such practices and say nothing .
Although to be fair , such smear jobs are standard way of working in climate ‘science’ so at least for those in the area they are working to ‘acceptable standards ‘ , but what is the excuse for others ?
I have no respect for those who reject the findings of Science, Left or Right, or for Conspiracy theorists. Excuses for refusal to deal with the modern world abound, but we should not mistake such refusal for a rational response to reality, or their perpetrators as legitimate advancers of human progress.
Than I would expect you are particularly disturbed by Mann’s tree ring “trick”. As well as Trenberth’s completely erroneous linking of warm moist air and climate change to the Boston snow. Particularly, after scientist in Boston verified that it was average precipitation amplified by extreme cold. Thus, his quote below was anti-science and political. I expect you have lost all respect for both of these AGW proponents.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3622201/brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr/
Hardly. The only ‘tricks’ are by those proposing to have found another example of fraud or conspiracy among the scientists of the world. — which requires that they are ‘all in on it’ since every scientific institution on Earth concludes Mans burning of fossil fuels are warming the planet and the results are likely to be strongly negative. Such conspiracy theories are the excuses offered by those that cannot accept reality.
warrenlb
I, too, have no respect for Conspiracy theorists.
I also have utter and complete contempt for people including you who promote a return to pre-Enlightenment thinking by refuting every precept of science and proclaiming the ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacy.
Richard
As Jason Bourne would say: Naomi get some rest, you look tired.
Writing a story because it is plausible within the motivations of your world view but not proven is not journalism, it is at best activism and at worst cynically manipulative.
Recently an article in the Sunday times reported “agents” being “lifted” due to Russia and China breaking encryption codes found in Snowden documents. There was only innuendo to support the story and when CNN asked the Sunday Times reporter follow-up questions it became clear the story was fabricated by picking a few events and using imagination to weave a a tale, which climate change reporting does in spades. Why does CNN not challenge climate alarmist claims?
With the tobacco comparison we do not know how tobacco causes lung cancer, many people who never smoked get lung cancer. We do know that statistically people who smoke have a higher incidence of lung cancer. But this higher incidence is reported without context. Lets say cigarette smoking is reported to increase lung cancer by 500% based on 5 in 5,000 smokers and 1 in 5,000 non-smokers getting lung cancer. The 500% number is accurate but removes the context of 1 in 5,000 vs 5 in 5,000. Also isn’t it important to know it is primarily people over 70 who die from lung cancer? An adult deserves all relevant facts in context to make an informed decision. Numbers coming out of climate alarmism consistently provide limited facts and ignore context a.k.a. the 97% consensus.
What often happens is the media and politicians treat the public like children who need to be led by the hand for their own good; good being defined by ideology. What I wonder is if the public allows itself to be treated like children, maybe the media and politicians are correct in treating them like children.
@Alx
“Why does CNN not challenge climate alarmist claims?”
Which claims, and by whom?
warrenlb:
There are many such claims. For example, this daft one by one of the daftest alarmists is here in this thread.
Peter Gleick would agree.
Richard
@richardscourney
Once again you’re answering questions directed at someone else– and not with a very bright light at that. They should keep you in your box at E & E, and feed you simpler questions.
warrenlb
Once again I have demonstrated to you that you have spouted total nonsense.
Whomever you mean by “they” should stuff you back under your bridge.
Richard
At the risk of sinking to the level of alarmist behavior I must admit my tolerance for the content of any assertion evaporates upon discovering the Guardian is in any way involved.
She’ll get you skeptics and your little dog Toto too.
Wow. How did they get Oreskes to put on a costume like that? Is this from the NYT site?
Touche! +10
it seems to be a bit absurd to accuse every Climate Skeptic of being a paid shill of the oil companies. If we are – where do I line up to get paid???
Just as absurd as accusing every Climate Scientist of being in on a conspiracy to defraud the public because they are paid to do research. Or any of us to be corrupt because we are paid for what we do.
warrenlb:
When you grow up you will learn the difference between a conspir*cy and a bandwagon.
A coincidence of interests usually has a more powerful effect than any group of conspir*tors.
Richard
warrenlb
You say
Thankyou. That is a complete explanation of why you post so much ridiculous twaddle on WUWT.
Richard
“Oreskes” and “Discovery”! “NYT” and “Trust”! Haha! You’re cracking me up! Please stop!
Not every climate scientist is accused of such things, and I am sure many climate scientists truly believe what they preach. Happy now?
And don’t try to play-off a heavily-politicized field where scientists often play the role of activists as if it is some sort of typical job.
Whereas skeptics are all unbiased and pure as the driven snow.
Oreskes is a horrible human being.
is that the new Bruce Jenner?
@Warrenib
“Just as absurd as accusing every Climate Scientist of being in on a conspiracy to defraud the public because they are paid to do research. Or any of us to be corrupt because we are paid for what we do.”
Who exactly is doing this? I’m not seeing it anywhere on this thread.
In reply to ‘travelblips’ June 18, 2015 at 11:53 am
which was?
(my algore interwebby isn’t so fast or good)
msbehavin’:
Nobody “is doing this”.
warrenlb was addressing one of his many fantasies. Reality has no affect on him.
Richard
George Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, on Climate Change: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
Another appeal to authority?
No, a citing of expertise and gravitas. Both in short supply on this forum.
warrenlb:
You say
Pleasae explain how you could possibly know that when you repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t have a clue as to what expertise and gravitas are.
Richard
Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy
External Board of Advisors include:
John McCall MacBain, Chair. Trudeau Foundation Canada, and Board of European Climate Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland
Elizabeth Barrett-Brown, Senior Advisor, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C
http://envirocenter.yale.edu/people-partners/external-board-of-advisors