| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Yet another case of climate change denial by the government ... denial of experts' right to speak the truth about it.
In today's WSJ at http://tinyurl.com/odoexgr , some dude claims he and many specific AGW alarmism deniers have been singled out for various forms of censure, including against providing Congressional testimony, because they oppose draconian measures to oppose what they claim are natural climate variations. Members of Congress have sent inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks in an attempt to silence them.
What are you afraid of, Sen Boxer ... the facts?
Who is this dude? Richard Lindzen, an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change and what he has called "climate alarmism".
Oh, but mac knows why Lindzen is a liar, doesn't he?
3 ... 2 ... 1 ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In an unending quest to carefully wash his brain to suit his biases, Isobars cites Richard Linden, and then says I will say he is a liar. Iso has apparently picked up on the latest PR blitz by the carbon industry, accusing those who understand climate change of censoring dissent. This approach was used by the conservative columnist of the San Francisco Chronicle Debra Saunders, in her defense of Pielke. http://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/ There is clearly a pattern here, and neither Iso nor is smart enough, or industrious enough, to do the research on their own.
First, nobody should censor scientists for their perspective, whether they are skeptics or not. People should look critically at folks like Willie Soon, who have poor credentials and have taken big money from the carbon industry. Neither Pielke nor Linden fall into that category. I had never heard of Linden before Iso's e-mail, he is not a mainstream climate change scientist whose work is taken seriously, discussed and considered in peer review. He's more a light weight, retired, no longer doing research, and prone to let his biases undermine his scientific integrity. Here is a direct rebuttal from Dana Nucciletti:
| Quote: | | Richard Lindzen is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly, he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest. |
There is everything good about being a skeptic, but only if you are rigorous and subject your work to peer review. Pielke is one of those, and I have cited him numerous times. I disagree with any effort to control his funding or academic freedom. So far so good.
The problem with the conservatives is they only object when a conservative skeptic gets pressured politically. When the right wing attorney general in Virginia, Ken Kuccenelli, went after climate scientists in 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050304139.html
there wasn't a peep out of the conservative pundits about that attack on academic freedom. One of the professors that I work with at Cal left Virginia because of that attack. There are other numerous examples of Congressional Republicans trying to stop funding for climate science.
So we can conclude that Isobars likes it when politicians attack climate scientists, but hates it when they attack climate skeptics.
Defender of freedom and liberty? No, defender of bias. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is so Iso and NW:
| Quote: | Employees of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection claim they were ordered to refrain from using the terms "climate change" and "global warming" in official communications, according to he Florida Center for Investigative Reportin.
"We were told not to use the terms 'climate change,' 'global warming' or 'sustainability,'" Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013, told FCIR in a report published Sunday. "That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel."
The unwritten policy went into effect shortly after Gov. Rick Scott, a global warming skeptic, took office.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/florida-dep-climate-change-global-warming/2015/03/08/id/628929/#ixzz3Tu4TVXkA
|
If you have no real argument, censor science. Put your fingers firmly in your ears, shout "I can't hear you!", and hope nobody knows there is a giant real estate Ponzi scheme going on.
These are the shills that folks like Iso and NW are so eager to believe:
| Quote: |
March 6, 2015 |By David Biello
Climate change denial still finds a home in the U.S. Senate.
What is the difference between a magician and a man who obscures the truth about global warming for the fossil-fuel industry? Magicians are "moral liars," according to the illuminating new documentary Merchants of Doubt, by director Robert Kenner. That's because their magic acts use expertise in the art of deception and misdirection to entertain. Shills for the fossil fuel-industry, such as Steve Milloy, Marc Morano and others examined and accused in this film, use their expertise to fool people about matters of life and death.
The new documentary springs from the 2010 eponymous book by historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. The film (and the book before it) lays out how the fossil-fuel industry funds talking heads to sow confusion about climate change in a deliberate imitation of the successful doubt-sowing tactics of the tobacco industry. That industry famously employed experts in public relations, starting with venerable PR firm Hill+Knowlton, to cast doubt on the idea that smoking causes lung cancer or that nicotine was addictive, tactics that delayed regulation of the tobacco industry for decades.
Sowing these doubts ensured at least 50 years worth of profits on tobacco and condemned millions of smokers to a premature death in the U.S. The success of that effort has led a host of industries with environmental or health problems—asbestos, chemicals, coal and pharmaceuticals, among others—to adopt this playbook to protect their profits.
There may be no bigger PR problem than climate change. The fossil-fuel industry perceives it as a war on coal and oil. So step one in the successful tobacco playbook is to suggest that more data is needed to confirm any link between the carbon dioxide spewed from fossil-fuel burning and global warming.
Industry found willing allies among scientists like Fred Singer and Russell Seitz who promoted themselves as skeptics against the dogma of climate change largely because, the movie suggests, they feared government interference in the energy industry (or any industry) as a step along the road to communism. Singer also has no problem defending smoking either, as the documentary shows. And mountains of data—hotter and hotter annual average temperatures, direct measurements of CO2's heat trapping, even a reanalysis of temperature records paid for by fossil-fuel magnates, the Koch brothers, that rediscovered global warming—have not swayed these diehards.
The end result is that a small group of well-paid individuals has been able to convince half of Americans that the science is not settled on climate change. That doubt extends even to U.S. senators, representatives and other politicians, which means these merchants of doubt have been worth every penny. As William O'Keefe of the Marshall Institute says in the film: "Greenpeace couldn't afford me."
Kenner employs Scientific American's own arch-skeptic Michael Shermer to show how this denial is not skepticism, but cynicism. Shermer details his own journey from skeptic to the ranks of the convinced, swayed by data, something Singer, Seitz and their colleagues seem immune to—perhaps helped along by the kind of funding that the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics' Willie Soon has most recently enjoyed.
In addition to skeptical "scientists," another useful ally has been think tanks that can sow doubt under the guise of impartiality, such as the Global Climate Coalition that fought action on climate change from 1989 to 2002 or, more recently, the Heartland Institute. I had the privilege of attending Heartland's first skeptics conference held in New York City in 2008. That's where I learned that polar bears are an insidious threat to the American way of life.
There I also got to interview Marc Morano, who was then the PR director for Sen. James Inhofe (R–Okla.), the leading climate denier in Congress, both then and now. Morano is a talking bobble head for cable news these days and Inhofe is once again in charge of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which makes it highly unlikely Congress will do anything about the problem of climate change. Inhofe's most recent antics include tossing a snowball on the Senate floor.
As Morano puts it in the new film: "Gridlock is the greatest friend" for climate change deniers.
The documentary's interview with Morano reveals that he learned many of his tricks from door-to-door sales, including the need to keep it simple so that people can fill in the blanks with their pre-existing biases. Morano's biggest piece of advice is that the best way to attack science is to attack individuals. That idea is seconded by spin gurus like Richard Berman, perhaps better known as "Dr. Evil," a lawyer who has advised energy executives to always be on the attack, particularly against inconvenient scientists, among other tidbits, as laid out by David Roberts at Grist.
One of the attacked individuals profiled in Merchants of Doubt is former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis, a conservative Republican who happens to be convinced that man-made climate change is real. A trip to Antarctica while he served in Congress showed him how humans were changing the atmosphere's chemistry. That data-based apostasy was enough to get him trounced in his bid for reelection, largely because he was labeled insufficiently conservative.
The merchants of doubt have succeeded again. Climate change is now about tribal politics in the U.S., or as Inglis puts it in this new film: "It's not just a head thing. It's a heart thing." Climate change may require people to change their habits, and as the first Pres. Bush famously observed back at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, "The American way of life is not up for negotiation."
Still, the ideological struggle over climate change has now raged for nearly 30 years. It took 50 years but eventually the tobacco companies were laid low and had to pay more than $200 billion in fines. Perhaps in another 20 years or so climate change will be so obvious that the ExxonMobils and Peabody Coals of the world will have to pay back some of their profits to compensate the victims of global warming.
The problem is that in the meantime people will die too soon, rising oceans will flood coastal cities and weird weather will make farming harder, all serving as a "threat multiplier"—as the U.S. military puts it. By revealing the little men behind the curtain of climate change denial maybe Merchants of Doubt will help cut short this fight, because the world may not have that much time to waste.
|
This is from Scientific American. Singer, the apologist for tobacco as well as CO2, is one of Isobars go to guys. Big money in lying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
A little more about Marc Morano--the original swift boater. Paranoids believe what they want to believe.
Until spring of 2009, Morano served as communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under anti-science Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics.
| Quote: | Morano was a journalist with Cybercast News Service (CNS), which is owned by the conservative Media Research Center. CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election[3] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."[4] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Boy do I recall the bleating of the archbishop from Exxon. How all of this stuff was futile. And it comes from an interview with Al Gore--sure to make some of your blood pressure go up. Will the facts penetrate? I'm betting no.
| Quote: | | Still an object of derision for the political right, Mr. Gore has seen support for his views rising within the business community: Investment in renewable energy sources like wind and solar is skyrocketing as their costs plummet. He has slides for that, too. Experts predicted in 2000 that wind generated power worldwide would reach 30 gigawatts; by 2010, it was 200 gigawatts, and by last year it reached nearly 370, or more than 12 times higher. Installations of solar power would add one new gigawatt per year by 2010, predictions in 2002 stated. It turned out to be 17 times that by 2010 and 48 times that amount last year....http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/science/the-new-optimism-of-al-gore.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | Boy do I recall the bleating of the archbishop from Exxon. How all of this stuff was futile. And it comes from an interview with Al Gore--sure to make some of your blood pressure go up. Will the facts penetrate? I'm betting no.
| Quote: | | Still an object of derision for the political right, Mr. Gore has seen support for his views rising within the business community: Investment in renewable energy sources like wind and solar is skyrocketing as their costs plummet. He has slides for that, too. Experts predicted in 2000 that wind generated power worldwide would reach 30 gigawatts; by 2010, it was 200 gigawatts, and by last year it reached nearly 370, or more than 12 times higher. Installations of solar power would add one new gigawatt per year by 2010, predictions in 2002 stated. It turned out to be 17 times that by 2010 and 48 times that amount last year....http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/science/the-new-optimism-of-al-gore.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1 |
|
Al Gore is full of beliefs, and here's another one, which I'm sure you would just love mac.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to ‘Punish Climate-Change Deniers’ and ‘Put a Price on Carbon’
Cole Mellino | March 16, 2015 10:37 am
For the third time in the last few years, Al Gore, founder and chairman of the Climate Reality Project, spoke at the festival on Friday. Naturally, his interactive discussion focused on addressing the climate crisis. The former vice president focused on the need to “punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,'” said the Chicago Tribune.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16/al-gore-sxsw-punish-climate-deniers/
Off with their heads!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NW clearly prefers deniers lying for vast sums from those who benefit by making the rest of us pay the cost for climate change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
"When the President and the First Lady hopped off the plane at LAX on Thursday to tape media appearances, they did so on separate flights. The President read "Mean Tweets" and talked about Ferguson on Jimmy Kimmel Live, the First Lady danced to "Uptown Funk" and announced the #GimmeFive challenge, part of her Let's Move! campaign, on The Ellen Degeneres Show. Although both shows taped in Burbank, California, the First Lady flew earlier in the day and the President arrived in the late afternoon."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/13/politics/barack-michelle-obama-los-angeles-flights/
Isn't inspiring to have such leadership on what they describe as the world's most pressing issue, climate change? Maybe their respective egos were just too big to fit on one 747. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As usual, insightful and free of snark. As usual, ignores the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gronquist
Joined: 12 May 2000
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MalibuGuru wrote: | http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#.VPY7gea3PEA.facebook
It's freezing everywhere |
Be careful what you quote, Bard. Here's the first paragraph from your 'freezing everywhere' article from NASA, 'record levels of Antarctic sea ice (!!!)':
"Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
Global warming has predicted temperature extremes, and extreme weather events. The amount of energy involded in your 'freezing antarctic' is only a THIRD in magnitude of the energy involved in the heating arctic. ....
Again, as a lay person, I'm just sayin' .... But I think that clearly negates your claim to 'freezing everywhere', as if to imply that Global Warming is non-existent.
As a final thought, this from a neighboring discussion on our lack of a spring season here in SoCal. Raw data needs to be heeded:
http://www.weatherwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/california_winter.png |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
