Some time ago, I wrote that climate skeptics should throw in the towel when Fox News owner, Rupert Murdoch abandoned the skeptics' camp.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?memberId=84960&articleId=281474977097716&nav=MyGather
At that time, Murdoch gave a corporate speech, in which he stated the following:
Australia is suffering its worst drought in 100 years.
Now, I realize we can't take just one year in one city or even one continent as proof that something unusual is happening. And I am no scientist.
But there are signs around the world, and I do know how to assess a risk.
Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.
At that time, I asserted that not only had the science become clear on the global warming question, Murdoch's "conversion" now marked the end of the corporate/political resistance to the threat. Indeed, even Exxon/Mobil began to deny its history of climate skepticism. At the time, Kenneth Cohen, an Exxon pr vp stated, "Many people want to stick us in a bucket that says we want to deny this. That is flat wrong."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902081.html
Regarding the science, I have pointed out for some time that no scientific organization in the world disputes the IPCC Reports, which now say that anthropogenic climate change is "unequivocal".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
I have invited the remaining "skeptics" to point to any scientific organization in the world, which continues to dispute the IPCC. No scientific organization has been forthcoming, although a few have put forth politically motivated, "free market think tanks", e.g., The Heartland Institute, for this purpose.
Now, however, climate contrarians have honestly and unabashedly declared their disdain for science (although denying even that in places) in an article by Keith Kalish.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977543556
Here are some of the gems that your favorite gather climate skeptics offer there:
"Don't let facts get into the way scientist's theories." (Please allow for the butchered english sentence).
"Hey, I'm no scientist but I can think for myself...."
"...if you weren't so full of yourself and smitten with all those wonderful all powerful scientists you would realize that CO2 based global warming is still an unproven theory...."
To the skeptic: "Name one scientific organization that disputes the IPCC Reports."
Skeptic's response: "Name one pope who was an atheist."
"The IPCC is a political, not a scientific group." (This despite my constant reference to the fact that no scientific organization worldwide disputes the IPCC Reports - see above).
"A scientific organization would no more tell the IPCC it is wrong than tell the Vatican it is wrong about virgin birth."
"As I've explained, 'Scientific Organisations' are for those who need 'Organisations' to enhance their credibility."
"I have a funny feeling that is the same case with most scientific organizations, they function like too many people these days. They simply accept things on faith."
"All you have done is channel for activist environmental groups...." (like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
Now, I have asked repeatedly for the skeptics to provide a scientific organization that disputes the IPCC Reports. None has ever been presented.
In this context, since skeptics disdain science, I have asked them to present an alternative method for studying such a phenomenon as global warming. The skeptics have also failed to make a suggestion here.
Both of those invitations stand, and in the absense of a response to either, one can only conclude that climate skepticism (contrarianism) is bankrupt.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 60
Greg Schiller
It's sort of like the skepticism about the harmful effects of tobacco.
Thanks to Dan E. for that one.
Source (March 10, 2009, 6:33pm)
Thanks again, Dan.
David. I hope to add them as they pop up. Please feel free to add any ones you catch. Thanks.
I've been traveling the last week, but will keep any in mind.
Dan: "...the fact that he complied the report on C02 might be an indication that he was still a practicing scientist even if only part time."
Thanks, Dan.
"What is so special about the National Academy of Sciences other than the fact I am forced to support it with my tax payments?" Gary (aka: William Pinn) J. Jul 15, 2009, 9:25pm EDT
Gary (aka: William Pinn) J. Jul 19, 2009, 5:02pm EDT
TICA M. Sep 21, 2009, 2:52pm EDT
Dan E. Oct 23, 2009, 12:29pm EDT
And - so how have you done that?
"If we all reduce are carbon consumption we need to bankrupt the nation with new taxes because the coal companies and polluters won't have a demand for their services and it would save alot of political partisan fights.."
Huh?
It might interest you to know that many of the nation's corporations have been pressing the federal government for some time for federal policy re: carbon emissions.
As far as "taxes" are concerned, that is an ideological reframe of the real situation, in which fossil fuel industries have "externalized" costs of environmental devastation to taxpayers.
Climate change and carbon emissions are much too big a problem to be addressed by individual efforts, though those efforts are also necessary. Unfortunately, they are not sufficient.
"I think we could agree on the that drastically lowering your standard of materialistic living will do far more than trusting a corrupt government to make another mess, powtowwing to corporate interests."
There is no need to "lower you standard of materialistic living" to address climate change. There is only a need to recognize that renewable sources of energy are inherently superior to fossils, and that technological fixes, e.g., a smart grid, actually will add to our standard of living.
You should read Thomas Friedman's, Hot, Flat, and Crowded.
Not with regard to climate change. So in this context, I welcome your comment as one of those "darndest things" that contrarians say.
"Intellectuals our going insane because they can't rationalize the fact that there is a God who is unimaginatively smarter than they are and they are jealous; and therefore will suffer until they find the truth."
You mean like the "intellectuals" of Jonestown? - or Waco?
I would ask you for some evidence of your claim here, but that would be science, now wouldn't it?
All the global warmists have is consensus.
By guess who? Yep.
It's funny to hear that "all" the climate experts have is a scientific consensus among climate scientists. Ummm, yes. So the point that he was trying to make is that the overwhelming evidence that led to the scientific consensus on climate change is "all" there is? And that the overwhelming evidence comes from tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists working all over the world for several decades.
As opposed, of course, to a handful of scientists all associated with the free market lobbying groups whose mission is to deny anything that might lead to regulations they don't like.
I almost died laughing.
Sorry David,
Tit for tat you delete my comments and I delete yours. (from Dan E, after he deleted my comment on his post, which I got to accidentally because I followed a Steve B comment)
My response, which he wouldn't post:
Well, except you stole my Gather icon and refused to delete it from your page until Gather management threatened to throw you off of Gather. So whereas I am honest, you are dishonest. [You did say that you wouldn't delete anything I posted to your articles, so there you go, lying again. Can't help yourself I suppose.]
Of course, you still steal all of your articles, which is actually illegal and against Gather TOS. But hey, it goes with your whole demeanor. Hope you graduate from 2nd grade soon.
Global Warming - Are we Being Lied to?
This quote is in the body of the post.
But I guess if this is all you've got!
You must still be holding your breath, waiting for all those scientific organizations to reverse their endorsements of the IPCC? Or has it now moved to wishful thinking - confused with reality?
Yes Steve,
Although you are not near as overt as David in your attempts to demean those who post facts that contradict what you believe, that is what you attempt to do.....Kill the messenger, as if that would also kill the facts they provide.
The progression towards the truth concerning climate change might be slow but with the release of the hacked e-mails from CRU it has picked up speed a bit!
We can now see a bit more of the "politics" and "money" influence in the climate change issue.
Patients Steve, one step at a time the truth is being revealed!
Dan E. Nov 22, 2009, 4:11pm EST
There you go, Steve. Another one.
Don't forget your patients.
Despite your attempt to deny their effect......They are having a huge effect!
Dan. As you well know, I point to the world's major scientific organizations - you know - the ones you claim are mainly political. Talk about "attempts to demean the messenger."
"The progression towards the truth concerning climate change might be slow...."
It must be (your truth, that is) slow. You've been claiming the scientific community is about to change its mind for some time.
"There you go, Steve. Another one."
I really did have patients at one time. I retired from all that. Presently, I have all the patience one need with the scientific process. What I have grown increasingly impatient with is the political idiolatry, which disguises itself as a "scientific" argument.
Yes I do believe that the managing boards of these organizations are mainly political.
But maybe if an expert explains it, it will have more impact!
Misrepresentation Of Scientific Consensus By The Leadership Of Professional Organizations
"This statement (which was not voted on by the membership in the professional organizations that I am a member) contains a fundamental factual error in the view of a significant number of climate scientists. Specifically, the statements that “rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
Such a conclusion needs to be viewed as a hypothesis. If so , examples that refute the hypothesis is all that is need to reject its validity. This has been done, as has been discussed recently in several weblog posts; e.g. see
Further Evidence On The Breadth Of The Role Of Humans With Respect To Climate Change
Further Comments On The Article “Clean the Air, Heat the Planet?” By Arneth Et Al 2009"
Don't worry Steve I don't expect that even an expert can shake your faith! LOL!
David, Thanks for the heads up on those hacked emails.....Very revealing!
America is on the verge of bankruptcy. Renewable energy technologies represent a new industrial arena, which can restore the American economy. Why leave that for the Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans?
"And replacing Oil with lots of energy effcient petrochemical plastics doesn't seem like a healthy idea with the blooming rates of cancer in our country!"
Biodegradable plastic made from plants, not oil, is emerging
The Byproducts of Biodiesel Production Are Valuable Organic Acids, Researchers Say
Organic photovoltaics - plastics for energy from light
If they can't produce green energy on sight, then it can't be justified as green, even Michael Pollan always advocates local.. Bringing electricity from ND to Chicago is not green or helpful due to the destruction of thousands of acres along way to deliver that power.. The smart guys don't look at those things... I'm a locavore
Reforestation is necessary, as well, but I don't see that building a smart grid negates reforestation. Contrary to your beliefs, "smart guys" look at these things on a daily basis. They make careers from looking at these things. They just don't share your religious zealotry.
Just sold our landscaping business, next year I am gonna hobby farm on my 120 acres providing meat and food for myself and a few locals and gonna get free health care and if I become poor enough welfare..
There's no point in working in the private sector just to get raped by the taxes, the government knows how to do everything better than me and are better of convincing private citizens to just do as Uncle Sam and Obama says.
Next year on, all farm sales are strictly cash and I won't accept checks for oddjobs cause after paying half of my $25hr rate to uncle sam I make as much as my employees..
I'm not paying taxes anymore if health care and cap n kill passes because all I'm doing is heating up the earth anyway and killing polar bears.
Jeff H. Dec 2, 2009, 7:45pm EST
Only people can solve problems, consumers..
If everybody turned the lights off and turned down there heat to 50 degrees in a few weeks the coal plants would be going bankrupt and Global Warming solved..
If the Government Bureacracies get involved it will be decades of hee-hawing around and passing pork and by then we will all be under the sea!
And the chances of that are what? There is not going to be a mass enlightenment or conversion experience, like you would like to see. People do respond to incentives and disincentives. So do corporations. Government sets the incentives and disincentives.
"Its tough, cause me and my friends are trying to be responsible with our resources and are reinvest in renewable energies with our own money. Then there are always these things and taxes that will cost us more."
So you are being discourage to do the right thing. I understand that. So, instead of saying government can't do anything - government sucks - maybe you should be talking about getting tax credits for the positive things you are trying to do. It worked with hybrids to some extent, even though I bought my hybrid before tax credits took effect. Corporations should be rewarded for doing comparable things, and corporate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions should be a liability to shareholders - not taxpayers.
"If the Government Bureacracies get involved it will be decades of hee-hawing around and passing pork and by then we will all be under the sea!"
Perhaps, but at least you have a say in your government. You can vote. You can contact your elected officials. What influence do you have with "the masses" of consumers, who don't even understand this is an issue? What influence do you have with coal/utility companies? with corporate animal feed operations?
micky d. Dec 5, 2009, 12:52pm EST
Col. George W. Dec 5, 2009, 11:37pm EST
Col. George W. Dec 5, 2009, 11:27pm EST
Marilyn M. Dec 7, 2009, 12:22pm EST
FYI, While blogs can help disseminate information broadly, the authors say “[t]he problem with the internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it; There’s tons of information available, but much of it is crap.”