From Climategate to Denialgate

RichieC

Godge wrote: »

Animals, plant life, volcanoes, sea life, the sun, continental drift, they all have affexted the climate in some way or another all through the history of this planet.

So yes, humainty will affect the climate but i don't believe the scientists know enough about the mechanics to know what the outcome will be.

Regardless of what you think, there is a scientific consensus on global warming. it's the best information from which we have to work with. Ignoring it is at our peril.

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote: »

Millions of dollars in research grants and juicy jobs on governmental panels just to fix up certain trends? Like the climategate emails showing how little exaggerations here and there are needed to keep the show on the road? I also like the subtle shift in terminology from "Global Warming" (that didn't work) to "Climate Change" (anything can be called in as evidence).

Scientists repeat party line, scientists get lots of grant money, it's not that complicated really. Especially when said party line gives the government new reasons to trample all over individual rights even more than they already do. As they say in The Wire, follow the money.

Edit: I don't know much about the science of climate change and what it means but what I do know is a sneaky power grab when I see one. As do some of these scientists such as Lindzen speaking out against the stifling of the debate.

Your view requires a global conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people and a scientific hoax unparalleled in history.

Do you genuinely think that's credible? If so, why?

cordially,
Scofflaw

MysticalRain

Valmont wrote: »

Millions of dollars in research grants and juicy jobs on governmental panels just to fix up certain trends? Like the climategate emails showing how little exaggerations here and there are needed to keep the show on the road? I also like the subtle shift in terminology from "Global Warming" (that didn't work) to "Climate Change" (anything can be called in as evidence).

Scientists repeat party line, scientists get lots of grant money, it's not that complicated really. Especially when said party line gives the government new reasons to trample all over individual rights even more than they already do. As they say in The Wire, follow the money.

Edit: I don't know much about the science of climate change and what it means but what I do know is a sneaky power grab when I see one. As do some of these scientists such as Lindzen speaking out against the stifling of the debate.

If you want to stray into Jim Corr territory and "follow the money" as you say it, it's the oil companies who are the vested interests with the most to lose here. After all, a scientist working for an oil company earns a lot more than his equivalent counterpart working for the government.

To quote the occupy crowd, I see climate change as yet another example of the 1% screwing the 99% in their ruthless pursuit of profit, and I fear them more than any government these days as that is where the real power lies.

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your view requires a global conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people and a scientific hoax unparalleled in history.

Do you genuinely think that's credible? If so, why?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am specifically referring not to AGW, but whether direct governmental action can make a difference. I think that given the tendency of the state to expand, Western governments have a vested interest in the promulgation of a certain narrative. In this case the narrative is along the lines of "If we don't get power X, Y, and Z, then that movie with Dennis Quaid will come to pass".

I'm sorry, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for that ruse. It stinks - very badly. You all complain about the involvement of bloggers, commentators, the media, average joes on boards.ie, but when you're proposing a host of new and vast powers for the state to combat this perceived threat to humanity, it becomes everyone's business: the heartland institute, the Guardian newspaper, mine, to question not just the "scientific consensus" but the financial interests set to benefit too, be they tenured professors or solar panel manufacturers.

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote: »

I am specifically referring not to AGW, but whether direct governmental action can make a difference. I think that given the tendency of the state to expand, Western governments have a vested interest in the promulgation of a certain narrative. In this case the narrative is along the lines of "If we don't get power X, Y, and Z, then that movie with Dennis Quaid will come to pass".

I'm sorry, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for that ruse. It stinks - very badly. You all complain about the involvement of bloggers, commentators, the media, average joes on boards.ie, but when you're proposing a host of new and vast powers for the state to combat this perceived threat to humanity, it becomes everyone's business: the heartland institute, the Guardian newspaper, mine, to question not just the "scientific consensus" but the financial interests set to benefit too, be they tenured professors or solar panel manufacturers.

Um, no, that's a rant rather than an answer - let's go over it again. For climate change to be a hoax would require hundreds of thousands of people in countries all across the world to have kept secret the fact that it's a hoax for over two decades now. It would require them to have done so in countries which are "committed" to doing something about climate change, and it would require them to have done so in countries which quite clearly don't intend doing anything about it. So the "evil rapacious governments" line doesn't wash. Nor does the idea that there's some kind of media blackout on the subject, because there are clearly papers all over the world that have a position opposing climate change. Nor is the idea that you can't get funding tenable, because the oil companies and other parties who contribute to HI, for example, have a lot of money to spend on research, and do spend a lot of money on research.

Do you, or do you not, think that a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people in multiple institutions and companies all across the world is credible? How do you believe the conspiracy remains together despite the existence of alternative media outlets, alternative funding, and alternative government positions?

cordially,
Scofflaw

SupaNova

I don't think Global Warming is a hoax, but the exaggerations, scare mongering, and promotion of human intervention to prevent it, I find disturbing. Estimates have gone from an average temperature rise of 5 degrees to 1 degree by the end of the century.(Correct me if I am way off as it's a while since I have read anything on the topic). Is this really the catastrophe it is made out to be? People can surely deal with a 1 degree temperature rise on an individual basis over such a span of time by deciding where they want to live and work.

And then I find the West's attempt to combat this by reducing consumption of fossil fuels to be a fruitless exercise, as there are plenty of countries that will pick up the slack.

Although I don't agree with him, I think everyone would find this talk from economist Jeff Rubin on the subject of Peak Oil and Climate Change very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg

Duiske

RichieC wrote: »

Attempting to influence kids school curriculums with propaganda isn't shocking to you?

It is truly a new day.

Which reminds me, has anyone got a copy of the text of the disclaimer that must be given to school kids and their parents before "An Inconvienient Truth" can be shown in UK schools ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You accepted the documents and say the HI are entitled to a bias because their sole purpose is not to research climate change but to find solutions to problems arising for vested interests due to climate change. You say all this was known before and the documents are nothing new.

And then its pointed out that it actually shows the HI aim is not to find solutions to climate change but rather solutions to research into climate change that may affect vested interests. Its a PR campaign to obscure the issue not resolve it.

When the opportunity arises you proclaim the documents fake and change your argument from defending the HI in regards to the content of the documents to attacking the documents themselves. Which is absolutely pointless considering you have already agreed with and defended its contents.

Seems to me like you'll defend whatever they do or whatever they say because its them who's doing it and them who's saying it rather than looking at it objectively. Thats what I'm talking about, and its not so much hilarious but more so tragic that your displaying the very same tendencies as those who would cite fabricated documents as "evidence" just to prove a point.

Scofflaw

SupaNova wrote: »

I don't think Global Warming is a hoax, but the exaggerations, scare mongering, and promotion of human intervention to prevent it, I find disturbing. Estimates have gone from an average temperature rise of 5 degrees to 1 degree by the end of the century.(Correct me if I am way off as it's a while since I have read anything on the topic). Is this really the catastrophe it is made out to be? People can surely deal with a 1 degree temperature rise on an individual basis over such a span of time by deciding where they want to live and work.

And then I find the West's attempt to combat this by reducing consumption of fossil fuels to be a fruitless exercise, as there are plenty of countries that will pick up the slack.

Although I don't agree with him, I think everyone would find this talk from economist Jeff Rubin on the subject of Peak Oil and Climate Change very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg

While this is about the politics, rather than the science - the forum being what it is - current IPCC estimates run from 1-5 degrees rise by 2100 depending on scenario, where scenarios for the 1 degree rise assume an aggressive campaign to reduce emissions and 5 assumes business as usual. It's generally agreed that we have missed any chance of the lower end scenarios coming to pass, and are probably currently letting the chance of limiting the rise below 2 degrees slip by.

The problems is hardly restricted to people saying "oh, I find this uncomfortably hot" and deciding to live elsewhere, and rather more that of uprooting entire ecosystems adapted to a particular temperature range. Climate sensitive land species have been moving northwards over the last 40 years at an average rate of 1.8 km/year, or moving upwards in altitude at about a metre a year, and the trend is accelerating - but whether that will be sufficient even where it is easily possible is not settled. The impact may be surprisingly large on fish species around our waters, because northern waters contain very much less shelf area.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Batsy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The irony though, is that the very children who they try to influence in their curricula will have to live and deal with the consequences of global warming.

No, they won't. Because global warming doesn't exist. Of course, this whole global warming lie is now starting to unravel and reveal to people its true nature: that it is nothing but a lie. People which once believed in global warming are now starting to realise that they have been lied to and are turning their backs on the theory. Of course, many global warming diehards will continue vainly and frantically to keep pushing their nefarious global warming agenda, but it's only a matter of time before they become only a fringe minority, people will view them as loonies, and we can all start living normal lives again without having to worry about non-existant global warming.

Scofflaw

Batsy, you've been warned repeatedly about your copy-pasta habit. Posts deleted, infracted.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your view requires a global conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people and a scientific hoax unparalleled in history.

Do you genuinely think that's credible? If so, why?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't think that a slightly sceptical view requires a global conspiracy or a scientific hoax. There are a number of unresolved science issues out there around which there is debate and discussion.

Will we find the Higgs Boson in Geneva?
Will we find another type of particle?
Does evolution happen best gradually or through sudden leaps and bounds?
To what extent can humanity control and influence climate change?

To ask the latter question does not dispute the reality of climate change but asks the question as to what extent have we influenced it already or to what extent will we be able to control it in the future?

Scofflaw

Godge wrote: »

I don't think that a slightly sceptical view requires a global conspiracy or a scientific hoax. There are a number of unresolved science issues out there around which there is debate and discussion.

Will we find the Higgs Boson in Geneva?
Will we find another type of particle?
Does evolution happen best gradually or through sudden leaps and bounds?
To what extent can humanity control and influence climate change?

To ask the latter question does not dispute the reality of climate change but asks the question as to what extent have we influenced it already or to what extent will we be able to control it in the future?

Science is, of course, never "finished" as such, so there are of course at any time unresolved questions and uncertainties about those that appear resolved in any scientific field.

Unfortunately, a major tactic of recent years - on smoking, asbestos, ozone depletion, acid rain - has been to use the fact that science never claims eternal verity in order to wave away entirely anything one disagrees with, or is being paid to disagree with.

Science is a best bet process - and the current best bet, at a certainty of well over 95%, is that climate change is happening as a result of human emissions, over and above any current 'natural' changes, and far more rapidly. That we don't know all the details in depth is true, but doesn't change the main conclusion, which we do know at quite adequate levels of certainty. And Valmont et al are, I fear, not disagreeing with detailed outcomes, but claiming that the main conclusion is fabricated.

So if you're pointing out that we lack detail in some areas, I'm entirely in agreement. But for someone to claim that the whole thing is faked requires one to believe in a conspiracy of the scope I have laid out, and I don't think the majority of our climate change opponents here are that incapable of actual thought. I think they'd prefer to avoid considering the conspiracy their belief in "climate change as a hoax" necessitates, because it's so obviously ludicrous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

Science is, of course, never "finished" as such, so there are of course at any time unresolved questions and uncertainties about those that appear resolved in any scientific field.

Unfortunately, a major tactic of recent years - on smoking, asbestos, ozone depletion, acid rain - has been to use the fact that science never claims eternal verity in order to wave away entirely anything one disagrees with, or is being paid to disagree with.

Science is a best bet process - and the current best bet, at a certainty of well over 95%, is that climate change is happening as a result of human emissions, over and above any current 'natural' changes, and far more rapidly. That we don't know all the details in depth is true, but doesn't change the main conclusion, which we do know at quite adequate levels of certainty. And Valmont et al are, I fear, not disagreeing with detailed outcomes, but claiming that the main conclusion is fabricated.

So if you're pointing out that we lack detail in some areas, I'm entirely in agreement. But for someone to claim that the whole thing is faked requires one to believe in a conspiracy of the scope I have laid out, and I don't think the majority of our climate change opponents here are that incapable of actual thought. I think they'd prefer to avoid considering the conspiracy their belief in "climate change as a hoax" necessitates, because it's so obviously ludicrous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fair enough with that, I don't disagree with the main conclusion that climate change is happening as a result of human emissions. But I also believe that climate change happens for a host of other reasons and that we do not know enough about both the mechanics of climate change and the how the drivers interact to be able to predict with any great deal of certainty the range of possible outcomes over the next 50 years.

What that really means is that I am open to a greater range of possible outcomes than those who suggest the earth will warm by between 1 and 5 degrees. That greater range could include more severe warming or even cooling due to a greater influence by some of the other drivers of climate change.

The models didn't predict the relatively slow warming (or was it even warming?) over the last decade. They also didn't predict the resilience of the Antarctic ice which has actually grown in extent in recent years. These may only be minor flaws in the models but given that we only have accurate records of temperature and ice extent for the last few decades, it does concern me that there may be something more fundamentally wrong with the models.

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, knock me over with a feather.

You do realize that the mission of the Heartland Institute is not to do disinterested research, but to "discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems"? It can legitimately be accused of having a "consciously built-in bias" designed to reinforce its pro-free-market position — but I don't think anyone was ever in doubt about that.

This was your reply to a post which was aimed at the fact that the documents showed that the HI was funding not research into climate change but research and campaigns with the purpose of discrediting research into climate change.

I've stated that there's a highly significant distinction between the mission of a university and that of a think tank, as noted earlier by Einhard. But you are, in fact, correct: It has been public knowledge for many years that the Heartland Institute has been funding groups such as the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The new "revelations" about Heartland's activities are based largely on one maliciously fabricated document that the OP euphemistically calls "unverified."

You agree with it here too, regardless of whats in the document you call them "revelations" showing you clearly just as Einhard (in the origin of the discussion you entered) think there is nothing new the be taken from the documents. Perhaps I worded it wrong. I'll rephrase. You accept the assertions made by stating its nothing you didnt already know about the HI. You knew previous to the documents that their purpose wasnt research into climate change but combating the negative impact that that research would have on vested interests. Which is what this entire thread is about. The HI is nothing but head of PR for companies trying to obscure the debate on climate change for the benefit of those companies.

Why would I defend the Heartland Institute against claims made in maliciously fabricated and altered documents when the documents themselves are largely self-discrediting?

You have already accepted and claimed it was no great "revelation" by contradicting Kinski's post which was in response to Einhard saying the contents were not discrediting because the assertions are already known to be true. The assertions being those that I outlined above.

Please highlight the post where I agreed that the documents are authentic and/or agreed with and/or defended their contents.

Check above.

In fact, it is you who are making claims that you can't substantiate. We can continue this conversation when you've answered the question in bold above.

I'm not saying anything you havent already made clear in your own posts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why would he retract, he is correct and you most certainty did change tack in your defence of the HI.

Time to give the wounded puppy defence a rest perhaps?

Sponge Bob

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It does not take rocket science to face the facts that climate change is happening and will continue to happen.

Climate Change is a complete bastardisation...a perversion of language. We are only interested in whether we are warming the world up.... or not.

The climate has always changed and humans did not cause the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period....sure that was the climate changing itself as it does.

Mr.Micro

Batsy wrote: »

No, they won't. Because global warming doesn't exist. Of course, this whole global warming lie is now starting to unravel and reveal to people its true nature: that it is nothing but a lie. People which once believed in global warming are now starting to realise that they have been lied to and are turning their backs on the theory. Of course, many global warming diehards will continue vainly and frantically to keep pushing their nefarious global warming agenda, but it's only a matter of time before they become only a fringe minority, people will view them as loonies, and we can all start living normal lives again without having to worry about non-existant global warming.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Have a little knowledge for free. Any fool knows that if too much of one thing is produced then there is an abundance ie CO2 and other greenhouse gases. So long as these gases are taken out of the atmosphere by plants, trees, plankton, and so on, then that is fine. The problems start when less of the gases are taken out ie less plants, trees, plankton, and add to this the ever increasing gas emissions, then a major imbalance will be reached, one that may be irreversible. Its simple science and probability. It may not happen dramatically in the next 20 years or more, but continue the way we do, it will happen. Even a goldfish bowl had to be changed every so often, before it pollutes itself to death.

Please note from our charter:

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source.

This applies to making accusations against other posters

Back it up or give it a rest. I also don't want to see any more of this "wounded puppy" nonsense

Scofflaw

Godge wrote: »

Fair enough with that, I don't disagree with the main conclusion that climate change is happening as a result of human emissions. But I also believe that climate change happens for a host of other reasons and that we do not know enough about both the mechanics of climate change and the how the drivers interact to be able to predict with any great deal of certainty the range of possible outcomes over the next 50 years.

Again - in detail, no. In broad outline, yes. The science absolutely supports the outcome that "the global average temperature will rise". By exactly how much (as opposed to within a range), what exactly that will mean and for whom and when are all subjects of continuing research, and it would be a mistake for anyone either to regard them as settled, or to brush them aside as non-issues because they're not settled.

Godge wrote: »

What that really means is that I am open to a greater range of possible outcomes than those who suggest the earth will warm by between 1 and 5 degrees. That greater range could include more severe warming or even cooling due to a greater influence by some of the other drivers of climate change.

There isn't an equality of possible outcomes - cooling is very highly improbable

Godge wrote: »

The models didn't predict the relatively slow warming (or was it even warming?) over the last decade.

Heh. Depends where you draw your lines:

Godge wrote: »

They also didn't predict the resilience of the Antarctic ice which has actually grown in extent in recent years. These may only be minor flaws in the models but given that we only have accurate records of temperature and ice extent for the last few decades, it does concern me that there may be something more fundamentally wrong with the models.

One of the issues with such concerns is that they're often based on a single brief spike in noisy data - the sea ice is very much on a downward trend, and "recovery" is only in comparison to previous lows:



As to something "fundamentally wrong" with the models - well, they're picked at all the time, but despite lots of people wanting there to be some fundamental flaw, and indeed saying there may or must be, nobody has actually spotted one. More generally, the models may not originally have included the cyclic effects of the oceanic oscillations, but they're still offering the only explanation for the trend.

And that's the fundamental point - we don't have anything at all which matches the temperature trend except emissions. Hence the PR outfits concentrating on making people believe there isn't a trend, because none of the addenda like oceanic oscillations, cosmic rays, sun spots, or pirates provide an explanation for it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'll show the context that excerpt was posted in.

Einhard wrote: »

I'm slightly confused. I read the articles hoping to find something which would completely discredit the Heartland Institue and thus deal a blow to climate sceptics, but instead they show a think tank receiving money from like-minded individuals, and then funnelling that money towards research and campaigns which validates its point of view.

Isn't that what all think tanks do?

Thanked by you, so you do agree with Einhard that there is nothing in the articles that discredit the HI because they show nothing you didnt already know about how the HI works. ?

Kinski wrote: »

Firstly, a campaign can't "validate" a point-of-view. Secondly, the suspicion about such think-tanks is that they are not funding disinterested research which aims to develop our understanding of these phenomena, but are actually funding research with consciously built-in biases designed to reinforce the positions which the think-tanks already adhere to.

Kinski's reply to Einhard highlighting the fact that the point is that the fact that this is the HI's purpose means they cannot be seen as valid opponents to climate change research. Seeing as they are paid to contradict it they can never hold another view and they have zero interest in facts or science and their interest is in obscuring the facts and science if they dont fit their agenda.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Without mentioning anything about the validity of the documents you defend Einhards position that they show no new revelations. And show only a think tank doing what a think tank does. Even quoting figures from the document yourself to try and argue that the amount is too small to warrant such a reaction from the media.

After the point of the discussion was redirected back to the fact that the documents showed the inner workings of the HI (something you not only didnt dispute but proclaimed to be already known) you changed your argument from "This is nothing new" to "This is based on unverified documents".

I hope this shows how I see your argument as being defensive of the HI regardless of the document (which you didnt initially dispute) or the arguments put forward by others in regards to their inner workings.

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heh. Depends where you draw your lines:

Yes, depends on where you draw your lines but isn't that statistics for you. You could start some time back in the distant past when the earth was much cooler or much warmer than it is now and draw a line from there. In the really really big picture, are we getting cooler or warmer and is humanity's influence only a single brief spike in noisy data?

Scofflaw wrote: »

One of the issues with such concerns is that they're often based on a single brief spike in noisy data - the sea ice is very much on a downward trend, and "recovery" is only in comparison to previous lows:



As to something "fundamentally wrong" with the models - well, they're picked at all the time, but despite lots of people wanting there to be some fundamental flaw, and indeed saying there may or must be, nobody has actually spotted one. More generally, the models may not originally have included the cyclic effects of the oceanic oscillations, but they're still offering the only explanation for the trend.

And that's the fundamental point - we don't have anything at all which matches the temperature trend except emissions. Hence the PR outfits concentrating on making people believe there isn't a trend, because none of the addenda like oceanic oscillations, cosmic rays, sun spots, or pirates provide an explanation for it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png


I mentioned Antarctic ice which is growing, see graph, hope this isn't too big.



Edit: Image was too big, took it out so click on link.

[MOD]I've added back in a thumbnail - hope that's OK!

moderately,
Scofflaw
[/MOD]

Scofflaw

Godge wrote: »

Yes, depends on where you draw your lines but isn't that statistics for you. You could start some time back in the distant past when the earth was much cooler or much warmer than it is now and draw a line from there. In the really really big picture, are we getting cooler or warmer and is humanity's influence only a single brief spike in noisy data?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png


I mentioned Antarctic ice which is growing, see graph, hope this isn't too big.



Edit: Image was too big, took it out so click on link.

Sure, but I'm afraid the models do explain and predict the shift of sea ice from Arctic to Antarctic. Also, one needs to be careful about using sea ice extent as a proxy for full amount of ice, because there's now rather a lot of observations to the effect that the ice is also thinner.

As to the "is humanity's influence only a single brief spike in noisy data" - that's a bit like an argument elsewhere that the Greeks don't have high tax evasion...if you compare them to Africa, or look at them in a long-term historical view that encompasses, say, Ottoman tax evasion. We've had a relatively stable climate envelope for all of human history, and we're talking about leaving that envelope - whether that's a brief spike or not in Earth's history is unlikely to be of relevance or comfort.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

By the way, before anyone embarrasses themselves defending HI too stridently, it might be worth pointing out that of the documents, only the "Agenda" document has been stated to be fake, although no proof has been offered of that claim:

Last week, someone stole some documents from us and forged a memo claiming to state our ‘strategy” on global warming. See our statement in response to this attack here: http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents .

The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland’s president for a board meeting that took place on January 17. He was traveling at the time this story broke yesterday afternoon and still has not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.

Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

Unfortunately, all the information in the "Agenda" document cross-checks with information in the other documents, which HI are not (currently) claiming are fake.

So, fake or not, the "Agenda" document is a reasonable summary of the contents of the other documents, which means that its authenticity is largely a red herring (so surprising!). What's authentic enough is what HI are up to, as detailed in the other documents written by HI's chairman, which is apparently something people are willing to defend anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Now we are talking about Journalism. Thread is quickly becoming the boards.ie version of Inception.

Facts are, these documents are largely irrelevant, everyone already knew that HI and organisations like it have been using their influence to darken the waters of the climate argument without using any scientific evidence to back up their claims.

Forget about these documents, instead just accept the scientific facts. And overwhelmingly the scientific community agree, that we are having an adverse impact on the climate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why get excited?

Because we still have people like yourself who still cling to the belief that it's not happening, we have organisations like the HI who actively pursue underhand tactics to muddy the waters of the argument even further, that's why. I'd be quite happy to leave this one to the science community, but apparently the economists think that's not too clever. I wonder why.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Absolutely not, I have zero issues with any sceptic, as long as they use science and can back their science up with data that proves their hypothesis.

What I do have a problem with is 'deniers' who only put forward opinion, backed up by nothing and then attempt to portray this as scepticism.

Memnoch

karma_ wrote: »

Absolutely not, I have zero issues with any sceptic, as long as they use science and can back their science up with data that proves their hypothesis.

What I do have a problem with is 'deniers' who only put forward opinion, backed up by nothing and then attempt to portray this as scepticism.

Especially when it's clear the ONLY motivation these 'think tanks' have for questioning the validity of the science is that they are paid to do so by corporations who stand to lose money by having to reign in their pollution once governments are forced to enact regulation under growing pressure from public opinion(no matter how much cash they dump into legalised bribery (lobbying) ). So muddy the waters for short term profit and if that ruins the environment, well their shareholders don't really care about that when looking at the balance sheets.

Mr.Micro

karma_ wrote: »

Absolutely not, I have zero issues with any sceptic, as long as they use science and can back their science up with data that proves their hypothesis.

What I do have a problem with is 'deniers' who only put forward opinion, backed up by nothing and then attempt to portray this as scepticism.

Well said. Scepticism is a very healthy attitude, provided its based on theories or data. The philosophy of science is based upon revolution where fact is only accepted until a better fact, or a refutal of the original fact comes along, and this often comes in the form of a revolution. Most scientists therefore, are naturally sceptics and do not accept facts as final, and are always to be challenged. We accept Einsteins theories for now, but we now possibly will have a particle neutrino that is faster than the speed of light, thus disputing Einstein's fact that light was fastest speed. My point being, that climate change and all the theories are there to be challenged, or not, based on better evidence, but plain denial because it does not sit well is not good enough.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57327392/2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particles/

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He got his nobel prize for discovering electron tunnelling in semiconductors. Is there much crossover in his field with that of Climate science?

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, that's the point, isn't it - the facts in the Agenda aren't faked. They're all there in the other six documents.

So, no, I don't think there's any problem with people who point that out. What I do find interesting, and potentially embarrassing-by-proxy is the defence of HI's activities, which here, as elsewhere, seems to consist of concentrating resolutely on the single faked document and ignoring the fact that everything in it also appears in the other documents, which are waved away with "of course they do, that's what they do, ffs, why so surprised?".

How did we wind up with quite so evidently a crafted response quite so widely quite so fast? And if the fact that all the Agenda's points, replicated in the other documents, are so unsurprising and unremarkable, why the concentration on the authenticity of the Agenda? After all, apparently there's nothing here to hide....but a huge amount of "look over there!" is being done nonetheless, accompanied in some places by legal "shut up" notices.

Nobody here, I think, is unable to draw quite a wide line between healthy scepticism and ideological spin, and it's rather clear we're dealing with the latter here, even without HI's paid creation of FUD in defence of that ideology. With one exception, our Heartland defenders here are exactly who one might expect them to be - libertarians. You can virtually guarantee that a libertarian, like any other free-market ideologue, is going to have issues with the science of climate change, because it's something that rather obviously requires a regulatory response - and when you can tell what someone's opinion on a non-economic issue is going to be by their economic stance, that opinion is rather obviously not determined by facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Memnoch

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, that's the point, isn't it - the facts in the Agenda aren't faked. They're all there in the other six documents.

So, no, I don't think there's any problem with people who point that out. What I do find interesting, and potentially embarrassing-by-proxy is the defence of HI's activities, which here, as elsewhere, seems to consist of concentrating resolutely on the single faked document and ignoring the fact that everything in it also appears in the other documents, which are waved away with "of course they do, that's what they do, ffs, why so surprised?".

How did we wind up with quite so evidently a crafted response quite so widely quite so fast? And if the fact that all the Agenda's points, replicated in the other documents, are so unsurprising and unremarkable, why the concentration on the authenticity of the Agenda? After all, apparently there's nothing here to hide....but a huge amount of "look over there!" is being done nonetheless, accompanied in some places by legal "shut up" notices.

Nobody here, I think, is unable to draw quite a wide line between healthy scepticism and ideological spin, and it's rather clear we're dealing with the latter here, even without HI's paid creation of FUD in defence of that ideology. With one exception, our Heartland defenders here are exactly who one might expect them to be - libertarians. You can virtually guarantee that a libertarian, like any other free-market ideologue, is going to have issues with the science of climate change, because it's something that rather obviously requires a regulatory response - and when you can tell what someone's opinion on a non-economic issue is going to be by their economic stance, that opinion is rather obviously not determined by facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The saddest thing is how the libertarians don't understand that by being so fanatically ideological in their stances, that by using debating tricks and semantics to constantly deflect and never concede on even simple and obvious things and going to great extents to first contradict themselves and then argue for pages that they never did so, once more with debating tricks and semantics that they are totally undermining any legitimate chance of convincing anyone that their ideology has any merit, because if it did, they wouldn't have to be so aggressive about it.

The only thing they are really achieving is turning off those of us who like to consider things logically from bearing little interest in what they have to say.

I'm heartily left wing. And while I distrust the free market greatly and am a big proponent of true democracy, I'll happily acknowledge that going to a full government solution isn't the answer. I want a middle ground. Where the market is protected from cannibalising itself and where the thirst for profit doesn't drive an elimination of competition and corruption of the ideals of capitalism itself. Though there are areas such as health, education and defense where I feel the free market is simply not capable of doing the job. (but that's another argument for another thread).

The problem I see with libertarian philosophy in its current form is that they just don't seem to think that there is any relevance to the idea of a middle ground.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Facts, science and research be damned. By the way, you're coming across as a complete ideologue with this rant.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If that happens it will be tragic. It would just stand as an example of the wishes of the rich and influential usurping logic, reason and science.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And it works the other way round too!

Hopefully both extremes will just negate each other!

Moriarty

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And the descent into process and trench warfare continues. Keep the lawyers and PR consultants in business - a lovely little self-fueling fire of it's own - while stalling any eventual actions which would be detrimental to the people underwriting the process. What a fantastic little circle jerk.

The only logical reason for someone to be happy about money going into a PR agency instead of basic research is if you already acknowledge that the facts can't be disputed and the only game left to play is delaying the solidification of opinion and through it action.

The implicit underlying long game of 'this will demonstrate my political ideology is superior to everyone elses so is worth getting down in the mud' throughout the entire climate change throw-shíte-against-the-wall-until-it-sticks horror show is the most galling part of it all. For all the attempts at taking a long perspective, the myopic game players never realise that this will be self defeating for everyone - perceived friend and foe alike - in the long run when no one will believe anything because they've all been lied to by too many small-time shills in small-time FeedTheMachine-gates.

What a way to **** everything over for short-term fictional gains.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm just hearing Ron Paul rhetoric here!

Seriously, Government-loving left, stamping out the freedom movement since the post - WW11 years?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interesting thread if you wish to start it, but probably better we both not continue it on this thread!