Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[BartW]

Where am I denying climate change? All I am saying is that there are those that disagree.Oh and if you understood the fallacy you named, you would know I didn't commit it. But I have come to expect deflecting methods like this from you.

For the umpteenth time: denialism isn’t a position, it’s a tactic. It’s the style of debate employed by sophists. Here you’re displaying two of the five characteristics of scientific denialism: fake experts and logical fallacies. Specifically you’re using false equivalence (and ad hominem) to argue that your references are as valid as mine and that your fake experts (Morano lol) are equivalent to real scientists.

If my linked articles were even a tenth as retarded as yours you’d easily be able to not only discredit the source, but also debunk the content (as I have done to yall’s repeatedly). However it’s obvious you don’t want to discuss the content of my posts. The ‘skeptics’ prefer witty hit-and-run one-liners. You make Papa Bear O'Reailly proud:

 

[hog88]

Bart you and the Judge need to get together. Would make a cute couple.

 

[BartW]

it’s obvious you don’t want to discuss the content of my posts. The ‘skeptics’ prefer witty hit-and-run one-liners.

Bart you and the Judge need to get together. Would make a cute couple.

 

[hog88]

No, you prove to be another Don Quixote.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Bart you and the Judge need to get together. Would make a cute couple.

They are the same people hog.

 

[BartW]

Mk Mbeki. Two can play the name-calling game.

Since you have no counterargument I’ll just continue debunking fake experts in the hope y'all might start seeing the patterns and one day be able to distinguish real science from organized anti-science yourselves. Today I’ll cover proven shill Steve “the junkman” Milloy, so named for his environmental ‘skeptic’ website JunkScience.com and popularizing the junk science/sound science dichotomy the VN 'skeptics' love. Let’s take a look at Mr. Milloy’s background:

• No science degree
• Extensive ties to big tobacco: executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (a libertarian thinktank established by Phillip Morris to spread doubt about the health effects of smoking), co-designed his website with a PR firm for R.J Reynolds, and a provided medical and political information service for British-American Tobacco. The Tobacco Legacy Documents expose him as a fraud.
• Has worked for other libertarian denialist think tanks, including the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (another known tobacco offender), and other Exxon-funded groups
• Also rejects the scientific consensus on ozone, acid rain, evolution, pesticides, asbestos, ETS, agent orange, PCBs, … and of course global warming.
• Co-authored the American Petroleum Institute’s infamous 1998 communications plan that outlined big oil’s strategy to promote doubt a la big tobacco. It’s a smoking gun comparable to big tobacco’s Legacy Documents and the creationists’ Wedge Document.
• Former registered lobbyist for the EOP group, representing the American Crop Protection Association (pesticides), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute (fossil and nuclear energy), and the National Mining Association.
• Currently works as Director of External Policy & Strategy for Murray Energy Corporation, the largest privately-held coal producer in the US.
• Regular columnist and commentator on Faux News

Diagnosis: Crank

 

[BartW]

No comment? Ok, moving on. You’re really gonna like this one.

Next I give you outspoken climate science denier and possible Sacha Baron Cohen character “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a figure so absurd that some denialists even deny that he is a real person. I admit it’s hard to believe. If he’s a satirist he’s doing it right because the GOP has enlisted him multiple times as an expert witness for congressional hearings on climate science.

Let’s look at his background:

• I put “Lord” in quotes because, despite his claim to the title, he is not a member of the House of Lords. The House has asked that he desist in his frequent habit of implying, or outright claiming, to be a member in any way whatsoever. They have also requested, rather forcefully, that he stop using a personal insignia closely resembling the portcullis insignia of the House of Lords, and are presently '"taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof." A lulzy ploy to make it seem like he has governmental power and statues.

• He has no science background; he’s a classics/journalism major, political advisor, and public speaker. He is quoted saying “It is particularly hard [to challenge climate scientists], if like me, you have no scientific qualification to do so.” That doesn’t stop him from writing faux scientific papers and campaigning against climate change action all over the world.

• He claims that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold.

• He once stated "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

• He claims to be a Nobel laureate.

• He’s horribly butchered the history of the DDT “ban”, propagating the myth that it killed millions (also found here on VN) and making nonsensical claims like Kennedy hired his “environmental nincompoop” pal to run the EPA (even though Kennedy was assassinated in ’63 and the EPA wasn’t created until ’70 under Nixon), among other things.

• He’s a birther.

• He calls climate scientists Nazis, Hitler Youth, communists, fascists, etc.

• He thinks only Christians should be allowed to be scientists.

• He serves as chief policy advisor for the Science and Public Policy Institue/Center for Science and Public Policy which has received over a million dollars from Exxon through Frontiers of Freedom, a republican policy center (of which Fred Singer is an adjunct fellow) that was likewise bankrolled by Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds to fight tobacco regulation.

I could go on and on and on about loveable Lord Monckton, and I’d have a blast. He’s hands down everybody’s favorite climate denier

Diagnosis: Not sure if serious… but people (including the GOP) take him seriously, so CRANK

 

[FLVOL69]

Sounds totally legit.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I've got a non scientific degree but I bet I took more science electives that make Volcanology 101 look like churning butter 101.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Sounds like Christopher is smarter than Bart to have those kind of credentials.

 

[BartW]

It's hard to tell if he's legit. Lord Monckton might be an incredibly smart comedian. Perhaps he's a Kumare that hasn't revealed himself yet. British humor does occasionally get lost in translation...

 

[FLVOL69]

Not big on Brit humor, I miss this guy though.

 

[Abe Hoffman]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

What makes you think she's a witch?
She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
I got better.
Burn her anyway!

 

[FLVOL69]

Wassup Abe ?

 

[Abe Hoffman]

Wassup Abe ?

I'm reading the book by Mark Levin that you recommended.

 

[FLVOL69]

I'm reading the book by Mark Levin that you recommended.

Excellent , let me know what you think of it.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Bart so wants to be taken seriously. He should change his name to Al Gore Jr so we could take him super cereal.

 

[BartW]

Bart so wants to be taken seriously. He should change his name to Al Gore Jr so we could take him super cereal.

Your responses really reflect your maturity and mad debate skillz. I don't care if I'm the only one here having a serious discussion. Also I love Al Gore’s mystical role in the great global warming conspiracy. Aside from his holier-than-thou attitude (and being a democrat, obviously) I really don’t understand why he gets the brunt of your slander.

Let’s look at some more key personnel overlaps between tobacco and climate disinformation campaigns. I give you the DCI group, a top Republican lobby and public relations firm. It’s heavily funded by and a registered lobbyer for Exxon. DCI created the free-market online journal TCS Daily, an outlet for climate contrarians. From their website:

“Corporations seldom win alone. Whatever the issue, whatever the target—elected officials, regulators or public opinion—you need reliable third party allies to advocate your cause. We can help you recruit credible coalition partners and engage them for maximum impact. It’s what we do best.”

DCI’s managing partners – Tom Synhorst, Doug Goodyear, and Tim Hyde—all honed their skills working for the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. The founder and CEO Douglas Goodyear was vice president at Walt Klein and Associates, a PR firm whose work for RJR dates back to at least the1980s. Goodyear was instrumental in the creation of Ramhurst Corporation, an organization that received money from R.J. Reynolds to ensure that tobacco industry efforts in Washington were supported by and coordinated with RJR’s nation-wide fake grassroots operations.

According to internal RJR documents, in 1994 Ramhurst received $2.6 million for “executing tactical programs on federal, state or local issues; developing a network of smokers’ rights groups and other coalition partners within the region that will speak out on issues important to the Company; implementing training and communication programs designed to inform activists and maintain their ongoing involvement in the grassroots movement.” Synhorst was one of Ramhurst’s field operators. Timothy N. Hyde was the senior director of public issues at R.J. Reynolds from 1988 to 1997. Hyde oversaw all of RJR’s PR campaigns. His weekly reports, also available in the R.J. Reynolds online archive, provide a running history of the discussion of tobacco in the public sphere and the industry’s efforts to shape that discussion.

 

[BartW]

Let’s play a game. Which of these two is actual tobacco industry denial, and which is climate change denial with “tobacco” and related terms substituted:

Exhibit A:

“There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis………any number of things can influence the onset of a disease. The list includes genetics, diet, workplace environment, and stress…….we understand public anxiety about smoking causing disease, but are concerned that many of these much-publicized associations are ill-informed and misleading……….the media continue to uncritically accept and vigorously promote an anti-smoking agenda…….after hundreds of millions of dollars spent on clinical research, and decades of screaming headlines, we have no more certainty today about smoking causing disease than we did decades ago……….if even a small part of the time and money spent trying to link smoking to cancer were spent instead on studying the other causes of cancer, millions of lives could be saved.”

Exhibit B:

“The claim that human activities cause climate change has not been scientifically proven……….it is a reductionist error and not keeping with the current theories of climate science to attempt to assign each temperature change to an exclusive single cause………..the use of results from flawed computer models to frighten people by attributing catastrophic future change to current human activities may be misleading and is highly regrettable……..that emotionalism can override objective analysis is illustrated by the headlines………..despite millions of dollars spent by the government on climate modeling and research, many questions about the relationship between human activities and global temperature change remain unanswered……….indeed, many scientists are becoming concerned that preoccupation with anthropogenic global warming may be both unfounded and dangerous – unfounded because evidence on many critical points is conflicting, dangerous because it diverts attention from other suspected hazards.”

To see the answer, check out A Well-Documented Strategy

 

[govols/cc]

Your responses really reflect your maturity and mad debate skillz. I don't care if I'm the only one here having a serious discussion. Also I love Al Gore’s mystical role in the great global warming conspiracy. Aside from his holier-than-thou attitude (and being a democrat, obviously) I really don’t understand why he gets the brunt of your slander.

Let’s look at some more key personnel overlaps between tobacco and climate disinformation campaigns. I give you the DCI group, a top Republican lobby and public relations firm. It’s heavily funded by and a registered lobbyer for Exxon. DCI created the free-market online journal TCS Daily, an outlet for climate contrarians. From their website:

“Corporations seldom win alone. Whatever the issue, whatever the target—elected officials, regulators or public opinion—you need reliable third party allies to advocate your cause. We can help you recruit credible coalition partners and engage them for maximum impact. It’s what we do best.”

DCI’s managing partners – Tom Synhorst, Doug Goodyear, and Tim Hyde—all honed their skills working for the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. The founder and CEO Douglas Goodyear was vice president at Walt Klein and Associates, a PR firm whose work for RJR dates back to at least the1980s. Goodyear was instrumental in the creation of Ramhurst Corporation, an organization that received money from R.J. Reynolds to ensure that tobacco industry efforts in Washington were supported by and coordinated with RJR’s nation-wide fake grassroots operations.

According to internal RJR documents, in 1994 Ramhurst received $2.6 million for “executing tactical programs on federal, state or local issues; developing a network of smokers’ rights groups and other coalition partners within the region that will speak out on issues important to the Company; implementing training and communication programs designed to inform activists and maintain their ongoing involvement in the grassroots movement.” Synhorst was one of Ramhurst’s field operators. Timothy N. Hyde was the senior director of public issues at R.J. Reynolds from 1988 to 1997. Hyde oversaw all of RJR’s PR campaigns. His weekly reports, also available in the R.J. Reynolds online archive, provide a running history of the discussion of tobacco in the public sphere and the industry’s efforts to shape that discussion.

Maturity? Says the nut job posting countless memes like clockwork.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Your responses really reflect your maturity and mad debate skillz. I don't care if I'm the only one here having a serious discussion. Also I love Al Gore’s mystical role in the great global warming conspiracy. Aside from his holier-than-thou attitude (and being a democrat, obviously) I really don’t understand why he gets the brunt of your slander.

Let’s look at some more key personnel overlaps between tobacco and climate disinformation campaigns. I give you the DCI group, a top Republican lobby and public relations firm. It’s heavily funded by and a registered lobbyer for Exxon. DCI created the free-market online journal TCS Daily, an outlet for climate contrarians. From their website:

“Corporations seldom win alone. Whatever the issue, whatever the target—elected officials, regulators or public opinion—you need reliable third party allies to advocate your cause. We can help you recruit credible coalition partners and engage them for maximum impact. It’s what we do best.”

DCI’s managing partners – Tom Synhorst, Doug Goodyear, and Tim Hyde—all honed their skills working for the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. The founder and CEO Douglas Goodyear was vice president at Walt Klein and Associates, a PR firm whose work for RJR dates back to at least the1980s. Goodyear was instrumental in the creation of Ramhurst Corporation, an organization that received money from R.J. Reynolds to ensure that tobacco industry efforts in Washington were supported by and coordinated with RJR’s nation-wide fake grassroots operations.

According to internal RJR documents, in 1994 Ramhurst received $2.6 million for “executing tactical programs on federal, state or local issues; developing a network of smokers’ rights groups and other coalition partners within the region that will speak out on issues important to the Company; implementing training and communication programs designed to inform activists and maintain their ongoing involvement in the grassroots movement.” Synhorst was one of Ramhurst’s field operators. Timothy N. Hyde was the senior director of public issues at R.J. Reynolds from 1988 to 1997. Hyde oversaw all of RJR’s PR campaigns. His weekly reports, also available in the R.J. Reynolds online archive, provide a running history of the discussion of tobacco in the public sphere and the industry’s efforts to shape that discussion.

It's extremely hard to debate with a closed minded government sheep like you. The problem with you is you don't consider anyone else's opinions or links as anything but garbage. Every single link that has been proposed that may disagree with you, you automatically dismiss. You immediately come up with some retort that has to be believed because you say so. Also when someone disagrees with you, you default to the childish "conspiracy theory" crap. It's obvious that the only people you have debated with do not know how to debate properly. If you did know how to debate properly, you would know that skepticism does not mean conspiracy.

I have never said the government is out to get us or the moon landing was faked. For crying out loud Bart stop bringing up crap that has ZERO to do with the subject. I have never denied climate change. I just believe that humans have not had as much to do with it as scientists think. That does not make me a denialist or conspiracy theorist. It makes me a skeptic who has my own opinions and that sees things differently. You really need to learn that people have different opinions about everything. Just because someone disagrees with science doesn't mean they are conspiracy theorists. Also just because you post up links doesn't make them true solely because they came from you.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

It's extremely hard to debate with a closed minded government sheep like you. The problem with you is you don't consider anyone else's opinions or links as anything but garbage. Every single link that has been proposed that may disagree with you, you automatically dismiss. You immediately come up with some retort that has to be believed because you say so. Also when someone disagrees with you, you default to the childish "conspiracy theory" crap. It's obvious that the only people you have debated with do not know how to debate properly. If you did know how to debate properly, you would know that skepticism does not mean conspiracy.

I have never said the government is out to get us or the moon landing was faked. For crying out loud Bart stop bringing up crap that has ZERO to do with the subject. I have never denied climate change. I just believe that humans have not had as much to do with it as scientists think. That does not make me a denialist or conspiracy theorist. It makes me a skeptic who has my own opinions and that sees things differently. You really need to learn that people have different opinions about everything. Just because someone disagrees with science doesn't mean they are conspiracy theorists. Also just because you post up links doesn't make them true solely because they came from you.

:good!: Thanks BOT..... :clapping: and that goes double for me too Bart.

 

[BartW]

It's extremely hard to debate with a closed minded government sheep like you. The problem with you is you don't consider anyone else's opinions or links as anything but garbage. Every single link that has been proposed that may disagree with you, you automatically dismiss. You immediately come up with some retort that has to be believed because you say so. Also when someone disagrees with you, you default to the childish "conspiracy theory" crap. It's obvious that the only people you have debated with do not know how to debate properly. If you did know how to debate properly, you would know that skepticism does not mean conspiracy.

I have never said the government is out to get us or the moon landing was faked. For crying out loud Bart stop bringing up crap that has ZERO to do with the subject. I have never denied climate change. I just believe that humans have not had as much to do with it as scientists think. That does not make me a denialist or conspiracy theorist. It makes me a skeptic who has my own opinions and that sees things differently. You really need to learn that people have different opinions about everything. Just because someone disagrees with science doesn't mean they are conspiracy theorists. Also just because you post up links doesn't make them true solely because they came from you.

Debate? You’re not even trying to debate, you’re just name-calling and playing petty word games. When was the last time you posted anything of substance?

I am open to other opinions (heck I even read papers by Singer and M&M for Sandvol) but if you’re going to post garbage I will call it out as such. And it’s not garbage “because I said so”, it’s garbage for the reasons given in the relevant posts. Generally it’s because your references are misleading (or blatantly false) and the authors have a long history of anti-science (often including work for big tobacco).

My post wasn’t about conspiratorial thinking, it was about the glaring parallels between tobacco denial and climate denial. It’s cute how offended you are by the label ‘conspiracy theorist’. Especially considering your political leader, Senator James Inhofe, wrote the climate denial bible The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future

Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page.

Iirc you even admitted that you’re a conspiracy theorist a few pages back, saying something to the effect of “just because it’s a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean it isn’t true” after which you gave a lulzy list of ‘true conspiracies’ and claimed that my list of medical conspiracy theories (including vaccines cause autism and HIV doesn’t cause AIDS) were actually all true.

Anyway, I won't let this thread get derailed by semantics. Back to the topic. What do you think of the parallelisms (same tactics, same organizations, and even some of the same actors) between the tobacco denial and climate denial industries?

 

[MG1968]

Bart, speaking of semantics, no one here is denying climate change. The debate is about the causes, whether it's warming or cooling is irrelevant. People like you would rather see national economies wrecked because you refuse to wait for the technologies that would render fossil fuels obsolete to become cheaper and more efficient.

Going back to something you've claimed before, how would a carbon tax be revenue neutral? You never explained where the corresponding tax cuts would take place.

 

[BartW]

Bart, speaking of semantics, no one here is denying climate change. The debate is about the causes, whether it's warming or cooling is irrelevant. People like you would rather see national economies wrecked because you refuse to wait for the technologies that would render fossil fuels obsolete to become cheaper and more efficient.

Going back to something you've claimed before, how would a carbon tax be revenue neutral? You never explained where the corresponding tax cuts would take place.

Denialism isn’t a position, it’s a tactic. The tobacco industry gave the exact same shpiel about there being debate over the causal connection. There wasn't then and there isn't now.

I have no intention of wrecking economies – quite the opposite. The longer we delay action on climate change the more costly it will be. You’re being shortsighted. The grand irony is that the longer we deny climate change is a problem, the more likely it will be that governments will have to take the draconian measures ‘skeptics’ fear.

A good place to start with tax cuts would be the income tax.