From Climategate to Denialgate

Scofflaw

The US' Heartland Institute, a conservative/libertarian thinktank, is in a little spot of PR bother after internal documents (all but one verified, the unverified one containing information repeated in the others) show their network of climate denial funding:

ASSUMING they are substantially authentic, the trove of confidential documents from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Chicago, leaked to the blogosphere on February 14th provide an interesting view of one of Americas more prominent agents of climate-change scepticism.

The documents were first published on the DeSmogBlog, which claimed to have got them from a Heartland insider. They have since been gleefully scoured by various online newspapers and bloggers, including the Carbon Brief, which have highlighted the following alleged revelations.

• The Heartland Institute provides $300,000 a year in stipends to the climate-sceptical Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), apparently to help it question and counter the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The NIPCC, which holds regular shindigs for sceptical scientists in New York and Washington, claims to be an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change.

• The Heartland Institute is considering paying a sometime consultant for the Department of Energy up to $100,000 a year to produce teaching materials designed to spread climate-change scepticism. David Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the department in the area of information and communication science. He was allegedly hired to write modules, for $5,000 apiece, that could fit into the existing science curriculum in such a way as to stress doubts over the basic verities of climate science.

On February 15th the Heartland Institute claimed that, of eight allegedly leaked documents, one was a fake and the others had been obtained through deception. It did not dispute the authenticity of the remaining seven documents, but said it was still looking into whether they might have been “altered”. Meanwhile the gleeful greens said they were sticking to their story. They noted that the institute’s plans for a sceptical curriculum were also mentioned in its allegedly leaked budget document and had been confirmed by Mr Wojick. Similarly, the budget document confirmed the institute’s donations to the NIPCC and other sceptical scientists.

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991

That well-known liberal outlet, The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/climate-change-scepticism

Desmogblog: http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine

Looking at some of the places this has been reported online, it's interesting to see a little army of commenters swinging into action with well-crafted PR comebacks, which attempt to make the debate about the unverified document, or downplay the incident entirely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

Looking at some of the places this has been reported online, it's interesting to see a little army of commenters swinging into action with well-crafted PR comebacks, which attempt to make the debate about the unverified document, or downplay the incident entirely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's one of the odd things about climate change, most conspiracy theorists don't believe in it. Yet it's often these 'Institutes' with dubious funding, or funding from business that say it's not happening. It's in the interests of many corporations that it's not happening. I think this is probably a master-stroke of PR in casting so much doubt in it that even the CT's go against their normal grain.

Einhard

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?

RichieC

Tip of the iceberg.

Kinski

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?

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.

Mr.Micro

It does not take rocket science to face the facts that climate change is happening and will continue to happen. On a simple level alone man produces car, factory and other industrial emissions that feed into the atmosphere, at amounts that are alien to the order of the natural world, and even the most optimistic person would have to admit the balance is tilted. No matter those in denial can carry on with their delusions and prefer to obfuscate reality.

Manach

On the main issue, whilst some can disargree with the agenda behind the Think-tank, it is pursuing a legal and legitimate aim in attempting to pursuade policy makers - akin to 1001 other such think-tanks. If the policy that it is championing is as harmful as being suggested, then it would be a simple matter for opposing forums to discredit it. Instead, having been subject to this invasion of privacy, grants them free publicity and makes them seem the victim of underhanded dealings. Thus giving their agenda a boost.

Godge

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?

I read the links too and came to the same conclusion. I thought I was missing something.

It seems a far cry from the allegations made in Climategate which I thought were around the manipulation of data. Maybe I am wrong.

RichieC

Manach wrote: »

On the main issue, whilst some can disargree with the agenda behind the Think-tank, it is pursuing a legal and legitimate aim in attempting to pursuade policy makers - akin to 1001 other such think-tanks. If the policy that it is championing is as harmful as being suggested, then it would be a simple matter for opposing forums to discredit it. Instead, having been subject to this invasion of privacy, grants them free publicity and makes them seem the victim of underhanded dealings. Thus giving their agenda a boost.

How are advocacy groups meant to counter the vast wealth behind the oil and petrochemical industries?

It's an unfair battle.

Einhard

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.

Well validate might have been an incorrect choice of word but I don't think it detracts from my point.

Also, I don't think anyone was under any illusion as to the intentions of groups such as Heartland.

RichieC wrote: »

How are advocacy groups meant to counter the vast wealth behind the oil and petrochemical industries?

It's an unfair battle.

That's true. It is an unfair battle, but one which the likes of Heartland appear to be losing.

That said though, the articles aren't exactly shocking in what the reveal.

RichieC

Einhard wrote: »

That said though, the articles aren't exactly shocking in what the reveal.

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

It is truly a new day.

Einhard

RichieC wrote: »

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

It is truly a new day.

Eh no. The fact that there are groups who seek to do such things isn't exactly shocking to me. Perhaps I'm just more cynical than you.

Kinski

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think anyone was under any illusion as to the intentions of groups such as Heartland.

No, but this probably isn't how they want people to see them.

Einhard

Kinski wrote: »

No, but this probably isn't how they want people to see them.

True. But that doesn't change my point that it's not exactly a startling revelation.

Mr.Micro

Originally Posted by RichieC
Attempting to influence kids school curriculums with propaganda isn't shocking to you?

It is truly a new day.

Einhard wrote: »

Eh no. The fact that there are groups who seek to do such things isn't exactly shocking to me. Perhaps I'm just more cynical than you.

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.

Manach

Yes, there is climate change. There always has been via natural sources. However the amount that human activity has contributed (while real) to this change, is still subject to debate. Certain ex-government parties were always quick to use climate change as a reason for many of their actions, so introduces an element of political skepticism about the reasoning behind a class of climate change advocates.

Mr.Micro

Manach wrote: »

Yes, there is climate change. There always has been via natural sources. However the amount that human activity has contributed (while real) to this change, is still subject to debate. Certain ex-government parties were always quick to use climate change as a reason for many of their actions, so introduces an element of political skepticism about the reasoning behind a class of climate change advocates.

Yes indeed, there has always been natural factors, but only the naive would not accept that the massive man made factors will not cause any effect. On probability alone, the man made factors have tipped the natural balance. The mind boggles as to where those in denial think all the emissions are going, especially as we exist in a giant greenhouse, where the laws of conservation of energy exist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It hardly matters if the sum is 400 thousand or 400 million, it's wrong.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

These think tanks and their backers are not happy to actually pollute the planet and contributing to climate change, they actively attempt to subvert and pollute science using propaganda.

Scepticism is a healthy thing, especially in science, but if they are really convinced that mans influence on climate change is negligible then they should investigative it scientifically and get it peer reviewed, anything less than that is just abut as scummy as it gets, considering it's done in the pursuit of profit.

Manach

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yes indeed, there has always been natural factors, but only the naive would not accept that the massive man made factors will not cause any effect. On probability alone, the man made factors have tipped the natural balance. The mind boggles as to where those in denial think all the emissions are going, especially as we exist in a giant greenhouse, where the laws of conservation of energy exist.

My reckoning, is that even if the human impact is minimum (say 1% of natural) it might have a disproporinate effect. An analogy would be a clockwork time, which if the spring is stressed at the wrong time and wrong place would have dire consequences - a black swan event. Then again, I'm naturally pessimistic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

karma_ wrote: »

Scepticism is a healthy thing, especially in science, but if they are really convinced that mans influence on climate change is negligible then they should investigative it scientifically and get it peer reviewed, anything less than that is just abut as scummy as it gets, considering it's done in the pursuit of profit.

I suppose then that An Inconvenient Truth is about as scummy as it gets too? The New Scientist's crusade against "deniers"? They even had a special issue trying to untangle the psychological problems behind such irrational behaviour as climate change skepticism; please.

If skepticism is healthy--and indeed it is integral to scientific progress--then why is it constantly ridiculed? We have a new breed of scientist simply substituting skeptic with denier in an attempt to simply discredit certain positions. Now that is dishonest science.

karma_

Valmont wrote: »

I suppose then that An Inconvenient Truth is about as scummy as it gets too? The New Scientist's crusade against "deniers"? They even had a special issue trying to untangle the psychological problems behind such irrational behaviour as climate change skepticism; please.

If skepticism is healthy--and indeed it is integral to scientific progress--then why is it constantly ridiculed? We have a new breed of scientist simply substituting skeptic with denier in an attempt to simply discredit certain positions. Now that is dishonest science.

Here's a challenge for you, go and show us all one piece of *peer reviewed scientific evidence that backs up the claims that humans have no impact on climate change.

Scepticism is healthy, it's encouraged in science, what's ridiculed is the bastardising of science that 'deniers' use, in the form of opinion, blogs and propaganda which is carried out without the evidence. Dishonest indeed.

20Cent

I suppose this is the kind of thing that we suspect happens but are still surprised when it comes out in the open. Seems that this think tank has non profit status so would have tax privileges also. That needs to be seriously looked at because if they are the propaganda wing of the energy industry then it isn't really non-profit. They don't even need to prove anything just muddy the waters. The idea of them influencing school curriculum is shocking. All donors etc should be published and any papers produced should have their sponsors on them so people can evaluate them properly.

There has been a lot of this type of behaviour exposed recently hopefully that by shining a light on this stuff corporations will find that supporting this it will hit their share prices and sales. I wonder will their sponsors be contributing next year. Fortunately there is an upsurge in awareness about issues like this at the moment. The Koch brother in Wisconsin, the pizza is a vegetable story! and of course the close ties of Wall St and government. Using money to usurp democracy a bit of what we would have to look forward to if these "libertarians" ever got power.

Lucky we still have the internet to counter such propaganda but even that is under attack now.

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"no wrong doing" -climategate "scandal"- two separate investigations. It was at that point the US "news media" promptly dropped the story.

Kinski

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm sure schoolchildren using these proposed classroom materials will be made fully aware of the Heartland Institute's ideological bent: "Today's lesson is brought to you by the letter B, the number 2, and a man-made climate-change denying, free-market thinktank."

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The important points would be that the Institute, which is quite an important lobbyist in the US debate on climate change, isn't doing science, isn't funding research - it's funding PR. So this point:

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.

In fact, the people who the Heartland Institute funds do claim to be disinterested. The implication of these releases is that their funding is PR funding from interested parties through an interested "think tank".

Is that important? Yes - after all, how can there be a "scientific debate" if one side is rather obviously just doing paid PR work on behalf of companies whose financial interests would be impacted by doing something about climate change?

And sure, maybe nobody's surprised by HI's position or activities - although the schools programme is pretty appalling - but the climate change opposition have always claimed they're just, you know, neutral parties standing up for the truth, rather than PR-company-funded marketing shills. And this kind of blows that posture away. It also blows away the HI's claim to qualify for tax exempt status by virtue of being a public interest service - this is not public interest, but private PR.

Nor is there any attempt to fund research, or any evidence that HI have access to, or even any interest in, any contrary evidence - there is nothing, nothing at all, in their documents which suggests they have anything that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Everything they're doing, everything they're funding, is PR aimed at creating uncertainty, at creating the appearance of a debate without actually doing anything to support such a debate.

What we're being shown here is the internal workings of an influential opponent of action on climate change, and it exposes the fact that they have no actual counter-argument, no actual contrary research, and no reason to oppose climate change other than they can get paid to defend the interests of businesses and wealthy individuals by doing so.

As a reason for helping delay implementation of measures that might make a difference of misery to millions of people, it's somewhat less than heart-warming.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Valmont

karma_ wrote: »

Here's a challenge for you, go and show us all one piece of *peer reviewed scientific evidence that backs up the claims that humans have no impact on climate change.

Peer reviewed science isn't as straight forward as "does it or doesn't it" in any matter, be it climate change or cognitive psychology so I think you misunderstand the process. There are many legitimate questions to be asked of the climate change lobby (or religion or whatever they call themselves): for example, shouldn't we expect more results demonstrating evidence for AGW when saying anything to the contrary would seriously damage one's career? Ability to gain funding for research?

What about Benny Peiser's objection to Naomi Oreskes paper on the peer-reviewed evidence for and against? What about the fact that Nature refused to publish his letter?

There is so much fishiness going on with the AGW lobby, their funding, their journals, and their emails, that any self-respecting scientist would be mad not to dig deeper.

karma_ wrote: »

Scepticism is healthy, it's encouraged in science, what's ridiculed is the bastardising of science that 'deniers' use, in the form of opinion, blogs and propaganda which is carried out without the evidence. Dishonest indeed.

You say it's healthy but I'm guessing my refusal to spout the party line when referencing one case of a "skeptic" questioning the evidence as above, will end up with me being lumped in with the bastardly dishonest bloggers.

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote: »

As a reason for helping delay implementation of measures that might make a difference of misery to millions of people, it's somewhat less than heart-warming.

Ha! Just like the fifty million climate refugees who didn't appear in 2010? When should we expect the next batch of non-existent millions to vanish?

karma_

Valmont wrote: »

Peer reviewed science isn't as straight forward as "does it or doesn't it" in any matter, be it climate change or cognitive psychology so I think you misunderstand the process. There are many legitimate questions to be asked of the climate change lobby (or religion or whatever they call themselves): for example, shouldn't we expect more results demonstrating evidence for AGW when saying anything to the contrary would seriously damage one's career? Ability to gain funding for research?

What about Benny Peiser's objection to Naomi Oreskes paper on the peer-reviewed evidence for and against? What about the fact that Nature refused to publish his letter?

There is so much fishiness going on with the AGW lobby, their funding, their journals, and their emails, that any self-respecting scientist would be mad not to dig deeper.

You say it's healthy but I'm guessing my refusal to spout the party line when referencing one case of a "skeptic" questioning the evidence as above, will end up with me being lumped in with the bastardly dishonest bloggers.

I misunderstand the process? You misunderstand science. Peer review is at the heart of scientific study and evaluation, scepticism isn't just looking at the data and wagging your finger, you have to prove empirically what you are saying.

It's not about party lines and opinion, it's about provable fact, and that is what makes the likes of these think tanks dishonest, and by extension those who repeat the same old tripe.

As things stand on the question of mans influence on climate change - "no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion".

Mr.Micro

Valmont wrote: »

Ha! Just like the fifty million climate refugees who didn't appear in 2010? When should we expect the next batch of non-existent millions to vanish?

You can dismiss it all you like, but who knows what may happen in the future with regard to climate change. Predictions are just that, predictions. The 50 million refugees or more, may well happen in time. There is one thing being a skeptic but another to be in complete denial, and the likes of the Heartland Institute promoting the latter is just downright irresponsible.

BluntGuy

Valmont wrote: »

What about Benny Peiser's objection to Naomi Oreskes paper on the peer-reviewed evidence for and against? What about the fact that Nature refused to publish his letter?

My understanding is that Benny Peiser has since retracted his claim that 34 peer reviewed papers were "explicitly disagreeing", as wikipedia puts it, with the AGW consensus, after it was found that his objections did not hold up to scrutiny.

An excellent article on this, along with the abstracts of the research in question can be found here

You'll have to do a bit better than that I'm afraid.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

BluntGuy wrote: »

My understanding is that Benny Peiser has since retracted his claim that 34 peer reviewed papers were "explicitly disagreeing", as wikipedia puts it, with the AGW consensus, after it was found that his objections did not hold up to scrutiny.

An excellent article on this, along with the abstracts of the research in question can be found here

You'll have to do a bit better than that I'm afraid.

He has far from "retracted his claim", downgraded maybe, but his point still stands. Oreskes' conclusion that there were Zero dissenting peer-reviewed papers was incorrect. And I was more concerned with the fact that Nature didn't even publish his letter. The science of AGW aside, I see dissent and conflicting information being hidden, distorted, and encouraged away--that isn't healthy science.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Typical deflection, let's overlook the immoral practices of the HI and instead concentrate on one document that may or may not be fake. You're losing sight of the real problem here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluntGuy

Valmont wrote: »

He has far from "retracted his claim", downgraded maybe, but his point still stands. Oreskes' conclusion that there were Zero dissenting peer-reviewed papers was incorrect. And I was more concerned with the fact that Nature didn't even publish his letter. The science of AGW aside, I see dissent and conflicting information being hidden, distorted, and encouraged away--that isn't healthy science.

Well he "downgraded" his claim from 34 papers, to 1, making his original claim, as someone pointed out, about 97.06% less correct. A somewhat ironic figure one might argue. I don't consider deliberate misrepresentation to be "healthy science".

If you ran a publication and someone sent you a piece of credulous rubbish, that falls apart under the most basic of scrutiny, would you not think twice about publishing it and instead dedicating space to better letters?

In a general context, "dissent and conflicting information being hidden, distorted and encouraged away" is better replaced most often with "myths that have been debunked countless times not being given the airtime their proponents think they deserve".

Valmont

BluntGuy wrote: »

Well he "downgraded" his claim from 34 papers, to 1, making his original claim, as someone pointed out, about 97.06% less correct. A somewhat ironic figure one might argue. I don't consider deliberate misrepresentation to be "healthy science".

There was more than that in Peiser's essay:

One of his main points of criticism is that the vast majority of the abstracts referred to in the study do not mention anthropogenic climate change, and only 13 of the 928 abstracts explicitly endorse what Oreskes called the "consensus view".[11] Peiser later admitted that it was a mistake to include one of the papers in his survey and said that his main criticism of Oreskes's essay its "claim of a unanimous consensus on APG [anthropogenic global warming (as opposed to a majority consensus) is tenuous" and that it still was valid.[12]

Deliberate misrepresentation? Is that healthy science, calling people who disagree liars? Perhaps you can see my problem here.

BluntGuy

Valmont wrote: »

There was more than that in Peiser's essay:

One of his main points of criticism is that the vast majority of the abstracts referred to in the study do not mention anthropogenic climate change, and only 13 of the 928 abstracts explicitly endorse what Oreskes called the "consensus view".[11] Peiser later admitted that it was a mistake to include one of the papers in his survey and said that his main criticism of Oreskes's essay its "claim of a unanimous consensus on APG [anthropogenic global warming (as opposed to a majority consensus) is tenuous" and that it still was valid.[12]

Except Oreskes didn't claim "unanimous consensus" anywhere in the article. Here's a link to it, find me where it says that.

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Further still, skip down to page 69 of this document for a more complete explanation of her findings.

And even if 34 papers had been found explicitly disagreeing with the consensus position, how does that challenge the notion that there is a scientific consensus? His findings are utterly insignificant.

Deliberate misrepresentation? Is that healthy science, calling people who disagree liars? Perhaps you can see my problem here.

He made a set of claims based on misrepresenting the content in Oreskes' article. The only problem I see here is Peiser making a big deal of a total non-issue in order to drum up doubt. And if his directorship of the Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank, an organisation of dubious integrity, and pieces such as this are taken into account, it would seem there is more a political agenda to his anti-climate change campaign, than a scientific one. Especially when the "science" he produces is of such poor quality.

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote:

Peer reviewed science isn't as straight forward as "does it or doesn't it" in any matter, be it climate change or cognitive psychology so I think you misunderstand the process. There are many legitimate questions to be asked of the climate change lobby (or religion or whatever they call themselves): for example, shouldn't we expect more results demonstrating evidence for AGW when saying anything to the contrary would seriously damage one's career? Ability to gain funding for research?

Valmont wrote: »

He has far from "retracted his claim", downgraded maybe, but his point still stands. Oreskes' conclusion that there were Zero dissenting peer-reviewed papers was incorrect. And I was more concerned with the fact that Nature didn't even publish his letter. The science of AGW aside, I see dissent and conflicting information being hidden, distorted, and encouraged away--that isn't healthy science.

I always enjoy the combined argument that there is peer-reviewed science that contradicts the consensus, that there are scientists who oppose it...and that simultaneously nobody dare speak against it.

Perhaps there just isn't much contradictory science because there isn't much contradictory science. And perhaps that's why outfits like HI put money into repeatedly saying there's a "scientific controversy" - because without that money it would be obvious there isn't. After all, if climate change were really a hoax it should be easy to show it - yet the contradictory science isn't there.

amused,
Scofflaw

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you accept the documents and proclaim them to be nothing you didnt already know and that the HI is quite entitled to do those things because that is their purpose.

Then when Scofflaw points out that the fact that this is their purpose destroys them as credible opponents to research into climate change you proclaim the documents to be fake and as such the entire discussion to be nullified ?

:rolleyes:

Memnoch

MungBean wrote: »

So you accept the documents and proclaim them to be nothing you didnt already know and that the HI is quite entitled to do those things because that is their purpose.

Then when Scofflaw points out that the fact that this is their purpose destroys them as credible opponents to research into climate change you proclaim the documents to be fake and as such the entire discussion to be nullified ?

:rolleyes:

It's not the argument, or the facts or the science that matters. Only the ideology.

karma_

Memnoch wrote: »

It's not the argument, or the facts or the science that matters. Only the ideology.

It also makes talking to people who hold that viewpoint an exercise in futility, because if they can't even acknowledge science based information then what is the point? as you say, it's completely ideological.

Scofflaw

karma_ wrote: »

It also makes talking to people who hold that viewpoint an exercise in futility, because if they can't even acknowledge science based information then what is the point? as you say, it's completely ideological.

It's quite bizarre, really, since for climate change science to be a hoax, it would require a similar or even greater conspiracy than faked Moon landings - yet I suspect that none of those who have posted here would have any difficulty dismissing the idea of faked Moon landings as utterly farcical.

'Faking' Moon landings: millions of dollars, thousands of people in conspiracy over decades in one country. Reaction: point and laugh.

'Faking' climate change: millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of people in conspiracy over decades in multiple countries. Reaction: swallow whole.

There's a "priceless" motivational poster in there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote: »

'Faking' climate change: millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of people in conspiracy over decades in multiple countries. Reaction: swallow whole.

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.

Mr.Micro

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.

Do you personally think that there will be climate change in the near future due to mans pollution of the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts?

RichieC

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.

"The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[88]"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w

sorry for the video, but it deals the Global warming changed to climate change cannard.

Godge

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Do you personally think that there will be climate change in the near future due to mans pollution of the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts?

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.