How does one converse with a denier of human-induced climate change?

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by ecodharmamark, Mar 19, 2010.

  1. springtide

    springtide Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry but climate change = make money, no climate change = make money, people deliberate for the next 50 years on the merits of climate change= make money, aliens get tired of Elvis and drop him off in Madison Square garden at half time = make money.
    Try having a look at "This Other Eden" by Ben Elton - it is good for a laugh and points out the possibilities for making a fast buck.
     
  2. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting spin on the situation, springtime. However, I feel the time for laughing is over, as is the time for making money. What we now need to do is concentrate on making the biosphere a safe place to live for our children, our children's children, our children's children's children... I fail to see the joke, Ben Elton-esque, or otherwise.
     
  3. Rob Windt

    Rob Windt Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Leakegate: Scientist fights back
    via https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/leakegate_scientist_fights_bac.php#more

    Simon Lewis has made an official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about Jonathan Leake's dishonest reporting on the Amazon rainforests. David Adam reports:

    Lewis said: "There is currently a war of disinformation about climate change-related science, and my complaint can hopefully let journalists in the front line of this war know that there are potential repercussions if they publish misleading stories. The public deserve careful and accurate science reporting." ...

    Lewis also complains that the Sunday Times used several quotes from him in the piece to support the assertion that the IPCC report had made a false claim. "Despite repeatedly stating to the Sunday Times that there is no problem with the sentence in the IPCC report, except the reference."

    Lewis said he made the PCC complaint, which runs to 31 pages, only after other attempts to raise his concerns failed. A letter to the Sunday Times, he says, was not acknowledged or printed, and a comment he posted on its website was deleted.

    The Sunday Times is complicit in Leake's dishonesty and it's good to see Lewis holding them to account.

    Update: Joe Romm has posted Lewis' 31 page complaint.
    https://climateprogress.org/2010/03...-amazon-gate-ipcc-sunday-times-complaint-pcc/
    Highlight:

    I spoke to Jonathan Leake on the afternoon of Saturday 30, a few hours before the article went to press, as he wanted to check the quotes he was using by me (checking quotes was agreed between ourselves on Friday 29 January). The entire article was read to me, and quotes by me agreed, including a statement that the science in the IPCC report was and is correct. The article was reasonable, and quotes were not out of context. Indeed I was happy enough that I agreed to assist in checking the facts for the graphic to accompany the article (I can supply the emails if necessary). Yet, following this telephone call the article was entirely and completely re-written with an entirely new focus, new quotes from me included and new (incorrect) assertions of my views. I ask the Sunday Times to disclose the version of article that was read out to me, and provide an explanation as to why the agreed correct, undistorted, un-misleading article, and specifically the quotes from me, was not published, and an entirely new version produced.

    https://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Lewis_S_Times_PCC_Complaint_As_Sent1.pdf
     
  4. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the heads up, Rob.

    As an old journo acquaintance of mine once quipped: "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

    Jonathan Leake's career in journalism can be explored here: Journalisted.com - Jonathan Leake

    Cheerio, Marko.
     
  5. pippimac

    pippimac Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Before this thread (rapidly) descended into an "i'm right' "no, I'm right" argument, it did make me think about a few things that have recently made me examine some of my presumptions.
    I had always assumed that those that shared my 'lefty-pinko-hippy' attitudes (cheers Grandad) would of course agree with me that our passionate affair with petrochemicals would end in...etc etc...
    Well apparently not. There's a man on the West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand who makes bread from grain grown on fields plowed with his donkeys. He thinks anthropogenic climate change is a load of cobblers.
    A friend who's inclined toward the, shall we say, 'conspiracy theory' angle, thinks its all a big money-making scheme. He's all about "sticking it to the man" and "the man" has morphed from a certain ex-president to another guy who, while leading the public-relations charge on climate-change has done rather well for himself...
    And another presumption bites the dust as people on permaculture forums don't agree either!
    One last presumption hopefully stands: I imagine none of the above people owns a hummer, a factory or a coalmine. Hopefully.
     
  6. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day pippimac

    It would be a boring old world if we all agreed. Have a look at my 800-or-so previous posts, I think you will find what you are looking for in terms of what I am on about. At the very least, it might save you from making too many more incorrect assumptions.

    Hooroo, Marko.
     
  7. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day pippimac

    Re-reading what I have just written makes me think that I was a little harsh in responding to your comments. I have no excuse other than to say it has been a long day. I am sorry if my previous post offended you. Further, please understand that the discussion you have just entered into (and, as a consequence, have offered your own qualitative data up for collection), is primarily concerned with the tactics that denialists of human-induced climate change employ, and in itself forms part of wider research that I am currently undertaking in this area (writing of which, I think my 'test subject' has just cottoned on to this fact). Sure, we have digressed a little here and there (bloody hard not to in this game, particularly when one is attacked ad hominem), but on the whole I have tried to keep it as 'civil' as can be. For a broader understanding of the topic, please read the various references that I have cited in all my work, both in this thread, and in the other threads that I have been involved in with similar themes.

    Regarding of all the above: I have now collected enough data, so as far as I am concerned, my interest in this particular thread has ended.

    Thank you all for your time and thoughts, Marko.
     
  8. LOL, pippimac, looks like ya scared the ecoharma away... :D


    "attacked ad hominen" like when ya call somebody a "climate denier" thus relateing them to the holocaust. I'm thinking since i keep getting called the most vile of names, in reply i'll start calling Al Gores stooge a "climate muppet" ...actually, "Gores stooge" aint bad either.....:D


    Apparently i'm part of this - "A small group of dedicated people coming from a diverse range of positions and perspectives but working together as a loose federation held together by shared values and beliefs succeeded in accomplishing the most impressive PR coup of the 21st century"

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/skeptic-warmer-networking-update-with-no-update/





    .
     
  9. Factorys... do we have any left ?

    Dont know anybody except for Arny and GI joe who own Hummers, tho all Oz citizins 'own' several hundred years supply of coal. Most Australians also have an interest via super in the companys that mine the coal. All Australians on any sort of govmint benifits also have a BIG interest in coal via tax paid from the miners etc.





    .
     
  10. pippimac

    pippimac Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good point on the mines: being flippant a bad idea as usual! It's easy to me to feel smug since I'm 'doing my bit'; but if our government gets its way, me, and all my fellow 'owners' will be 'surgically extracting' minerals from national parks. Of course it's been happening for donkeys; just under the media radar.
     
  11. smartymarty66

    smartymarty66 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I found a fantastic website that talks about the science of climate change and answers many of the questions people have. I would be interested in seeing what others here think of this site.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/
     
  12. springtide

    springtide Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey FB, for some reason the Aust govt' is selling so much coal to China, India, etc that our "reserves" probably wont last the end of the century - Maybe if it gets a bit warmer we can start mining Antarctica (when the treaty runs out) and just keep digging stuff up.
     
  13. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day smartymarty66

    Welcome to the PRI Forum.

    I think that if you had given the author of Skeptical Science a better, more comprehensive introduction, then people (such as myself) would be less inclined to think that you were just spamming for yet another crank, denialist webpage - however, nothing could be further ffrom the truth. Thank you for alerting us (well, I can only speak for myself) to this very refreshing, and no doubt genuine 'labour of love'. As such, I have taken the liberty of doing it for you:

    The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

    Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

    About the author

    Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

    There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.


    Source: About Skeptical Science

    Hooroo, and thanks again, Marko.
     
  14. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, you are right on both counts. Kakadu (World Heritage) NP is a great example of this: Ranger Uranium Mine
     
  15. smartymarty66

    smartymarty66 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sorry, I usually have much better manners than that and you are quite right. Thanks for adding that extra information. My only excuse is that it was late and i was tired.
     
  16. pippimac

    pippimac Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ecodharmamark
    Somehow missed a couple of posts...
    I realised straight away I'd stomped rudely (and ignorantly) into someone's debate!
    Oh well, we're all friends here.
     
  17. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not a problem, pip. It is after all an open forum, and we are conversing in a space called the 'big picture', where 'rants and raves' are not only permissible, they are encouraged. Feel free to join in anytime.

    Cheerio, Marko.
     
  18. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SM

    No need to be 'sorry'. I could not fault your 'manners' in providing the link. I was just being mildly critical of the delivery mode, because it reminded me so much of the way spam is presented. Many scholars (as I am presuming you are?) work 'late' and as a result get 'tired'; I am a great example of this phenomenon. However, your ability to return and clarify shows great strength. Once again, thank you for the link. Please feel free to join us anytime.

    M
     
  19. Pray with me...

    Our IPCC who art in Switzerland,
    hallowed be thy name.
    Thy bureaucratic internationalism come.
    Thy recommendations be run-
    saving the earth by fixing the heavens.

    Give us this day our ETS,
    and forgive us our [insert activist self-criticism when one emerges],
    as we forgive those who make inaccurate and revised predictions.
    And lead us not into open debate
    but deliver us from further questions.

    For the endless summits, the falsification, and the Nobel Prize are yours
    now and forever.

    Amen.... :)

    Via - https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/ipcc-prayer
     
  20. Back to the serious stuff...

    Interesting this -

    The Climategate emails confirmed much of what the sceptics had been saying for years.

    They confirmed that the peer review process had been corrupted, that scientists were arranging friendly reviews.

    They confirmed that the science journals had been corrupted.

    That journals that refused to play ball with the doomsayers faced boycotts and their editors faced firing.

    They confirmed that sceptical scientists were being systematically excluded from the top‐tier journals.
    The Climategate emails confirmed that journalists were likewise threatened with boycotts if they didn’t play ball.

    The Climategate emails confirmed that the science itself was suspect. That the doomsayers themselves couldn’t make the data work. That they were debating among themselves some of the same points that the sceptics raised, and were privately acknowledging that they didn’t have answers to the issues that the sceptics raised.

    The Climategate emails confirmed that the doomsayers were so determined to hide their data from inquiring minds that they were prepared to break the law to hide it – and did break the law – by avoiding Freedom of Information requests.

    The Climategate emails confirmed that raw temperature data collected from countries around the world was destroyed. It appears the UK is missing raw temperature data going back to 1850.

    The scientists at the heart of the Climategate emails aren’t fringe players on some periphery. They operate what’s known as the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. This is the group that collects temperature data, messages it, and then feeds it to the UN and others. This is the data that we have been relying on to tell us if the globe has been warming or not. This same data is then used by virtually everyone in the climate science field who is concerned with historical temperatures....


    cont. - https://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/putting-climategate-in-perspective/





    .
     

Share This Page

-->