AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
I have another paper written by the same author and I will post it later if anyone bothers to read this one.;-)
You read a one hundred eighty-five page document in fifteen minutes. 8O, I stand in awe.
Have ya read the Table of Contents?.. It's pretty clear what the doc sets out to promote.
I'm guessing that there isn't much that doesn't inspire "awe" for you, is there?8O
I made the terrible mistake of reading the opening page - moved onto the table of contents and was able to determine that it is an opinion piece.
Seeing how the author supports his position in a manner that needs to employ emotionally charged talking points, relying on some ridiculous sentiment that the "skeptics" position assumes some strategy that cigarette companies used.
It's a waste of time. Anyone that maintains a solid and compelling argument, doesn't need to resort to some carnival-barker technique.
... So, on that note, I did read it - I read enough to understand that spending the time to peruse that 180+ pages would consume time out of my life that I could never get back.
Seeing how the author supports his position in a manner that needs to employ emotionally charged talking points, relying on some ridiculous sentiment that the "skeptics" position assumes some strategy that cigarette companies used.
It's a waste of time. Anyone that maintains a solid and compelling argument, doesn't need to resort to some carnival-barker technique.
... So, on that note, I did read it - I read enough to understand that spending the time to peruse that 180+ pages would consume time out of my life that I could never get back.
Last edited by a moderator:
The off Topic Trolling and personal attacks in this Thread have been removed.
(sadly...that was 1/2 the posts in this Thread at that point)
(sadly...that was 1/2 the posts in this Thread at that point)
This is part one of another paper on the climate denial industry.
Behind the Wegman Report and Decades of Related Anti-Science Attacks
Again in PDF format.....I will post the second part later.
Behind the Wegman Report and Decades of Related Anti-Science Attacks
Again in PDF format.....I will post the second part later.
Greenpeace Releases 20-Year History of Climate Denial Industry
Greenpeace released a terrific report today on the 20-year campaign by polluters to mislead the public by creating the climate denial industry.
The new report succinctly explains how fossil fuel interests used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” for hire in order to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change.
In the report, titled "Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science," Greenpeace provides a brief history of the attacks waged by polluting industries against climate science, the IPCC and individual scientists.
ExxonMobil deservedly gets special attention for its role as the ringleader of the "campaign of denial." As Greenpeace has documented meticulously over the years with its ExxonSecrets website, ExxonMobil is known to have invested over $23 million since 1998 to bankroll an entire movement of climate confusionists, including over 35 anti-science and right wing nonprofits, to divert attention away from the critical threat of climate disruption caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels.
The report, authored by Greenpeace climate campaigner Cindy Baxter, calls out by name a number of key climate skeptics and deniers who have worked with industry front groups to confuse the public, including S. Fred Singer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, David Legates, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Tim Ball, Pat Michaels and many other figures familiar to DeSmog Blog readers.
A number of the key “think tanks” at the forefront of the attacks on climate science - including the Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute – are also examined for their climate denial work on behalf of oil and coal interests.
Greenpeace explains how the network of denial was created in the early 1990s to dissuade politicians from taking action to prevent climate change. Chief among these early groups were the Global Climate Coalition, the Climate Council and the Information Council on the Environment (ICE).
The report also provides a brief history of the attacks launched against each of the IPCC’s scientific assessment reports dating back to 1990, noting the key players involved in each successive attack leading up to the present day attempts to tarnish the IPCC’s reputation and to falsely suggest that a debate still exists among climate scientists.
Personal attacks endured by climate scientists, especially key contributors to the IPCC reports, are also discussed in some detail, including the virulent attacks by the climate denial industry against reputed scientists like Michael Mann, Ben Santer, and Kevin Trenberth.
Greenpeace also calls out Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and other members of Congress who are beholden to polluting industries through campaign contributions, and who regularly aid and abet the climate denial industry by promoting the false and misleading claims of deniers and skeptics on Capitol Hill.
Finally, “Dealing in Doubt” notes the escalation of the denial campaign during the administration of George W. Bush, when key White House and regulatory agency positions were filled with polluter lobbyists.
The placement of Philip Cooney, a lawyer and lobbyist who spent 15 years at the American Petroleum Institute before he was picked as chief of staff in the Bush White House Council on Environmental Quality, serves as a key example. Days after the New York Times broke the story that Cooney had made extensive edits on government scientific reports on global warming, Cooney resigned to go work for ExxonMobil.
“Dealing in Doubt” is recommended reading for anyone looking for a brief primer on the history of the denial industry’s relentless campaign against science and reason. It should be required reading for members of Congress, the mainstream media, and others who continue to be duped by the climate denial industry.
Source
The new report succinctly explains how fossil fuel interests used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” for hire in order to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change.
In the report, titled "Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science," Greenpeace provides a brief history of the attacks waged by polluting industries against climate science, the IPCC and individual scientists.
ExxonMobil deservedly gets special attention for its role as the ringleader of the "campaign of denial." As Greenpeace has documented meticulously over the years with its ExxonSecrets website, ExxonMobil is known to have invested over $23 million since 1998 to bankroll an entire movement of climate confusionists, including over 35 anti-science and right wing nonprofits, to divert attention away from the critical threat of climate disruption caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels.
The report, authored by Greenpeace climate campaigner Cindy Baxter, calls out by name a number of key climate skeptics and deniers who have worked with industry front groups to confuse the public, including S. Fred Singer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, David Legates, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Tim Ball, Pat Michaels and many other figures familiar to DeSmog Blog readers.
A number of the key “think tanks” at the forefront of the attacks on climate science - including the Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute – are also examined for their climate denial work on behalf of oil and coal interests.
Greenpeace explains how the network of denial was created in the early 1990s to dissuade politicians from taking action to prevent climate change. Chief among these early groups were the Global Climate Coalition, the Climate Council and the Information Council on the Environment (ICE).
The report also provides a brief history of the attacks launched against each of the IPCC’s scientific assessment reports dating back to 1990, noting the key players involved in each successive attack leading up to the present day attempts to tarnish the IPCC’s reputation and to falsely suggest that a debate still exists among climate scientists.
Personal attacks endured by climate scientists, especially key contributors to the IPCC reports, are also discussed in some detail, including the virulent attacks by the climate denial industry against reputed scientists like Michael Mann, Ben Santer, and Kevin Trenberth.
Greenpeace also calls out Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and other members of Congress who are beholden to polluting industries through campaign contributions, and who regularly aid and abet the climate denial industry by promoting the false and misleading claims of deniers and skeptics on Capitol Hill.
Finally, “Dealing in Doubt” notes the escalation of the denial campaign during the administration of George W. Bush, when key White House and regulatory agency positions were filled with polluter lobbyists.
The placement of Philip Cooney, a lawyer and lobbyist who spent 15 years at the American Petroleum Institute before he was picked as chief of staff in the Bush White House Council on Environmental Quality, serves as a key example. Days after the New York Times broke the story that Cooney had made extensive edits on government scientific reports on global warming, Cooney resigned to go work for ExxonMobil.
“Dealing in Doubt” is recommended reading for anyone looking for a brief primer on the history of the denial industry’s relentless campaign against science and reason. It should be required reading for members of Congress, the mainstream media, and others who continue to be duped by the climate denial industry.
Source
Tim Ball: Your source for lies, slander and misleading climate "science"
Dr. Tim Ball, a man famous for lying about his resume, and for denying that he quite willingly works for oil-funded think tanks, nevertheless continues to find an audience, slandering actual climate scientists and misrepresenting - in the most manipulative way - the state of climate science.
His most recent attack is all the more stunning for having been launched during a week when the British House of Commons released a report exonerating one of Ball's targets, Dr. Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the East Anglia University.
In one of Ball's regular contributions to the conspiracy-theory website Canada Free Press, he begins with this:
"Few understand the extent of corrupted science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Data was altered, or completely ignored and research deliberately directed to prove their claim that humans were causing global warming."
Ball's evidence for the charge of "corrupted science"? None, really. His proof that data were altered or ignored? Zero. Rather, Ball goes on to build a complicated case about whether the best climate scientists in the world are subject to "groupthink."
To Ball's credit, this actually feels for a while like a careful analysis. He pulls out the usual symptoms of groupthink (as originally described by Irving Janus) and then cherry picks apparently relevant quotes from the now-famous stolen East Anglia emails to support his argument.
But even here Ball screws it up. In fact, his quotes often completely disprove his thesis. Take this section for example:
Not expressing your true feelings. On the October 14, 2009 (Kevin) Trenberth expresses something to Tom Wigley that none of them ever dared say in public. (")How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
A travesty? If this is Kevin Trenberth hiding his true feelings, you probably don't want to be around when he lets loose. But then, Ball knows full well that the conversation among these scientists has been blistering, forthright and sometimes harshly critical. He quoted this excerpt from Dr. Keith Briffa in a previous CFP article:
I have just read this lettter (sic) - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. ...
On 22nd September 1999 Briffa again confronted Mann in a long email that included the comment, “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” Treasonous words for Mann’s hockey stick paper that claimed no medieval warm period existed. Mann appeared to back off. He wrote, “Walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil (Jones) have both raised some very good points."
There seems little evidence here of groupthink. Rather, it seems that these guys are fiercely critical of one another and - in the case of Mann, especially - incredibly big about hearing that criticism and responding in a professional manner.
Of course, it might be easy for Mann to be big. He has been vindicated not just by a committee of review at his own university (Penn State), but also by steadily accumulating body of science that has confirmed the accuracy of his iconic "hockey stick" graph.
The annoying part is that Ball knows this - or he would if he had even a passing interest in climate science. His interest, however, appears limited to self promotion and to doing the bidding of his corporate funders.
The frightening part is that people keep listening to him. Ball recently enjoyed a little airtime on a regional Joy TV program called The Standard, to which he was invited by the producer Jonathan Roth. When questioned recently as to why he chose Ball, Roth said he couldn't find anyone else who would stand up for the "other side" in the climate change "debate."
That should tell you something. If this is the best spokester available - if you have to rely on someone whose record for accuracy and integrity is decidedly in the dumpster - wouldn't that be a reasonable time to conclude that the "debate" is a sham?
Rhetorical question. Woeful that people like Roth are still struggling with the answer.
Dr. Tim Ball, a man famous for lying about his resume, and for denying that he quite willingly works for oil-funded think tanks, nevertheless continues to find an audience, slandering actual climate scientists and misrepresenting - in the most manipulative way - the state of climate science.
His most recent attack is all the more stunning for having been launched during a week when the British House of Commons released a report exonerating one of Ball's targets, Dr. Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the East Anglia University.
In one of Ball's regular contributions to the conspiracy-theory website Canada Free Press, he begins with this:
"Few understand the extent of corrupted science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Data was altered, or completely ignored and research deliberately directed to prove their claim that humans were causing global warming."
Ball's evidence for the charge of "corrupted science"? None, really. His proof that data were altered or ignored? Zero. Rather, Ball goes on to build a complicated case about whether the best climate scientists in the world are subject to "groupthink."
To Ball's credit, this actually feels for a while like a careful analysis. He pulls out the usual symptoms of groupthink (as originally described by Irving Janus) and then cherry picks apparently relevant quotes from the now-famous stolen East Anglia emails to support his argument.
But even here Ball screws it up. In fact, his quotes often completely disprove his thesis. Take this section for example:
Not expressing your true feelings. On the October 14, 2009 (Kevin) Trenberth expresses something to Tom Wigley that none of them ever dared say in public. (")How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
A travesty? If this is Kevin Trenberth hiding his true feelings, you probably don't want to be around when he lets loose. But then, Ball knows full well that the conversation among these scientists has been blistering, forthright and sometimes harshly critical. He quoted this excerpt from Dr. Keith Briffa in a previous CFP article:
I have just read this lettter (sic) - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. ...
On 22nd September 1999 Briffa again confronted Mann in a long email that included the comment, “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” Treasonous words for Mann’s hockey stick paper that claimed no medieval warm period existed. Mann appeared to back off. He wrote, “Walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil (Jones) have both raised some very good points."
There seems little evidence here of groupthink. Rather, it seems that these guys are fiercely critical of one another and - in the case of Mann, especially - incredibly big about hearing that criticism and responding in a professional manner.
Of course, it might be easy for Mann to be big. He has been vindicated not just by a committee of review at his own university (Penn State), but also by steadily accumulating body of science that has confirmed the accuracy of his iconic "hockey stick" graph.
The annoying part is that Ball knows this - or he would if he had even a passing interest in climate science. His interest, however, appears limited to self promotion and to doing the bidding of his corporate funders.
The frightening part is that people keep listening to him. Ball recently enjoyed a little airtime on a regional Joy TV program called The Standard, to which he was invited by the producer Jonathan Roth. When questioned recently as to why he chose Ball, Roth said he couldn't find anyone else who would stand up for the "other side" in the climate change "debate."
That should tell you something. If this is the best spokester available - if you have to rely on someone whose record for accuracy and integrity is decidedly in the dumpster - wouldn't that be a reasonable time to conclude that the "debate" is a sham?
Rhetorical question. Woeful that people like Roth are still struggling with the answer.