Climate Change Deniers Channelling the Tobacco Industry

[Bar Sinister]

I have posted material similar to this elsewhere, but I thought this a useful addition. The article claims that climate change deniers are using techniques similar to those used by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the climate issue.

What the article does not mention is that some of the same "experts" hired by big tobacco to deny tobacco use as a health problem are now being used by big oil and big coal to spout their unscientific nonsense. These people put a "Dr." in front of their names and parade themselves as "scientists" who deny global warming. It is a well known technique - when scientific proof is lacking then simply resort to lies - for some people they work just as well or even better.

Climate-change deniers are channelling the tobacco industry

 

[Ron in Regina]

Seems like there's Shenanigans taking place on all sides of this issue.
There's enough B.S. on all sides to cloud the issue beyond...beyond.

Neither side listens to the other regardless of any facts presented
or questions asked, it seems....

Use this Thread: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/climate-change/69124-global-warming-greatest-scam-history-99.html
....as an example of what I'm saying. It'll be 100 pages deep within a
couple of hours. It's just one thread (of many) on one Forum (of many)
as a snapshot example of how this "debate" has panned out to date.

This example of this one Thread is a microcosm of the Global debate
that also has neither side listening to the other regardless of any facts
presented or questions asked.

 

[Slim Chance]

Well Ron; What exactly are "the facts?"

In response to the OP: "The article claims that climate change deniers are using techniques similar to those used by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the climate issue."

It seems that the pro-GW groups are employing the identical strategies that Bernie Madoff relied upon to further his position way back when.

Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Avro]

Well Ron; What exactly are "the facts?"

In response to the OP: "The article claims that climate change deniers are using techniques similar to those used by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the climate issue."

It seems that the pro-GW groups are employing the identical strategies that Bernie Madoff relied upon to further his position way back when.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Okay.

 

[Tonington]

It's not news to anyone who has followed this. The George Marshall Institute was a big supporter of tobacco companies during those years when hearings were being held, and now they're doing the same for their energy clients in the climate policy war. A few paid scientists to highlight uncertainty, no mater how small the uncertainty was. Uncertainty is always there, and for a scientist who knows this to use such a tactic is outright disinformation and willing deceit.

One of the climate deniers even played a large role in the tobacco related illness denialism, Fred Singer.

Want an example Ron, of how it is not the same on both sides? What happens when an error is reported by another climatologist in the IPCC report? The error is corrected, the statement appended or removed accordingly.

How about the so-called skeptics? What happens when they are caught sowing doubt in ways which any practicing science knows is incorrect? Do they change their blog entry? Nope. Move onto the next detail. You can read all about one particular incident here:
On “constructive debate” « The Way Things Break

They aren't interested in constructive debate. That's what makes certain individuals deniers, and what separates them from skeptics. In fact most calling themselves climate skeptics are not skeptical at all.

 

[Ron in Regina]

What of those of us that're hugely skeptical of both sides of this polarized
squabble....and would wish for nothing less than a public debate with every
one of the Preachers from either side hooked up to Polygraph machines
with the results displayed on Big Screens behind their heads during the
debate? That's the camp I'm in at this point....& I'm not holding my breath
waiting on this bit of wishful thinking....but it would be a nice way to cut to
the chase to dispel the fog of B.S. on both sides.

There's too much money & power riding on this issue to blindly trust anyone
on this issue. Pollution is a bad thing. It always has been and always will be,
but that's not the issue here and is just a side-track. We all need to clean up
our acts. Beyond that, all the greedy individual Snake-Oil salesmen on both
sides preaching salvation for a fee just turns my stomach. We've been
hammered with conflicting propaganda for so long that I've just become so
desensitized to it that it all sounds like the teacher from Peanuts to me.

"Whah whah whaah whahh whahha whahhh whah...." Oh well, carry on...

 

[Tonington]

What would you like to see debated? You know that reviewer comments from the IPCC can be read by all?

Working group I- Physical basis
Working group II- Climate Change Impacts
Working Group III- Mitigating options for policy

In absentia of the debate conditions you would want to see, the next best thing is to educate yourself, and if people don't have the time for that, then rely on the expert witnesses who prepared these reports, pro bono.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I'm sure the IPCC is a fair and balanced (read: Unbiased & Unpolitical...without
an agenda to market) entity and their version of things is as readily found as
anyone else's version of reality. The IPCC is scientific (not a political) body.
Right? No horse in the race there....just like the Braidwood Inquiry and all of the
unbiased expert witnesses that where rented for their testimony on each side.

Believe it or not, I have been educating myself on this issue for quite some time,
and thus my disgust with those on both sides of the smoke and mirrors. I'm not a
Scientist, but I'm usually able to eventually smell something gone bad, and that
stink is rolling off of both ends of this thing. That's what seems so clear to me, &
yet I watch the disciples in both camps who can only attack each other without
trying to be skeptical of the motives of many on both sides of this mess.

I'm sure there are many folks on both sides that truly believe in (without greed of
power or cash or influence, etc...) being their motivation (= altruistic) in what they're
fighting over....but I think they're outnumbered by the propaganda spinners and
mud slingers fighting over power that can be influenced as their only motivation,
by both sides of this goat rodeo. Anyone who doesn't see this needs to step back
to try and see the forest, not just the trees. That's where I'm at on this subject.

Those that can't smell the stink on both ends of this thing are too close to one side
or the other to really look at both sides. This debate shouldn't be a belief system
conflict with the mentality of "Full Steam Ahead 'till we Bulldoze the Opposition, no
matter what!" from both camps....but that's what I see happening whether it's on a
Forum, or even a Global level. Nobody is even try'n to look at their arguments from
the perspective of the other side....by either side.

 

[Tonington]

Well Ron, I've been following this thing for the better part of the last decade, and it's been pretty one sided as far as I can tell.

There are thousands of studies, literally, which have been adding to the body of knowledge, and strengthening the case for mitigating global warming.

Orders of magnitude fewer studies that come to opposite conclusions, which are roundly debated by other scientists, whose comments can be found in the peer reviewed literature. Which is the proper way to do it. You can't just spew toxic venom in peer review, which is why I think many skeptics who could publish, or have published, choose not to.

Then you on the flip side; I already gave you an example of one type of dishonesty that is now routine. There is also the stuff where so called skeptics try to discredit scientists by inventing quotes, or misrepresenting their science.

These are recent examples I've given to you, and they have not been retracted. In fact, some of these journalists continue onward without so much as a second thought. They get away with it because it's their opinion...

You find me one instance where a skeptic has been quoted improperly and the story was not retracted. Just one. Or, one case where their science was used to claim something they didn't in fact find.

The illusion of parity here is what they want, and how media reports it, when in fact there is no parity at all.

Check out the work at deltoid or deepclimate. They have done exceptional jobs at what used to be standard amongst journalists, which they are not.

Parity? Not even close. Have the "alarmist scientists" broken into email servers, and made personal details public in an attempt to discredit their opponents? Yes, there was some bad stuff in those emails, but that doesn't make up for years of abuse.

 

[Tonington]

Hate mail for Australian scientists who dare to be in public debates of anthropogenic climate change.

 

[L Gilbert]

Ron, I am sceptical of both sides of the issue, also. But when I ignore the politics and other such nonsense and look at the data, of which there's an abundance, I see global warming.
We've been spewing garbage into the air ever since we figured out how to make stuff burn and chemicals do change weather - it's a fact. Weather is part of climate - it's a fact. So it is not at all shocking to me to reach the conclusion we've messed with the climate at least indirectly.