Another Day, Another Climate Skeptic Exposed As Fossil Fuel Industry Stooge

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
here is why I don't trust today's science:

Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.

www .ucsusa.org

This has come up a couple of times in this thread now so I’ll address it again a little deeper this time.

The link you posted is from the Union of Concerned Scientists – they are one of the best resources out there for this discussion, and yes you are correct: corporate interests have indeed corrupted a lot of science. But you’re really not understanding which direction this corruption flows.

Look again at the blurb you quoted for instance:

Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.

That’s exactly what the OP was about – what fossil fuel companies are doing to silence and corrupt mainstream climate science. They are suppressing it and painting it a hoax because the results are VERY inconvenient to their business interests. It’s exactly the same as how tobacco companies suppressed science on the health hazards of smoking, and before that how petroleum companies suppressed the harmful effects of lead additives in gasoline. This is nothing new.

Meanwhile as far as intimidating scientists - Christopher Horner is one of the most serial offenders. The article in the OP already explained in detail how much he has harassed climate scientists with frivolous litigation and public slander. And he’s the one collecting cheques from those nasty corporate interests.

Do you really not see the forest for the trees here??

It’s like you almost get it, but then take a u-turn at the last second and end up getting the whole agenda backwards instead.

I recommend more reading on ucsusa.org. Here’s another article that puts everything they’re saying in your first link in much more explicit terms:

Documenting Fossil Fuel Companies’ Climate Deception

It’s the skeptic scientists (the very few that actually exist) who are bought and paid for here. They’re the ones corrupting the science by deliberately trying to undermine it. So are all the other shills framing this whole thing as a hoax and a massive conspiracy – e.g. all the PR reps and attorneys like Chris Horner who work for these corporate cronies.
Obvious conspiracy is obvious.

But if you really want to believe the consensus is the hoax, because apparently mainstream proponents are hypocrites for flying on jets, then explain how scientists like John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius fit into that little conspiracy theory:

John Tyndall discovered the Greenhouse Effect in 1859, and Svante Arrhenius subsequently predicted rising temperatures induced by this effect through rising CO2 in 1896. The science on man made global warming has been around before jets even existed. But, as it’s become more and more consequential over the years – so has the denial and deflection against it.

So you have two conflicting conspiracies here, everything on one side is consistent and adds up across 150 years of history, while everything on the other is loopy, self-contradicting, and extremely naïve.

HMMM, accidentally forgot the Obama support of George Soro's didn't you...but then again that would have made you look like the rest of the liberal morons in Washington DC...

40 to 50% of the deniers think the sun revolves around the earth. There is no point in trying to reason with idiots.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Trying to explain the REAL conspiracy behind climate change to a skeptic:

OK, I give. But I have a question for all AGW proponents.
Can you explain why every planet in the SOL system is warming.
I guess our carbon out-put has affected them too.
Or the other guilty party, the Sun itself.
I think I will put my money on the latter.

a reply to: Cynic

Because every planet in the solar system is not warming. It's just another two-bit denier myth peddled by shills like Christopher Horner.

What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system

*rolls eyes*

Most overlook the plain and simple truth - and here it is, like it or not.

It's called pollution, period.

Is it screwing up our environment? Yes.
As much as they are leading us to believe? No.

From claims from the ridiculous like 'cow farts' cause 'global warming',
to the outlandish of chicken little's 'the sky is falling' - the point is, that no Gov't agency (even the EPA who recently poisoned, effectively ruining HOW MUCH water and surrounding earth?) will be able to 'clean' up anything.

Instead of offering punishments for doing the SAME DAMNED thing they do, they should offer incentives instead to help make the world 'a better place'. Would help create jobs as a nice side-effect.

Fines, or 'carbon credits' won't make pollution any cleaner - all it does is fill those people's pockets who were able to sell the mentally sedated into paying more for the exact same things they had before. Companies won't absorb the costs, they'll pass them on, making things more expensive or close altogether, costing jobs. Either way, it's not a very good outlook for a 'solution'.

Clamoring for, or against is just a smoke screen and offers no real solution to the problem that's the backdrop for this whole bullsh*t puzzle - POLLUTION.

Incentives would work and could create jobs as a nice side-effect, putting money back into the coffers from which came from, perhaps, potentially more.

So not that everyone (or anyone possibly) cares about another chattering box being tossed into the mix, but there you have it - it's typed (albeit not very well), so either reach for a solution, or not. But if you're not wanting to find a POSITIVE solution, you need to look into the mirror - as part of the problem.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

The entire purpose of this post was?

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose?

No. The data leads to conclusions or at least theory compatible with the facts.

The deniers have no support to indicate that climate change is NOT occurring. What they do not want to KNOW is if the human component of these changes should be adjusted. They want to be ignorant. They want to BELIEVE!!!

Somehow it works against the grain of the BELIEF SYSTEM, held so dear by so many idiots (Because the world really is scary!), causing a painful fracture that is NOT EASILY dealt with.

Essentially folks are fearful and retreat behind walls of ignorance until the reality storm dwindles. Sometimes benign neglect has a place in policy. Unless we intend for the remnants of the humans to dwell in domes, it seems to me that not acting like adults, confronting the EXTINCTION EVENT dead in front of you, that you should just put that gun to your head now and get the hell out of the way.

Your playground is closed due to corrosive, recurring, doltish behavior. Now just go away until we can straighten this out enough to survive.

a reply to: daveinats

The 'rest of the 'idiots' in Washington'.

Seems to be ad hominem attack on a fellow ATSer.

But then you have nothing relevant to say because your politics have completely overcome any remaining sanity in that soft head. Soft because you have run into walls of logic and facts all your life and you never could explain the contusions and bruises you accumulated on that skull. Because you DO NOT want to believe you are just a smuck.

I understand ego defense. What you may want to try is taking a 'position'. Instead of believing, create a stance that is supported by real stuff instead of fantasy that suits your ego. In the long run your ego will adjust to being correct and you won't have to use trite thinking to buttress it.

You'll be almost as cool as you think you are now.

One of the things I've noticed about the Alarmist camp is how the reality of it's own funding by oil companies is never discussed. For instance, when the CRU under Phil Jones accepted 52.5 million from big oil to expand its facilities. Or when Al Gore sold his television station to big oil for 300 million. Every time an alarmist scientist or pundit takes money from big oil, it is simply accepted as okay because those scientists are "the good guys". But, when it comes to the MANY scientists and academics who publish solid and clean scientific research on the matter, that comes to contrary conclusions in regards to the desired narrative, they are the scum of the Earth, and regardless of the quality of their work, the focus is solely on some loose link to big oil.

Conversely, when James Hansen chains himself to trees as an environmental activist, and gets arrested in the process, somehow, to an alarmist, it shouldn't cast a tainted light on his work in pursuit of the Climate Change narrative.

The problem with Alarmism, as I see it, is that it is inherently irrational. It does not care about the concrete, empirical evidence refuting it's beliefs because it is political, not scientific.

Alarmism is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, these days, and if you expand that to include investments in so-called green energy, we can increase that number into post 1.5 trillion dollar territory since alarmism became the battle cry of environmentalism, politicians, and activist scientists.

The truth is temperatures are at a stand still now, and they we're warmer as recently as the 1930's, as well as it being far warmer during the medieval warm period, which we now know, unequivocally, was world wide in scope and long lasting.

Incidences of drought, wild fire, floods, heat waves, tornadoes, hurricanes, show no trend at all, or, in many cases, a declining trend over the last 20 years. The U.S. is now, everyday, setting a new record for no major hurricanes striking the mainland. Obama is the only President in U.S. history to never witness a category 3 storm strike the United States.

Meanwhile, Antarctic ice cover expands, as it has for 30 years, and even the Arctic has failed to melt as predicted (if we go back to 1975, we find ice levels comparable to today). In addition to this, Arctic ice volume is up 33 percent since 2012.

I can keep going, and I look forward to authoring many well referenced articles on the subject as time goes by, here on ATS.

To sum, the entire Alarmist case has empirically fallen asunder, with only politics, emotions, and activism keeping the story alive.

As an environmentalist, I find it appalling that we waste so much time arguing over a non-problem that is working masterfully in the interests of international finance, big resource, and in general, environmental degradation, which will continue no matter how much we regulate co2.

a reply to: FPV2015
Your post is full of false information.

Was it really necessary to use the term 'alarmist' so many times?

No, you are not an environmentalist. I find that insulting to environmentalists for you to make that claim.

Thanks for the reply. I use the term Alarmist because that is what it is: Alarmism. The idea that there is something to be worried about that will destroy the Earth as we know it, i.e. Raising the alarm. When we, on this side, are referred to as deniers, I prefer to correct that to realist, and rather than call someone a warmist (which seems to miss the point) I use the term alarmist.

Yes, I am an environmentalist. Simply saying "No, you are not" does not make it so. In fact, making brief, blanket statements do not do anything to diminish the truth in the facts I conveyed. I am willing to bet I live a far more ecologically sound life than yourself, or many others, and I still have a long way to go myself before I feel perfectly contented with my impact on the world.

What specifically is misinformation? I'd be delighted to back up anything I said with papers and proof, but you have to be specific.

Honestly, it's insulting to environmentalism that co2, a harmless gas, takes all the attention while the world is raped and destroyed unnoticed because the focus is on a huge non-problem.

But, again, what specifically is false in what I said?

Thank you.

a reply to: network dude

Yup, I think these discussions should continue just as they have. Keep everyone occupied on who we need to blame, while ignoring the steps that could be taken to enact change.

This above is my beef with it all now. Blaming and arguing numbers while ice is melting and climate is in chaos is so stupid it's not even funny.

Im over pointing fingers and ready to take action with my family.

For the ones who don't believe anything is going to happen within our life time.... Good luck with that.

a reply to: MamaJ

Im over pointing fingers and ready to take action with my family.

Good for you.
See ya.

a reply to: FPV2015

And I use the term denier because you are denying what the data and science is telling us.

Saying you are an environmentalist also does not make you one.

Pretty much all your points are addressed here: Most used climate myths and what the science actually says

The problem with Alarmism, as I see it, is that it is inherently irrational. It does not care about the concrete, empirical evidence refuting it's beliefs because it is political, not scientific.

You have that wrong, there are the observations and science to back up the rising CO2 and added heat it will trap in our atmosphere. You have it backwards, it is your side of the fence who takes the political arguments while ignoring the actual science and our observations.

The truth is temperatures are at a stand still now, and they we're warmer as recently as the 1930's, as well as it being far warmer during the medieval warm period, which we now know, unequivocally, was world wide in scope and long lasting.

Also false.

Meanwhile, Antarctic ice cover expands, as it has for 30 years, and even the Arctic has failed to melt as predicted (if we go back to 1975, we find ice levels comparable to today). In addition to this, Arctic ice volume is up 33 percent since 2012.

Wrong again!

To sum, the entire Alarmist case has empirically fallen asunder, with only politics, emotions, and activism keeping the story alive.

More BS!!! It is the deniers who bring out the political and emotional talking points.

Alarmism is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, these days, and if you expand that to include investments in so-called green energy, we can increase that number into post 1.5 trillion dollar territory since alarmism became the battle cry of environmentalism, politicians, and activist scientists.

Where did your pull those numbers from? Seems like more BS, you need to cite sources when you make such claims.

It is insulting that someone like you will pretend to be an environmentalist, then twist the narrative around and accuse us(the environmentalist and scientists) of the same crap the Merchants of Doubt and Science Denier crowd does in these discussions.

This is a discussion. The debate over CO2 and it's role in climate change is over and has been for many years.

The problem, Mama, is the ice ISN'T melting. Global ice coverage is pretty well unchanged since the satellite record began.

If we go back further, to the pre-satelite record, we can see that ice was lower than it is today through most of the 1960's and 1970's. 1979 is a disingenuous start date for ice tracking graphs because it is the high point in the record.

We also tend to forget, once we embrace alarmism, that we have been in a post ice age melt period for around 10,000 years, with ice concentrations fluctuating widely.

The other issue is that the climate isn't in chaos. At all. I mean, sure, we can see more of the weather from all over the world because of the internet and mass media, but the reality is, any student of weather history knows climate has never once been stable. It has been making history with its warmth, and it's cold, for as long as there is a history to tell.

We are in the midst of a big money dupe, and there is no financial incentive to over turn it because all the money is going in the pockets of researches willing to do anything to shore up the thesis that man's co2 is destroying the world.

a reply to: FPV2015

If we go back further, to the pre-satelite record, we can see that ice was lower than it is today through most of the 1960's and 1970's.

Actually, records from the 50s are used. Those prior to that are not of much use in determining sea ice extent because the data points are too sparse.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Can you provide earlier data which shows less extent prior to the 1950s?

Jrod: You ask me for sources, but you provide none yourself. You simply quote me, and write "WRONG!" after, as though that proves it all.

And the one link you provide isn't exactly from an impartial sources, and thus, you prove my point.

But let me be gracious. NOAA, who is the only agency telling us the world is warming immensely, is ignoring the most advanced temperature data available to it in favor of a data set well documented to be corrupted.

The most accurate data sets show the lack of warming is a reality. Considering the Satellite record, which NOAA refuses to use, because it shows no warming.

Additionally, NOAA has cooled the past through numerous "adjustments" so that the record warmth of the 1930's has been eliminated. The adjustments are arbitrary, and not well explained.

But, you see, you would have to really want to know the truth to find out, and often I find alarmists simply are too emotional to look at the subject impartially.

"This is a discussion. The debate over CO2 and it's role in climate change is over and has been for many years."
________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is an example of the same closed mindedness that you accuse the so-called deniers of having. You're a legend in your own mind my friend.

a reply to: FPV2015

NOAA, who is the only agency telling us the world is warming immensely

False.

The adjustments are arbitrary, and not well explained.

They are neither arbitrary nor not well explained. As an "environmentalist" you would seem to be aware of that.
You can go into as deep an explanation as you wish but here is a good condensation of the practice. With references.
www.skepticalscience.com...