It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate scientists are losing ground against deniers' disinformation

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Climate scientists are losing ground against deniers' disinformation


www.guardian.co.uk

There's an incredibly powerful movement opposed to action on climate change. Without doubt it had more influence on the outcome of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen than many of the world's countries combined. Obama knew if he signed up to something that would truly deliver significant cuts in global warming pollution, he'd suffer a serious blow from this movement's army of activists and its allies in the Senate. This movement's ability to make Democrats pay a serious political price – just see what they helped to do in Massachusetts where the Democrat candidate lost a recent election – shows what raw activism can look like. The name of this world-changing movement?It's the Tea Party movement, coupled with its sophisticated echo chamber of right-wing shock jocks, culture-war keyboard commandos, and allies at Fox News, all pushing the scepticism line on climate change.

Over the last few years as climate campaigners such as myself have tried to mount a good rational argument, theirs has mounted a powerful disinformation campaign. In the last few weeks we have witnessed that effective campaign gain momentum and turn into a sort of global asymmetrical warfare, with criticism of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its claims about the speed with which Himalayan glaciers are melting, personal attacks against its chairman Rajendra Pachauri and a persistent hounding of climate scientists and those reviewing the scientists.

Gold-standard scientific reporting from the IPCC , and indeed the value of scientific inquiry itself, is now under sustained assault from a motley assortment of cranks, ideologues and special interest voices intent on stopping the transition to a clean energy economy.

It was just these sorts of tactics that, with the Swift boat campaign questioning his military service, helped to bring down Senator John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004. The problem was that Kerry thought being right would be enough. His response was to be photographed going wind-surfing. In contrast, when Obama ran in 2008 and he faced a similar smear campaign attack on the basis of inflammatory comments made by his former pastor, the Reverend Wright, he knew being right wouldn't be enough. What followed was Obama's race speech in Philadelphia setting the record straight, and the rest is history.

There's still time for the IPCC to be Obama in 2008 rather than Kerry in 2004, but that's going to require a much stronger response than it's issued so far. At the moment there's a real danger that when the next major IPCC climate assessment report is released, the likes of the BBC will feel the need to spend 30% of their coverage remembering an inconsequential error about Himalayan glaciers in the last report, because the battle here is over trust and perception. On both of these fronts there can be no doubt that the scientists are losing ground.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Debunking the Deniers of Global Warming

[edit on 17-2-2010 by cushycrux]




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Seems to be a turbulent time in this questions about climate, weather and propaganda. I have some additional news:

The Climatologist Phil Jones fights back. Kennyb72 did open this News Thread www.abovetopsecret.com... a view days ago, here is the end of the story:

Climatologist Phil Jones Fights Back:
www.guardian.co.uk...

I also found an article writen by Thomas L. Friedman. I think he speaks from our hearts, he seems to understand the confusion in the society, and does not denounce someone. please, deniers and believers read this article!

Global Weirding Is Here:
www.nytimes.com...

I think we must learn to be more open that every possible option can be real in this case. We just don't know exactly all works on earth, but I think we should do our best to protect our Environment. We never had such a serous presentation of a global problem. We can't allow ourself to become ignorant or flock together and create radical groups. It's our one and only earth and it's such a wonderful mother that gives us all we need. We don't need huge cars to be lucky and to have a good live, right?

Maybe we should more talk about the problem, then about what is man made and what not, we will all if we don't learn to "fit" into nature - thats nature.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit "misspelling" on 17-2-2010 by cushycrux]

[edit on 17-2-2010 by cushycrux]


+7 more 
posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
There is a significant difference between "Opposing action on climate change" and opposing the fairy tale of *ANTHROPOGENIC* climate change that the political arm of the global bankers are trying to shove down our throats.

The climate on earth changes... this is true, this has always been true.

To believe that we can predict this is ludicrous.

To believe that we can identify ONE FACTOR IN A BILLION that is solely responsible is madness.

To believe that TAXING Carbon Dioxide is an acceptable strategy is utterly fallacious, and downright insulting.


Since when did "Saving the Environment" and "Helping the Global Bankers institute a worldwide tax" become synonymous?

-Edrick



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Good Lord! I wish you global warming chicken littles would do your homework. The hottest year on record for global temperatures was in 1998, over 11 years ago. That means that global temperatures have at worst gone sideways and at best have actually declined since then. Some glaciers are starting to grow again and Arctic ice coverage is expanding again. Ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica, clearly show that global temperatures ALWAYS lead changes in CO2 levels by an average of 1100 YEARS plus or minus 700 years. That means there there have been periods of at least 400 years, when temperatures had changed direction and were falling even as CO2 levels continued to rise, therefore rising temperatures cause rising CO2 levels(from the oceans) NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The lag between temperature and CO2 levels is explained by the fact that air temperatures react much more quickly than does average ocean temperatures. Above a certain temperature, oceans are net emitters of CO2 and below that temperature, they are a net absorber of CO2. So the bottom line is that CO2 does NOT cause global warming period AND that if the warming trend of the late 20th century is still in effect, which is arguable, then it's a natural warming cycle however temperatures over the last 3 years are now showing a downward trend.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
The problem is not that anyone wants to go to clean renewable energy or anything. The problem is that the governing bodies want to tax everyone for past problems and current ones. Why do we need to pay the tax for what already is? Thats where the conflict is. Just fix the problems. Ban dirty power plants. All new ones should be built cleanly. For every new plant, kill an old one. Taxation and redistribution of wealth in the form of green credits or whatever Gore calls them is a scam.


PG



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
There is no man made global warming. The Earth goes through cycles and by and large is a cold planet with brief warm periods in between. The last warm cycle ended in 1998. The Earth is on the way back into the "normal" cold climate.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
You know, climate change is a fancy word for weather. Calling it weather doesnt get funding.

Anyway anyone old enough (like me) to remember acid rain? El Nino? Anyone?

I agree we should do what we can to prevent pollution.

Using the term climate change is misleading, when the climate is our weather and the change is pollution.

So it boils down to cleaning up pollution.

Which wont happen, because lots of big companies pollute a lot then give much money to our politicians to look the other way.

Calling it Fighting Pollution would dry up moneys being thrown at climate change.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Does anyone remember before CLIMATE CHANGE, before GLOBAL WARMING, it was the OZONE LAYER and its depletion. We were told that we had to institute changes, outlaw CFCs, replace a/c and refrigeration equip that used them. Even if we did, it may be too late! We did (and an awful lot of people made lots of $$$$$$$$), what's up? Where are the ozone depletion reports? You hear nothing, because there's nothing to tell. The investors with inside info made tons of money, just like ALGORE is now, with CLIMATE CHANGE!



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
Since when did "Saving the Environment" and "Helping the Global Bankers institute a worldwide tax" become synonymous?


Anytime you have politicians involved, the issue will be money...every single time. Maybe global warming is real, I don't know. On the other hand, I can tell you that anytime I hear a politician claim that the world is doomed but that he can save it if you just send him and his business associates your hard earned tax dollars, I get more than a little skeptical. Snake oil salesmen have been preaching that type of message since the beginning of time.

In that regard, the biggest failing of the environmental movement was to allow their message to be absorbed into a political platform. That was a big mistake and one that insured that not only would their message be butchered, but that a good portion of the public that rejected the overall political platform would ignore this as well.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Gold-standard scientific reporting from the IPCC , and indeed the value of scientific inquiry itself, is now under sustained assault from a motley assortment of cranks, ideologues and special interest voices intent on stopping the transition to a clean energy economy.

"Gold" huh. Guess that proved not quite true. Well you gotta repeat a lie till it becomes true.
www.ocregister.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Climatologists are losing credibility! Excellent and so it should be as their claims were hugely exaggerated and politicized.

The credibility of the environmental movement is also in doubt. And so it should be as their claims are hugely exaggerated and politicized.

I was waiting for someone to mention the ozone layer. It costs billions of dollars to comply with the Montreal Protocol. India and China did not have to comply until 2010. Funny thing happened. The ozone layer fixed itself faster then what could be predicted by the banning of CFCs in the western world. Turned out that solar winds might have had a little to do with it!

Now its the turn of Public Health with their "anything pleasurable has got to be bad for you" movement. Particularly the anti-tobacco with their ridiculous "third-hand smoke" claims.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

But twenty years ago, standards for collecting and archiving data simply weren't what they are now and these sorts of data were hard to come by.


20 years ago was akin to the dark ages for science. How could the scientists possibly have been expected to collect data back then, let alone verify it?

Sounds like they're making excuses for his shoddy work. Fact is, like one of the comments stated, if the emails had not been hacked we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. The hoax would still be going strong.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 



Anytime you have politicians involved, the issue will be money...every single time.


Exactly, politicians do not care one BIT about problems that will take hold after their terms in office... they only care about their pockets, and their reelection so they can continue to soak up lobbyist funds.


On the other hand, I can tell you that anytime I hear a politician claim that the world is doomed but that he can save it if you just send him and his business associates your hard earned tax dollars, I get more than a little skeptical. Snake oil salesmen have been preaching that type of message since the beginning of time.


Bingo... this is an attempt to get more money from the sheeple under the guise of helping the planet... nothing more, nothing less.


In that regard, the biggest failing of the environmental movement was to allow their message to be absorbed into a political platform.


I agree 100%, but that is WHY the bankers CHOSE the "Environment" as their latest little scheme, isn't it?

An already formed army of backers for any legislative act that happens to spell out "S.A.V.E.T.H.E.E.A.R.T.H."

When in actuality, the bill would be something along the lines of:

Sustained Activity Venture of Environmental Tax Hyperbole Extracting Energy And Resources To Have it all.

-Edrick



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I agree, any time a politician tells you that the world is ending but that we can save it by taxing, you should probably call his bluff.

I don't pay politicians to explain science to me, i pay them to.....wait....what exactly do they actually DO again?!



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
What "Climate Scientists"? So far what I have seen are a bunch of Climate Witch Doctors cooking up a brew of fabricated data to try and further their "the Earth is soooo Fragile we are gonna break it" nonsense.

The ONLY effect man is having on the Earth is through pollution which has nada zip zilch to do with the climate. Clean up the trash and don't pollute (CO2 is not now and never will be a pollutant so get off that horse) and the Earth and the Sun will handle the climate because we have no say about it.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
This dis-info campaign, and the man-made global campaign, are both just subjects that politicians use to push forward their agenda and gain votes.

Once again, something that should be tackled by all has been turned into a another pawn in the big political game of chess, and as usual, people are forced to take sides.

I think that the big oil execs are the ones to blame here... their ridiculous anti-obama lobbying has gotten all anti-obama people to jump on their idiotic anti-global warming bandwagon.

Until the world will be oil-free, no one will ever realize just how ruled and chained we really are.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Are you a Global Warming Hoax denier?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

But twenty years ago, standards for collecting and archiving data simply weren't what they are now and these sorts of data were hard to come by.



what utter nonsense - IF this is true what sort of useless idiots have been conducting climatolgy research for the last century ?

in seveal areas that i have 1st hand experience - or know people in the feild the data coollected upto 100 years ago was very accurate - metticulously recorded and still archived and accessible today

for instance :

the UK ordnance survey mapping -

UK water quality - of rivers and streams

Uk - air quallity and polution levels - in accordance with the clean air act and other relevant legislation

UK traffic noise levels [ AT LEAST SINCE THE 70S ]

maritime navigation charts

dreging reccords for harbour chanels

if all the people collecting / recording / archiving the data i cite above are xapable of decades of accurate and availkiable records

why are " climate scientists " so allegedly incapable ?

now personally - i have very little experience of meteorology / climate study - but i know two ATS members who are experts

IMHO the data hasnt been lost - its been thrown away - because it was an inconvenient truth ?

or are climate scientists really confessing thier utter incompetance ?


[edit on 17-2-2010 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
"Gold-standard scientific reporting from the IPCC , and indeed the value of scientific inquiry itself, is now under sustained assault from a motley assortment of cranks, ideologues and special interest voices intent on stopping the transition to a clean energy economy". -from top


Not to mention snow, lots of snow and low temps.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I was born in 1964, if you check the records 64 and 65 were some of the coldest winters on record, hell even the sheep in the fields were dying, then i remember the 1970's when in the summer it was HOT, very hot, but in the winter it was very very could, a good balance one might say, then came the late 70's when we were told that the world was about to go in to a Global cooling period, i remember one scientist even saying that we might be able to slow it down if we create more CO2, which might help to increase the temperature. then the 80's and Margaret Thatcher had her issues with the British minors, they kept going on strike, which is where the science was introduced to state that increased use of coal fire plants to produce electricity would have devastating effects on the earth's climate and, The science was born, and was publicised from that point on, by introducing CFC's as the first main cause. And as everyone knows came global warming caused by man producing to much CO2, which if you think about it, that came from the scientist in the 1970's when he said it could help to warm the climate and protect us from the cooling. Since then the entire idea has been manipulated and used as an excuse to come up with more taxes on fuel and anything to do with CO2 emissions, which when you think about it is pretty much everything we do.

In my opinion though they took the pee to much out of the humble man on the street, and some of us started to see what they were up to, and decided not to follow blindly, but instead to go look at the science for ourselves, only to find that no all added up, some well known scientists in the field have been persecuted for their idea that the "consensus" was not correct, and arguing that the science was not done, and stating that there is much more to be learned about the Climate that we still don't understand .
Now we have all the lies, and exposure of the science, lie after lie, and its getting a little difficult to hide, one or two little ones could have slipped though but these are huge lies, that expose world scientific communities, collaborating and even being paid off by government.

the science is not settled by a long shot, in fact they have told so many lies the chances are that they will have to go back to the drawing board and start again, and this time they will be being watched, and scrutinised, with transparency and honesty expected at all times. and then we may be ready to decide what it true and what is not, then we can put in to action any such plans that are needed to protect the environment, and not before. All in my opinion though.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join