It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Deny No More

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+26 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:25 PM

In the Beginning

In 1988 Atmospheric Physicist Dr. James Hansen, now head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified at a US Senate Committee hearing that:

it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

George H.W. Bush, Texas oil man, became President between the time that Hansen made that statement and his next appointment to testify at a Senate sub-committee. I can't imagine why he would take issue with science when science was stating that human consumption of fossil fuels cause the earth to warm beyond a natural rate and the effect would cause dramatic climate change. Surely a President would care more about the future of the nation he was elected to manage than that which made him and all his buddies, who helped get him in the White House, rich men. Wouldn't he?

In May 1989, a few months after NASA scientist James Hansen declared that global warming had arrived, he would provide another testimony to clarify the risks of future climate change.

But before Hansen could make his presentation to Senator Al Gore's subcommittee, the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) intercepted the testimony and rewrote its conclusion. According to the revised copy, the cause of climate change was still unknown.

NASA Headquarters said Hansen could accept the changes or not testify, he later recalled.

Why would the President or anyone in his Cabinet re-write someone's testimony? Why use deception and pressure to get a scientist to say what he knows isn't true? It's a very different kind of thing than engaging the scientific process and hearing what other scientists have to say on the subject.

Our press was a bit freer, slightly less corporate at the time and more able to actually engage in journalism (major newspapers tended to keep TV network news more honest), Congress as a result might have been more inclined to ask why Geologists in the employ of the oil industry were testifying about greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, something completely outside their field of expertise, than they are now.

It was not the first OMB revision of a Hansen testimony. This time, he decided, would be different. Hansen notified Gore that his testimony did not reflect his actual opinion, which led Gore to frame the hearing's questions to reveal the OMB edits. It was the lead story on all major television networks that night.

A room full of people expecting to hear a bunch of maybes and mights that they wouldn't be required to act on, gasped in shock when Dr. Hansen, risking his job and entire career, deviated from the script and under oath stated that his testimony had been re-written and he couldn't agree that his testimony reflected his knowledge.

The obfuscation does indeed go back further but the above is where the status quo was first challenged so strongly and the issue of Global Warming exploded into the American public domain.

Queue the Think Tanks and Disinformation Campaign

Right around the time of Hansen's testimonies the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a volunteer based scientific body, formed under the United Nations. Open to member States, it's purpose is to assess and review research, scientific observations, findings and papers relating to Global Warming.

In reaction to that body forming another was formed, the Global Climate Coalition (dissolved in 2002). The group of concerned businesses spent tens of millions of dollars to raise doubts and minimize the effects of global warming. It's main purpose was to stop the US from signing the Kyoto Protocol Treaty.

The majority of climate 'skeptics' that have appeared in a television interview or testified before Congress, have been paid by a Think Tank that can be traced back to the Fossil Fuels Industry, status quo Corporations or 'Conservative' Foundations, most of whom are either not scientists or not climate scientists.

Among the most recognizable, those who have testified before congress, given 'the other point of view' arguments on television, newspapers and magazines are:

Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) (Conservative Think Tank) who has no science degree but several climate skeptic enterprises.

Pat Michaels PhD, Ecological Climatology, has held high ranking positions at University of Wisconsin, University of Virginia, George Mason University, the Cato Institute (Conservative Think Tank) knows that greenhouse gasses affect the atmosphere, he knows that the global temperature has increased, he doesn't deny these things but maintains a position that he doesn't see scientific reasoning in assuming that the effects of global warming will be disastrous.

Robert C. Balling PhD, Geography, opposes the consensus (AGW) but says AGW is real... just modest. I'm not sure how that all works out but that is what he says, over and over and over again.

Balling and Michaels often team up together in the media, rally tours, lecture tours as well as in writing. Both state that they receive funding from both the government and from the fossil fuels industries.

Chris Horner an attorney and senior fellow at CEI. Probably one of the most recognizable faces of climate skepticism, is a media favorite go to guy.

Horner has represented CEI as well as scientists and Members of the U.S. House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in the federal courts including the Supreme Court.

Keith Idso PhD (Botany), Vice President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (Conservative Think Tank), takes issue with Carbon Dioxide being labeled as a pollutant and asserts that Global Warming is natural even though he acknowledges that CO2 levels in the atmosphere affect global temperature.

Together with the weight of their various organizations and support of similarly funded members of Congress have shaped the 'skeptical' argument against AGW. An Ironclad echo chamber promoting circular logic combined with emotionally charged words, socially engineered into sound bites to appeal to Conservative voters who are ideologically prone to resisting change and are distrusting of government.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:25 PM

Politics of Denial

Between the years 1998 and 2012 the Oil and Gas Industries spent nearly 1.3 billion dollars (total) on lobbying, and 238.7 million in direct campaign contributions.

Senator James Inhofe has been perhaps the most detrimental elected official in this whole debate. He used to be chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and still sits on the committee.

In the 2008 election cycle, Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership PACs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.[22][23] In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).[24]

The primary PACs donating to his campaigns were: Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association $55,869, United Parcel Service $51,850, National Association of Realtors $51,700, National Rifle Association $51,050, American Medical Association $51,000. Additionally, if company-sponsored PACs were combined with employee contributions, Koch Industries would be Inhofe's largest contributor, with $90,950 (less than 0.6% of total contributions), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.

The Guardian

That is in addition to the overt donations to Conservative Think Tanks, direct funding to individuals such as pointed out above and campaign donations.

Compared to Alternative Energy Lobbying:

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:26 PM

Climate Gate

In 2009, a server at the now defunct Climatic Research Unit was hacked. Private e-mails of climate scientists were stolen and then published online. A scandal ensued that portrayed the scientists as fraudsters hoaxing the entire world. These claims were based off a few sentences taken out of context.

1. “We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." --Kevin Trenberth, lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change [10]

Misinterpretation: The evidence for global warming isn’t there. [18]

Fact: The statement stems from the inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. Trenberth was not referring to the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, nor was he suggesting that recent temperatures were unusual in the context of short-term natural variability. [6]

2. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [a scientific journal] trick of adding in the real temps... for the last 20 hide the decline” -- Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit

Perception: This sentence sounds like climate scientists are deliberately changing the data to suit their needs. [18]

Fact: Tree rings are a tool used by climate scientists to approximate past temperatures. In recent years, recorded global temperatures and the temperatures implied by tree ring data have deviated. For better precision, direct “thermometer” temperature measurements were used to represent the past 20 years instead of temperatures implied by tree ring data. This substitution is the “trick” Jones references [16, 22].

Note: Since tree-ring data is unreliable for the recent past, it questions the ability of tree rings to estimate historic temperatures from hundreds of years ago. However, tree ring temperatures are consistent with other temperature approximation methods. Ice core samples, for example, still show much the same temperature change over the past 1,000 years [16].

3. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"-- Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit

Perception: A group of scientists that supports anthropogenic global warming is trying to manufacture a consensus by censoring opposing views in IPCC reports.

Fact: The papers referenced by Jones appeared in the final version of the Fourth Assessment Report from the United Nations' IPCC. Jones, however, defended the right of IPCC authors to select which papers are included in the report. He rationalizes that since the IPCC report is an assessment, and not a review, authors should use their expertise to exclude papers that are scientifically weak or irrelevant. [16]

What never seemed to make mainstream news was several different, very serious investigations took place and the only result of any of them was telling the scientists involved they needed to publish more of their research and findings to the public. Yes, they were exonerated in every investigation.

Several “Climategate” investigations by independent organizations, scientific bodies, and two federal governments concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Investigation

The 14-member committee's investigation was launched because of its potential “serious implications for UK science." The committee found that the focus on Jones and CRU had been largely misplaced, but it recommended that the climate science community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies [13].

U.S. Department of Commerce Investigation

Email correspondences between UEA and NOAA scientists triggered a US federal investigation by the Department of Commerce Inspector General. The Inspector General examined if the NOAA scientists were responsible for improper data manipulation, failure to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures, or failure to comply with public information requests. The report found no reason to suspect faulty data but suggested that NOAA improve responses to data requests [14].

Science Assessment Panel Investigation

A Science Assessment Panel was set up by UEA in order to “assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit in the light of various external assertions.” The panel’s investigation focused on review of 11 works published by the CRU and evaluation of the integrity of the Unit’s research rather than its correctness. Their report found no “evidence of deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the CRU ... rather [it found] a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers” [15].

They also commented that they were surprised by the fact that “research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” and that collaboration between the CRU and a broader scientific community outside of their temperature specialty would be mutually beneficial [15].

Independent Climate Change E-mails Review

A fourth investigation was conducted by the Independent Climate Change Email Review, which was funded by the UEA but was completely independent of the university. It focused on the hacked email exchanges and other information to “determine whether there [was] any evidence of manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice.” The final report cleared the scientists of any dishonest behavior and did not find evidence that undermined IPCC conclusions. The report did, however, find a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness [21].

Penn State University Investigation

After the Climategate emails were made public, Pennsylvania State University began to receive a large volume of public complaints against Professor Michael Mann, a university meteorologist associated with the Climategate emails. Mann is noted for his work on reconstructed temperatures over the past 1000 years, best known as the “hockey stick graph” [23]. He was accused of manipulating data, destroying records, and “colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming” [11].

The university launched its own investigation of Dr. Mann because the accusations could have been construed as research misconduct and a violation of Penn State policy. The Penn State Investigatory Committee, after careful review of its evidence, unanimously determined that there was no substance to the allegations against Dr. Mann [11].

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:26 PM

National Science Foundation Investigation

The National Science Foundation (NSF), a US government agency that funds research, was unsatisfied with the Penn State report because the university did not interview any of the experts critical of Michael Mann's research. The NSF believed critics may have additional information that might support the allegations, and therefore, launched a separate investigation.

As a part of the investigation, all reports and documentation the University provided were reviewed, as well as a substantial amount of publicly available documentation concerning both the Professor Mann’s research and parallel research conducted by other scientists in the climate science field. Similar to the other investigations, the NSF found no evidence of research misconduct [9].


Climate Gate 2.0

See above.
Climate Gate 2.0 was simply unreleased e-mails from the first hacked batch.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:26 PM

The Increasingly Complicit Media

I can't seem to write about the media being complicit in denial without discussing bias, which is something I would like to write about at a later date, so for that purpose I'm posting some graphs that pretty much say it all.

It bet FOX mentions global warming alarmism more than any other network mentions anything about climate change.


I don’t know what the solutions are. I believe that there’s enough innovation out there with renewable resources to lay the ground work for some major changes, without hampering, neither our way of life nor our industrial/technological progress.

I know that our government as well as the UN has a nasty habit of saying they act in our best interest, or not providing us with enough information to make informed decisions and then turning around and crippling us with upside down Policy. However, at least for now, we have easy and relatively unfettered access to the internet. Everything we hear, we have the ability to fact check. Propaganda should be utterly useless against us, yet here we are 25 years later debating something that isn’t really debatable.

We have Democrats paying lip service and blaming Republican denial. Democrats, whatever policy changes they have managed to enact with the exception of the Clean Air, Clean Water Act, has been either insignificant or utterly ridiculous. Republicans on the other hand have straight up lied to us. They both have put their benefactors ahead of the people. The US government has been bought off to do nothing about man made climate change.

I don't want AGW to be true, it’s certainly easier to not change anything and partly I think most deniers are in denial because they fear how world governments will go about reducing carbon emissions, I think those fears are founded in reason but we can’t let fear paralyze us.

We can’t afford to let them win this time; it’s time to stop denying reality. Poor Policy and poor solutions are very poor excuses to live in denial. We don’t have to accept their authoritarian solutions in order to accept reality. We are smart, we can figure this out and we can minimize global warming.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:34 PM
Excellent thread,kali!

You know to well it's the same ole run around.
The blame game has become all to familiar.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:40 PM
Nice work! Love the graphics. One thing that might be of interest to you is that the oil companies have been acquiring alternative fuel and energy research for at least the last 20 years. It's not that hard to confirm. They generally tromp it out to show how "green" they are in their various annual reports. I heavily suspect that this is the reason why there has been a bit of a stranglehold on renewable energy options. My guess is that they do this to both maintain control over various energy markets and to assure that, should oil run out or no longer become as profitable, they will still maintain control over these markets.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by WhiteAlice

I did come across that but the thread was getting out of control in length as it was lol.
It's good info, post away

ETA I can only take credit for finding the graphics lol
edit on 1-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:15 PM
Lots of great info here!

This would be a great addition to a research project that is currently underway in the research forum. (link in my sig)

Star and Flag for you!

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by Kali74

FOX mentions global warming alarmism more than any other network mentions anything about climate change.

The real narrative behind this "conspiracy" is that man-made global warming is a very real, very serious, and very urgent problem that is being undermined and denied by those forces of the establishment who have all their money tied up in abusing and exploiting our natural resources for personal profit.

It's sooooo damn obvious.

Anyone who actually applies some independent, critical thinking can dig this stuff up for themselves.

There are documents out there that show how the fossil fuel industry conspired in the 90's to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)":

There are documents that show how The American Petroleum Institute organized fake scientific front groups like the ones you mention to specifically push supposed "uncertainties" about climate science to the general public:

Leaked API memo

There is a money trail in the hundred millions invested in active climate denial tracing back to notorious meddling billionaires like the Koch brothers:

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

There are documents that reveal how media outlets like FOX News have been completely complicit in this deception and outright propaganda:

Here's 100% Proof That FOX News Are Straight Up Lying, Corporate Shills.

And yet so many so-called "conspiracy theorists" still can't seem to wrap their heads around any of this stuff, because they are so wrapped up instead in all the alarmist right wing rhetoric about alarmism.

Anyway awesome thread Kali - S&F! Thank you for actually doing your own research and critical thinking - and showing ATS how to actually deny ignorance, rather than mindlessly regurgitating blatant political talking points, like 90% of the rest of this place only seems to know how to do these days.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:09 PM
Six years ago China overtook the U.S. as the world's biggest CO2 emitter. The truth is you can't stop global warming unilaterally. Nor can you do it by playing politics as you are doing in your OP. The Democrats efforts have been a joke (Solyndra). That DoE money would of done more good if it was put into McCain's plan for radically developing nuclear power. The truth is neither party is going to do anything serious, nor is China, India, etc.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:19 PM
Very impressive thread. Worth the Stars and flag. I hope it convinces even one person to believe that mother nature needs our help so she can provide for us.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:25 PM
its not too difficult to see how small amount of man made co2 can upset the balance.

here3s how to see it... imagine a seesaw say 10 metres long and perfectly balanced. On the ends of the seesaw we have an equal amounts of co2 when one is equal to the other the seesaw is balanced but nature is not like this. at times one end of the seesaw might have more or less carbon than the other this makes the seesaw rock as one ends lowers till the other end will rise. Nature wants to balance it out but takes time to do it. Now imagine more co2 is being added to one end (this is the co2 from locked carbon that was safely underground and not part of the general carbon dioxide cycle) this throws the seesaw way off balance and one the side that has more co2 will take even longer now to reach an equilibrium. and in the meantime that co2 is not going anywhere soon.

a very simple analogy

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by SteveR

If you consider that the consumer causes the creation of the pollution, then the USA still remains the biggest polluter. Some of the US pollution is cancelled out by corporations buying energy credits from other countries or paying money to protect certain areas in South America. This is a deceitful practice as it only protects a small part of the rainforest temporarily.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:42 AM
reply to post by kdog1982

Most definitely though the truth of the matter is both sides of the aisle are at fault, certainly ourselves as well. We either reject or accept, we never seem to ask why we should do either.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Great thread

reply to post by mc_squared

Thanks for your comments. I've noticed your posts in other threads as well as some of your threads, I think we view things pretty similarly. Every truth is needed.

reply to post by SteveR

Six years ago China overtook the U.S. as the world's biggest CO2 emitter.

Yes it did, I don't follow your logic here though. Someone is worse so we don't have to do anything? Can I drink as much as I want to and drive everyday because surely someone drunker than I is behind the wheel of another car?

China is also very close to passing a Carbon Tax, a very mild one that probably won't amount to anything more than our futile attempts at governing the environment, not because it can't be done mind you but because greased palms write silly laws that somehow end up making the people the laws are supposed to cover, completely exempt.

Nor can you do it by playing politics as you are doing in your OP.

The way we're doing it now? No we can't, you're absolutely right. As long as we allow our politicians, media and pundits to dictate what we know and how we're supposed to feel and accept their solutions, that even though rationally we know don't fix a damned thing, yet we clap anyway like trained monkeys... no nothing will change. The power to change anything has been and always will be in the hands of the people.

edit on 2-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:20 AM
Excellent OP and it appears to have stumped the smug deniers for now.

Just a random thought but if I was a political leader in China I would want to show America how to reduce carbon emissions for reasons of 'oneupmanship' if nothing else!

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by Kali74

Excellent thread Kali. Thank you.

I'm giving it a well earned Bump to, hopefully, keep it on the front page.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:15 PM
Thanks for the positive feedback.
I hope this opens up some discussion.

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by Kali74

Unfortunately I don't know how much discussion you'll get because this is the big elephant in the room the deniers go out of their way to deny more than anything else.

They love to pretend that "this is just manufactured oil company propaganda" is merely some desperate, unfounded excuse AGW "believers" make up because they can't handle all the supposed truth these skeptics bring to the debate.

So when someone posts proof-positive of this elaborate, long-standing disinformation campaign that has clearly roped them all in - they instead go hide under the stairs until someone starts another "Al Gore flies a private jet" thread they can go troll instead.

Don't expect much discussion - just link back to this thread every time one of them starts firing up the alarmist hyperbole in some other discussion, and then sit back and watch 'em squirm

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:51 AM
reply to post by rickymouse

Mother Nature needs our help???? Mother Nature will do just fine, as will the Earth, life, etc. once we have finished our short little stint here and turned to dust. The idea that we as Humans are capable of damaging "Mother Nature" is laughable. Sure...we are killing ourselves and changing the planet, but it will shrug it off in a very short period of time (compared to its existence).

But go the flavor of the day liberal agenda that spends and takes more money from the public for either a made-up problem or a problem that can not be solved. You see, part of the problem with these scare tactics is eventually everyone becomes numb to them and realizes that the actions of these people was either stupidity and goal oriented. Even us idiot Americans will eventually see the games played by this party and sweep them under the rug. Not saying that the other party isn't on its way out too...but at least they don't lie (as badly) for their own agenda. They don't wear the mask and hide behind made up "truth".

So...yeah. Fire off all the nukes, bring the reactors to full power, dump all the trash and toxic waste in the ocean and the only real result will be the end of us. In a few million years, Earth will clean up our mess and continue. Nothing but milk spilled by a child and then mopped up.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in